Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Ah hang on she was more specific about the digestion part:

To address your points:

1) I think it's very likely the first blow would have been the largest hit, the details of the subsequent blows are consistent with the blood and brain leaving the skull cavity on the rug. From the blood spatter, the most likely position of the attacker would be in front of the fireplace, I don't see any spatter on the right hand wall which would corroborate this. It's possible the weapon was quite long, which would explain the high force of the injury, and so they may have been further from the seat than one might initially consider.

2) Between 8:25-8:30pm I would suggest is definitely within the range of possibility. As a general guideline undigested food would be seen in the first two hours and more liquid food would be seen between 2-6 hours. The postmortem suggests that there were bits of unmasticated food which could be indicative of the start of digestion and somewhere between these two stages. Also, the individual variation isn't fully known so it's very possible that the time of death was within this window.

3) The movement of the body is less clear, as I'm sure you can see. It's possible the first blow was not immediately fatal leading to some movement by the victim. As you said, the final blows are with the head in the position seen, the body could have been moved to a more suitable position, or to avoid the fireplace. Sorry I can't help more on this point.

4) Due to the amount of blood pooling under the body, if the mackintosh was worn while kneeling I would expect to see more staining on the lower section. I think it is more likely the two items burned at the same time, this could also explain some of the body placement if the task was to stop the fire before being noticed. I would suggest the mackintosh being on her person to be a more likely explanation, but of course there's a lot of variation that could have occurred on the day.

5) I can't see an attack such as this not leaving spatter upon all the clothes, even if covered by the mackintosh. Especially on sleeves and collars that wouldn't be covered in that scenario. While the techniques of the day may not have picked up the minute spatter I would imagine at least some blood on the clothing. However, if the outfit Wallace was wearing was also worn on finding the body, it would likely be described away as transfer from touching the body. This seems unlikely as the neighbours saw Wallace at the time of body discovery.

I asked specifically about 8.25 to 8.30 because of Florence's testimony.

[caz]

Hi Caz - there's possibly an analogy here with the claims of our old friend Jim Hanratty to have taken a bus from Liverpool to Rhyl which, if proven true, would have provided a solid alibi. Neither defence nor prosecution counsel were prepared to pursue this at trial and seek confirmation or contradiction from the bus driver / conductor.

Possibly the defence were fearful of a response along the lines of ''don't recall him at all'' whilst the prosecution were equally wary of an answer such as ''he could have been on it''. As pointed out by another on the A6 thread at the time, a trial is more about achieving a desired result than ascertaining the full truth.

Anyway, in both cases and in your words, a crying shame.

Best regards,
OneRound

Cheers, OneRound, and good to see you back here.

I suppose the main distinction I would make between Hanratty and Wallace, regardless of guilt or innocence, is that the latter was considerably better at fighting his own corner and was able to help his