Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[WallaceWackedHer]

The phone call and the crime must be connected IMHO. There are two possible ways in which the call can be connected to the crime

1. As part of a plan to commit a crime, be that either murder or a burglary
2. As a 'prank' which led to the conditions that allowed an opportunist to commit the crime, albeit perhaps that only burglary was intended.

If 1. - then I have previously posted what I believe to be the case - that it was premeditated murder and for the reasons previously given, Wallace (possibly with an accomplice) is the most likely to have committed the crime.

If 2. - then the intended crime must have been burglary and committed by someone who was able to observe Wallace (and perhaps Julia) leave the house and took their chance. Which then went wrong. WWH, I believe, thinks that might have been the neighbours, the Johnstons.

Of the two options, I think the balance of probabilities is that option 1 is the most likely. I like WWH's scenario for the Johnston's involvement, especially bringing in the missing cat. But I think that is also an issue with the scenario - the Johnston's would have had to kidnap the cat before they knew the opportunity for theft would arise, and they would have to hope for Julia to go searching for that the cat while Wallace was out - and we have no evidence that Julia left the house at all. Too many coincidences required to make option 2 feasible IMHO.

The plan is proveably bad and in general, in particular with a phone box scam, sounds more like a joke call, combined with gay man to MenLove Gardens and the trouble client which would be amusing but not smart as a plan that hinges on it actually working... As well as the demeanour of the man on the phone using his real voice for elongated periods in a casual and nonchalant manner of speaking which does not match what would be expected of someone knowing they're setting up a murder.

Antony tells me the fault in the box was that a light which usually illuminated the box was out. It was otherwise in working condition. The FIRST operator claims she got a pick up and heard the voice answer. Then it seems caller jammed B and came back on protesting he already paid when he's actually been refunded. He claims he pressed A but didn't. Did you know you're not meant to press A until after you get your correspondent?

It's "bare minimum" thinking to think things like, you know, if he can so easily fake his voice he'd not even BOTHER to do it right away despite how trivial it is. Think of yourself committing a murder that hinges on this. Do you legit stay in the public box so long (regardless of lighting) and expose your true voice to people who will be advertised for? Or do you endeavour to do so quickly and leave no impressions? If you can fake your voice so well why would you let ANYONE hear it? Nobody thinks "oh well don't matter, they won't find me hehe, why bother with this super trivial thing?"

The Johnstons don't necessarily have the cat (maybe they do but it has to be by chance unless they know Gordon, because Gordon is the caller). I just think in general she went out the back way for that reason. Not necessarily even that reason, but she's just gone out the back. Because of the milk delivery time, and alleys, I suggest the cat for a reason.

Premed murder is bizarre because of her position in the room. If it's not already set up then the time becomes a SEVERE issue for William himself. He had many opportunities to level her much sooner and faster. For an accomplice the issue is lessened but if he knocked after William goes out he's STILL letting her get comfy by the fire etc before striking, and waiting so long for no reason I can conceive. I think tne suggestion to circumvent this was that William or the hitman was nervous. Obviously once you have already said someone 100% did it, nothing else matters, anything and everything can be twisted to the point of forensic science.

I don't know much about the Hanratty case but most there are 100% already certain he's innocent so the DNA is just played off as meaning nothing. ANYTHING can be dismissed when you're warped like that to not even see ANY glaring issues as they all do on that thread. There's always a way to twist and dismiss to get the answer you want.

It can be proven that if he did it he's a bad planner so the odds he has the perfect plan for the killing itself that actually works out for him is a bit ridic.

The time alibi is hinging on something very unreliable as well as obviously the witness being unreliable, he could be as late as 7 PM and had recently been very late. Obv I have statements regarding this. 6.10 to 7.00 pm is the times he could come between. I'd pick a later appointment time and leave the house early and establish a legitimate timestamped alibi at the newsagents nearby and go to see Crewe first for help with directions and a chit chat. I wouldn't know he's out would I? That'd be my excuse. I can't rely on Alan's arrival time so it must be circumvented.

But I as a retard am a better planner than genius William. That is how bad he actually is at inventing plans. And arguably due to his probable autism.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I don’t see a single issue. Not one.

It's nothing to do with specks avoiding the sides of the attacker, all people working forensics place the killer where there isn't blood spray if the attack would cause a lot of blowback etc. like blunt trauma.

E.g. he can't be standing directly in front of the armchair and his wife diagonal from there towards the center otherwise it wouldn't go on the violin case because someone is standing in the way - the splashes intended for the case would hit him. At some point he would have had to have been in a different location for that to happen.

Where splashes have actually gone onto something, you can ascertain there was a direct and open path there.

The fact you're easily able to dismiss everyone else is his own making. 90% of plausible arguments evaporate without the fact that he himself GAVE YOU this tiny pool that's so easy to work with, thus it's a crap plan. It IS obvious enough to even a toddler just tell a 10 year old and they will say he did it. If it's that obvious it's BS then it's a BAD plan, not a good one as you asserted.

Either a bad plan or NOT a plan. Take your pick.

It's not 1 in a billion that Gordon on his was to his gf's house stopped off at the box having seen William and knowing he tends to go to chess on Monday. Saying it's a billion to one is literally saying you truly believe anyone but William called is essentially impossible because you already expressed previously that you'd favour a prank otherwise, so that's quite ridiculous then.

Something very specific long ago switched me to Gordon in the box. I might favour P.D. James that he very quickly realizes he's been tricked and realizes he can frame the caller for the crime. Probably obvious it's Gordon. Still a risk in case the directory changed or w.e. and it's a legit appointment then he's screwed. But I find her suggestion very intelligent and Parkes is the destroyer of the idea as well as general forensic opinion that William himself killing her is improbable.

However it coincides with a recent motive developed within ~a month.

If professional opinion changes then you can use it, like the balaclava theory.

The idea you changed to just now is MUCH worse, the held up shield as would be the case on strike one here is considered actually laughable. The John Bull article I proposed as a confession was instantly dismissrd based on that alone.

He's not protected on strike one and even by physical evidence she's coming from the opposite side. He needs to be protected throughout. What exactly are you claiming happened? How far did the jacket burn? Enough to actually ruin the shield? Stick to something.

Wearing it is better in all regards. It still doesn't work. A balaclava works better than cloth masks because it also covers the hair. Otherwise a cloth and hat. The hat and gloves must be removed.

Yes the stubs would be kept they'd be in his pocket still when he got back to the house.

I already considered changing clothes. It's better than anything presented and quite obvious. I just don't think it happened for other reasons aside which aren't to do with the feasibility.

The parlour must be set in advance because of the heat on the radiants to cause the burning.

It is no surprise you see no problems because you couldn't even see how the plan wasn't obviously crap. Which it is. If you see no problems with that crap plan then it is clear the train of thought you are on which is assuming the culprit on the sus circumstances (also his own making in his master plan) and fitting everything to that.

Julia did enter at 6.38 to 6.39. 6.49 is the time taken by jogging cops who took a different tram than claimed and it was the absolute best time they could get.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I don’t see a single issue. Not one.

You had said 6.30 at some point which made me mad AF and argued aggressively for like 5 straight pages showing it's wrong. I was surprised your own article said 6.35 and then randomly it was dialled back 5 minutes which is an important difference.

If his suspect pool was so wide why is it so easy to dismiss it like everyone else? Because it's not actually wide at all. I actually considered Draper telling people etc. but there are other issues, they would have to call at the house and be admitted and therefore use the fake name then we're considering singular sneak thief while for various reasons. One is they as a stranger have no reason to kill her UNLESS they didn't know she's there and it's a panic killing. Even a stranger hopped up on adrenaline in a house he believes to be empty, walking in to the room and the homeowner is there, is liable to such extreme panic that he attacks her without real need. So a neighbour other than the Johnstons even. They are just the best pick due to various elements including their behaviour in the house and appearance out back on the occasion the door opens.

If I am not legitimately retarded as mentioned then given my OCD tier obsession and obsessive deep dive of every single angle that could possibly exist, then it ought to be taken as a conclusion reached for good reason. If I am so wrong I am retarded and you are trying to convince someone who evidently has learning difficulties or something.

I may well be suffering retardation and idc if it is pointed out. You have a free pass. Here's my consent, waiver signed.

[etenguy]

A question to all on the Prank Theory. You all know mine and WWH’s thoughts so what does everyone think? So from my point of view....

Id have thought that we could all agree that there’s a basic reason for a prank? That you get to see the result. The look on the victims face when they realise they’ve been had. Without that it’s not really much of a prank is it?

How could Parry have done this? He no longer saw William and he had no plans for a visit. He couldn’t even have watched him set of on his journey then seen the furious look
on his face when he got back due to him being elsewhere (remember the inconvenient alibi?)

So every Tuesday night of the year would have found William at home with his wife but on this particular night he goes out because of a strange phone call related to business. While he’s away Julia, a retiring, stay-at-home type (hardly the type to inspire such vicious anger) is bludgeoned to death at the scene of an unconvincing robbery.

So what is the likelihood of a brutal murder and a weird robbery occurring on the only Tuesday of the year that William
is away from home due to a mysterious phone call.

WWH thinks likely. I think off-the-scale unlikely.

Opinions?

The phone call and the crime must be connected IMHO. There are two possible ways in which the call can be connected to the crime

1. As part of a plan to commit a crime, be that either murder or a burglary
2. As a 'prank' which led to the conditions that allowed an opportunist to commit the crime, albeit perhaps that only burglary was intended.

If 1. - then I have previously posted what I believe to be the case - that it was premeditated murder and for the reasons previously given, Wallace (possibly with an accomplice) is the most likely to have committed the crime.

If 2. - then the intended crime must have been burglary and committed by someone who was able to observe Wallace (and perhaps Julia) leave the house and took their chance. Which then went wrong. WWH, I believe, thinks that might have been the neighbours, the Johnstons.

Of the two options, I think the balance of probabilities is that option 1 is the most likely. I like WWH's scenario for the Johnston's involvement, especially bringing in the missing cat. But I think that is also an issue with the scenario - the Johnston's would have had to kidnap the cat before they knew the opportunity for theft would arise, and they would have to hope for Julia to go searching for that the cat while Wallace was out - and we have no evidence that Julia left the house at all. Too many coincidences required to make option 2 feasible IMHO.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A question to all on the Prank Theory. You all know mine and WWH’s thoughts so what does everyone think? So from my point of view....

Id have thought that we could all agree that there’s a basic reason for a prank? That you get to see the result. The look on the victims face when they realise they’ve been had. Without that it’s not really much of a prank is it?

How could Parry have done this? He no longer saw William and he had no plans for a visit. He couldn’t even have watched him set of on his journey then seen the furious look
on his face when he got back due to him being elsewhere (remember the inconvenient alibi?)

So every Tuesday night of the year would have found William at home with his wife but on this particular night he goes out because of a strange phone call related to business. While he’s away Julia, a retiring, stay-at-home type (hardly the type to inspire such vicious anger) is bludgeoned to death at the scene of an unconvincing robbery.

So what is the likelihood of a brutal murder and a weird robbery occurring on the only Tuesday of the year that William
is away from home due to a mysterious phone call.

WWH thinks likely. I think off-the-scale unlikely.

Opinions?

[Herlock Sholmes]

William is such an idiot he even sets himself ON FIRE. I'm curious actually as to when exactly it caught blaze, I presume around the first strike when he's pulling her from the fireplace.

I don’t know and I don’t think we will ever know.

No burns on the underskirt is telling it is argued, but the fact he's literally on fire (not just scorched) and no signs of burns on any of his underclothes or body is easily explained.

I make that Straw Man point 4 of the day I think. No one has suggested that the Mac got burnt while Wallace was wearing it.

So are you claiming that it’s not a valid point to ask why, in a skirt singed into a hole, was there no marks on the skirt beneath?

I can envision him keeping his blazin' shield on as he kneels in it like the end of the Wicker Man.

Mockery from someone who believes the laughable prank theory. Ok.

Burning it on purpose means he's dumb for not using the better kitchen fire. Putting it on after stomping the flames out it's got specks of wet blood on, difficult to avoid contamination completely but I would need expert advice there. Getting trickier at this point. Put together one salient set of events... He's gone in with his balaclava, jacket, wacked her, been stupid and tried to use the front room fire and aborted?

I’m not responding to mockery it’s a waste of time.

Should just wack the woman and put the shirt and trousers in the same place he put the balaclava IMO.

Possible of course. Wallace is guilty whatever method. Fairly obviously.

The same premed issues apply to William, Alan Close saw there was a light in the kitchen but nowt in the parlour. William has let his wife with her back to him set it up and cozy herself by the fire before her bashing when time is critical.

Why would he have noticed the parlour? If Julia entered the parlour at 6.38/9 Wallace had 11/12 minutes. He could have done it in half that time.


Nah has to have been done in advance. But she's still over that side coming from the right. Another pre-med accomplice could have come in on that scene too so it's a similar conundrum dependent on precisely when the room was set up. Quite convoluted whatever took place.

Simplified - Julia enters carrying the mackintosh - Wallace hits her and she falls and lands where she was found but she drops the mackintosh against the fire - William puts it out then puts in on - he puts a glove onto his right hand and uses something that covers part of his face - he kneels probably to the left of Julia’s backside - he delivers the blows - he gets no blood on his body or clothing beneath the mackintosh - wraps the weapon - takes the cash - breaks the cupboard- puts on his coat and leaves after turning the lights down.

Something like that. No need for overcomplication.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But you like everybody else don't care about the dozens of other suspects you seem to believe are there. You too feel "if they (Parry or Marsden) didn't do it who's left?! William!" Because of the tiny suspect pool HE created that make it transparent even to an infant, you see? It's not really a Rubiks Cube puzzle, a child of 10 will say he did it.

”Like everyone else...” I assume you mean everyone that doesn’t have some kind of monopoly on being right like you? No matter what I say you ignore it to make a point. Once and for all, this supposed pool. Parry and a number of his dodgy mates. Ditto Marsden. That could have been 50 people. Just because we can’t name them it doesn’t mean that there weren’t other possible suspects. Likewise someone Draper might have talked to.

Man goes out hunting for a fake name and fake address, comes home to **** robbery and his own jacket covered in blood beneath his wife LMAO. Literally a toddler would see through the master plan.

From someone who goes for the near to impossible Prank Theory

Then you say oh Parkes. Then they're like "it was Gordon", then you're like "oh actually he's lying Gordon has an alibi too" then they're like "hurrr well William then lol" and go back to watching Rugrats.

Back to insults. Deja vu.

You might see nothing wrong with ignoring a perfectly sound alibi to do a bit of shoehorning but I’d rather not.

Of course a smart person on the phone would request the address then make their excuse after getting it. Clearly they know where he lives, if he's given the address there's plausibility the caller was someone who didn't even know where he lived. Wider net. Always better.

So if I phone up the number of a plumber to come to my house to fix a leaking pipe it would be perfectly normal for me to ask for his address first?

His stubs should still be in his pockets anyway, unless he chucked them in a bin at the Gardens.

Who keeps ticket stubs? Maybe Wallace just didn’t think of keeping them?

You appear to have taken over Rod’s role of defender of St William of Anfield?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well I thought I'd ask on your behalf anyway. I think I said balaclava or cloth mask to cover the bases. The responses thus far have said your ideas have not been scientifically sound, however I haven't got an opinion about the balaclava yet which is a new theory.

Like my questioning of how every drop of blood spatter flying in one direction all congregates on the person in front? Not a spec misses. I repeat, and I don’t care if your guy is the Stephen Hawking of blood spatter analysis, if anyone says that items of clothing can’t be worn to prevent clothing worn beneath from getting covered in blood then they are delusional. Unless we’re going to be repeating the “ well his legs would have been uncovered” nonsense for the hundredth time?”This is black and white.

I do personally tend to prefer expert opinion for matters of science. Random people online are rarely qualified and tend to be fat incels or something (look at Maddie groups it's like, random fat middle aged women giving input on serious scientific matters just lol).

Nothing wrong with scientific opinion but we are working from 2 crap photos, no proper photo of the Mac and we don’t know what the weapon was for certain. Experts disagree, some experts doubt the validity of blood spatter analysis, BSA experts have been wrong (and that’s with crime scenes that they were present at)

So naturally I would like to get some corroboration on the balaclava idea. It is not really offensive since you see I won't even use my own suggestions on those matters. I suspect the new balaclava theory will work but we shall see.

Them another way will have to be found to dismiss Wallace.

If it doesn't I suggest you consider the idea silly and find another way to avoid stained clothes (you know, like, actually changing clothes. LOL. Is that actually difficult to do or something? Too hard to not change your shirt?). Or I wager you will be arguing something proveably wrong like the 6.30 milkboy for years.

For someone that’s looked at all angles it’s strange you haven’t mentioned changing clothes before? Is that because it makes Wallace harder to dismiss? I have mentioned it before somewhere but I seem to recall a Parry obsession getting in the way.

Theres nothing wrong with anything that I’ve said about Close. He got to number 29 between 6.35 and 6.37 I’d say. The facts point to this.

No Alan mention = dumb fo' sho'. Nothing is lost by mentioning him and it shows in his mind he allegedly couldn't have done it. That'd be a smart person's first mention right there.

I don’t understand this part sorry.

Caz has been far more intelligent in the suggestion of the milk boy as an obstacle rather than a timestamp. I quite prefer that.

I don’t get this obsession with Close. Wallace knew he was coming. Wallace didn’t need it to come forward because if he hadn’t have done he had the fallback of mentioning his visit himself. There’s no mystery here only a created one to make a point against Wallace as a suspect.

But I am still trying to get a suggested method through which he may have done the crime that is scientifically supported. Something like actually changing clothes I think would be but I also need to ask about that...

He could have done. Not a doubt. And still had time to fill in his pools coupon.

I don’t see a single issue. Not one.

[WallaceWackedHer]

William is such an idiot he even sets himself ON FIRE. I'm curious actually as to when exactly it caught blaze, I presume around the first strike when he's pulling her from the fireplace.

No burns on the underskirt is telling it is argued, but the fact he's literally on fire (not just scorched) and no signs of burns on any of his underclothes or body is easily explained.

I can envision him keeping his blazin' shield on as he kneels in it like the end of the Wicker Man.

Burning it on purpose means he's dumb for not using the better kitchen fire. Putting it on after stomping the flames out it's got specks of wet blood on, difficult to avoid contamination completely but I would need expert advice there. Getting trickier at this point. Put together one salient set of events... He's gone in with his balaclava, jacket, wacked her, been stupid and tried to use the front room fire and aborted?

Should just wack the woman and put the shirt and trousers in the same place he put the balaclava IMO.

The same premed issues apply to William, Alan Close saw there was a light in the kitchen but nowt in the parlour. William has let his wife with her back to him set it up and cozy herself by the fire before her bashing when time is critical.

Nah has to have been done in advance. But she's still over that side coming from the right. Another pre-med accomplice could have come in on that scene too so it's a similar conundrum dependent on precisely when the room was set up. Quite convoluted whatever took place.

[WallaceWackedHer]

That no one heard any scream surely points more to William as she wouldn’t have expected the attack. But someone who decided on the spur to kill her for some reason, like a noise in the other room, would have had to grab a weapon then strike giving her time to scream.

But you like everybody else don't care about the dozens of other suspects you seem to believe are there. You too feel "if they (Parry or Marsden) didn't do it who's left?! William!" Because of the tiny suspect pool HE created that make it transparent even to an infant, you see? It's not really a Rubiks Cube puzzle, a child of 10 will say he did it.

Man goes out hunting for a fake name and fake address, comes home to **** robbery and his own jacket covered in blood beneath his wife LMAO. Literally a toddler would see through the master plan.

Then you say oh Parkes. Then they're like "it was Gordon", then you're like "oh actually he's lying Gordon has an alibi too" then they're like "hurrr well William then lol" and go back to watching Rugrats.

Of course a smart person on the phone would request the address then make their excuse after getting it. Clearly they know where he lives, if he's given the address there's plausibility the caller was someone who didn't even know where he lived. Wider net. Always better.

His stubs should still be in his pockets anyway, unless he chucked them in a bin at the Gardens.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Well I thought I'd ask on your behalf anyway. I think I said balaclava or cloth mask to cover the bases. The responses thus far have said your ideas have not been scientifically sound, however I haven't got an opinion about the balaclava yet which is a new theory.

I do personally tend to prefer expert opinion for matters of science. Random people online are rarely qualified and tend to be fat incels or something (look at Maddie groups it's like, random fat middle aged women giving input on serious scientific matters just lol).

So naturally I would like to get some corroboration on the balaclava idea. It is not really offensive since you see I won't even use my own suggestions on those matters. I suspect the new balaclava theory will work but we shall see.

If it doesn't I suggest you consider the idea silly and find another way to avoid stained clothes (you know, like, actually changing clothes. LOL. Is that actually difficult to do or something? Too hard to not change your shirt?). Or I wager you will be arguing something proveably wrong like the 6.30 milkboy for years.

No Alan mention = dumb fo' sho'. Nothing is lost by mentioning him and it shows in his mind he allegedly couldn't have done it. That'd be a smart person's first mention right there.

Caz has been far more intelligent in the suggestion of the milk boy as an obstacle rather than a timestamp. I quite prefer that.

But I am still trying to get a suggested method through which he may have done the crime that is scientifically supported. Something like actually changing clothes I think would be but I also need to ask about that...

[Herlock Sholmes]

If I am incorrect btw I have a double digit IQ at BEST so you're talking to a verified retard. And even I (as a verified retard) could do it better than this.

So by implication this makes me one.

I think I would rather call up the place when Caird or anyone else can provide the address to Beattie, THEN make my "oh that's a bit far, can't make it tonight" excuse so it looks like the caller didn't even necessarily know where I lived.

Its how the person on the phone was thinking that counts. Would someone else have asked for Wallace’s address first...no.

I'd not give a **** about scamming back two pennies the call would be as brief as possible, I'd be in and out ASAP and make no lasting impressions on anyone, just deliver my message and go.

More likely just an error. We aren’t there .

I would generalize the robbery and not make it look so targeted so the net's much wider and doesn't require deep inside knowledge.

The nets wide enough. Parry, Marsden, any of the dozens of people that they knew and might have spoken about Wallace too (which they would have denied of course) anyone that Sarah Draper might have discussed the Wallace’s with. So that’s literally dozens of possible unknown suspects.

The suspect pool is irrelevant. As I’ve said before Wallace felt he could get away with it because he had no blood on him, timings appear tight, a phone call by an unknown, a robbery and the fact that he wasn’t known to be violent and no one could come up with a motive.



I would use a real address, probably an area I know, but keep the round trip to about 45 mins to over an hour to allow time for my fake burglar to go kill my wife.

I would use a random non-bizarro alias, which sounds less suspicious.

I'd not wear my own jacket while killing her.

If he worn Julia’s would that have pointed to anyone else? No. The point is irrelevant.

I'd chuck one of her jackets over her head and hit her through that so there's no spray at all, not on me and I'd anticipate not on the weapon even... Then maybe flick the blood up the walls into each direction. Really depends how aware I would hypothetically be of forensic abilities.

But you aren’t Wallace and he wasn’t you. We can’t expect someone to think exactly as we would.

I'd keep all my ticket stubs for the trams. And my first convo would prooobably be on that first tram if I could come up with something plausible. Don't care to talk to the others or anyone in the district except to knock on the real address I gave myself.

And the police wouldn’t have thought it strange that on the only night ever when Wallace needs an alibi he decides to keep some otherwise useless ticket stubs.

Probably would stop off at the newsagents and pick up a pack of cigs then come home.

I'd say in my statement that a paper boy and milk boy usually call some point that day around the time I left my house.

I'd knock 5 or 10 minutes off the time I left home. If they prove it was later it's plausibly deniable.

Realistically, personally, given the era and the fact my wife is known to be sick I'd probably opt to slowly poison her with something that gives the appearance her lung condition worsened. Apparently nobody has ever heard us argue etc, I'd probably bank on that. Wouldn't try that stunt today, in the 1930s though, I'd feel the risk of that is less than the risk of relying on avoiding even a speck of blood (even in the jacket over her head scenario I'd be feeling edgy about the reliability of it).

If he has a motive I think it must be an affair he is having and she doesn't know. Him caring on December 15th about her safety is double-corroborated. So the homicidal urges arose very recently it appears. No arguing which is bizarre, people's first port of call is rarely to just kill a person, better with an affair, rid the wife be with the mistress type deal. Then I'd have a helper because of that, so I could be smarter with the whole thing.

That no one heard any scream surely points more to William as she wouldn’t have expected the attack. But someone who decided on the spur to kill her for some reason, like a noise in the other room, would have had to grab a weapon then strike giving her time to scream.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Many reasons involved in yourself and others convicting him are due to the tiny suspect pool that he himself created by making it look like this insider job - basically his set up tells people that if it's not Gordon or Marsden it's probably him. That's exactly how it looks and is exactly how it is then interpreted by everyone ever.

You avoid the point that if anyone else did it they made it look like an insider job! Why is that not bad planning or the work of an idiot?

It's his own making, name directly to Pru (so not even just someone with knowledge he's an agent and goes to the club), cash box directly to a tiny pool of people, claims his wife admits nobody in, stupid address he could have found out was fake. This is apparently the creation of some chess grandmaster.

Nope, the Wallace-as-brilliant-chess-mind is proven nonsense as we all know but killers often feel that they are cleverer than others, including the police.

If he wasn't idiotic or such a terrible planner it wouldn't seem so blatantly suspicious to the point he's arrested within about a week and basically 99% of all the simpletons in the entire county immediately think he must be guilty based just off the suspiciousness of the quest that he himself created, and sad robbery staging putting cash boxes back because he is just that stupid (if a burglar is replacing stuff btw you don't even know what was checked such as drawers and cabinets).

Just look how convoluted and ridiculous it is.

Then it’s the same for anyone else. What you’re saying is “this looks like a set up and murder by Wallace, Parry or Marsden but because Wallace wouldn’t have made errors then he’d obviously innocent

Then getting away with it hinging entirely on a milk boy to volunteer himself forward to say he saw her and give an accurate time, that being the absolute critical element behind the alibi otherwise you don't even have one.

How many times? Alan Close was not an issue. a) Wallace knew that he was due to come (KNEW), b) even if he hadn’t come forward Wallace himself could have mentioned it later....”I’ve just remembered, while I was upstairs getting ready....” c) Wallace as a science man would probably have known anyway that t.o.d wasn’t an exact science.

This idea of Wallace relying on Close is dead.

For absolutely no good reason at all... Real address, normal name, and the robbery doesn't appear targeted: It already casts a wider net and seems less suspicious than walking around hunting for non-existent places with bizarro-world names. Hinging on a timestamp he won't even necessarily be provided or if so not necessarily accurate at all.

Again you repeat a fallacy. Why would it have been suspicious for Wallace to have walked around looking for a non-existent address when he was pretending that he believed it a real one?

Avoiding any trace of blood is also cosmically remote according to multiple forensic professionals (no dissenting opinion), you do realistically have to start putting him in balaclavas etc (I haven't actually asked this just assuming it should help). The chance the ONLY real suspect named who could've made that call gives a fake alibi by chance when nobody else did is cosmically remote.

The balaclava was an off-the-cuff suggestion but, according to you, the concept of a face covering or a glove is the work of fantasy. I’ve lost interest in the opinion of a scientist who can’t accept the concept of protective clothing. The idea of wearing a hat against the rain is an impossibility! Or a scientist who believes that any drop of blood spatter heading in the direction of the window side of the room would have magnetically hit Williams body without a speck going to the left right or over. These people are fallible. Many have doubts about the science as a whole. They have made errors. But apparently because they suit your purpose they are now utterly infallible.

It is either a bad plan hence he looks guilty within about 0.00001 seconds of reading the events, or it's crap because it's not a plan. It's not like a detective novel where you're guessing until the last pages or actually need any thinking skills, it takes about a paragraph before he seems obviously guilty. That is how bad this idea he threw together is that any person suspects him within seconds of hearing any outline of what happened. Even most children would suspect him based on the plan. You don't require any logical reasoning or mental development beyond the age of about 5 to think it's so blatant. Because it does look blatant.

I straight up don't think it's part of any intelligent plan at all. Simple as. It sucks. Even I could do it 1000x better than this genius.

And yet staggeringly you believe in the least likely scenario. I’m sorry but the prank call can be dismissed out of hand as something so 1,000,000,000,000-1 that it requires no discussion. This was a plan. It may not have been a plan worthy of Napoleon but it was a plan nonetheless.

To actually believe the man who looks guiltier than basically any other pre-med killer in human history has come up with a great plan here takes a truly monumental stretch of the imagination. I actually can't think of any pre-med killer ever who so quickly looks so obviously guilty. Pretty sure the jury reached a verdict faster than in most robbery cases.

He very probably was guilty. You haven’t a solitary scintilla of evidence against any other ‘suspect.’

Even the judge thinks he did it. Just the evidence provided is too weak, if they'd actually not been too scared to test certain variables like the chess tram there wouldn't even be doubt. Even his defence Roland Oliver thinks he did it. You cannot possibly look at this and not immediately think he did it. If you conjure up a plan where everything says "btw I did it and am sus as ****" then your plan sucks.

Conveniently ‘forgetting’ of course that the plan is 100 times worse for anyone else.

If you actually admit it is quite clearly a **** suspicious plan with 10000 holes that is something a person can work with because the bar is lower. It's not a grandmaster genius anymore it's a semi-slow aged man who doesn't even know what year it is, and then the blatant mistakes are easy to dismiss - they're mistakes because he's dumb and lacks any foresight. You can't argue this away, it's a crap plan, objectively, reflecting his terrible chess play.

More straw man points I’m afraid. Yet again, I’ve never claimed that Wallace was a genius but it’s perfectly plausible that he might have seen himself as a kind of genius.

We are left with:

Prank call - almost a joke. A non-starter which can safely be eliminated.

Parry - Alibi’d so eliminated.

Evidence against anyone else - non-existent and based on rumour or conspiracy thinking.

Who’s left?

[WallaceWackedHer]

I have requested info from Dr. Schmunk on the balaclava kneeling theory and will update on this.

It occurs to me that William's idea may be bad due to autism/aspergers. From his character I do suspect he is on the spectrum. Someone made a claim he lists his hat size and glove size etc on each diary, and just overall the general eccentric withdrawn manners and interests of the man, and bookish extremely repetitive ways. Trouble showing emotion. Stoicism would be of comfort to someone with ASD. The K Boots tale obsessing over something like that. There are a number of factors.

James Caird described him as a peculiar man. His manner of dress is old fashioned and eccentric. Parry also described William as very peculiar. I think I might be inclined to agree with Gordon's description, and suspect the man is gay and autistic.

Parry in contrast definitely does not seem autistic (only antisocial/sociopathic).

Because his thinking patterns are then perhaps a bit odd in the case of autism, I think someone on the spectrum might be in a better position to just look at the idea and understand the reasoning behind certain elements. I do not know anyone with the affliction but I think there are forums (e.g. WrongPlanet) I have found where I may be able to get some insight from the posters there.

[WallaceWackedHer]

If I am incorrect btw I have a double digit IQ at BEST so you're talking to a verified retard. And even I (as a verified retard) could do it better than this.

I think I would rather call up the place when Caird or anyone else can provide the address to Beattie, THEN make my "oh that's a bit far, can't make it tonight" excuse so it looks like the caller didn't even necessarily know where I lived.

I'd not give a **** about scamming back two pennies the call would be as brief as possible, I'd be in and out ASAP and make no lasting impressions on anyone, just deliver my message and go.

I would generalize the robbery and not make it look so targeted so the net's much wider and doesn't require deep inside knowledge.

I would use a real address, probably an area I know, but keep the round trip to about 45 mins to over an hour to allow time for my fake burglar to go kill my wife.

I would use a random non-bizarro alias, which sounds less suspicious.

I'd not wear my own jacket while killing her.

I'd chuck one of her jackets over her head and hit her through that so there's no spray at all, not on me and I'd anticipate not on the weapon even... Then maybe flick the blood up the walls into each direction. Really depends how aware I would hypothetically be of forensic abilities.

I'd keep all my ticket stubs for the trams. And my first convo would prooobably be on that first tram if I could come up with something plausible. Don't care to talk to the others or anyone in the district except to knock on the real address I gave myself.

Probably would stop off at the newsagents and pick up a pack of cigs then come home.

I'd say in my statement that a paper boy and milk boy usually call some point that day around the time I left my house.

I'd knock 5 or 10 minutes off the time I left home. If they prove it was later it's plausibly deniable.

Realistically, personally, given the era and the fact my wife is known to be sick I'd probably opt to slowly poison her with something that gives the appearance her lung condition worsened. Apparently nobody has ever heard us argue etc, I'd probably bank on that. Wouldn't try that stunt today, in the 1930s though, I'd feel the risk of that is less than the risk of relying on avoiding even a speck of blood (even in the jacket over her head scenario I'd be feeling edgy about the reliability of it).

If he has a motive I think it must be an affair he is having and she doesn't know. Him caring on December 15th about her safety is double-corroborated. So the homicidal urges arose very recently it appears. No arguing which is bizarre, people's first port of call is rarely to just kill a person, better with an affair, rid the wife be with the mistress type deal. Then I'd have a helper because of that, so I could be smarter with the whole thing.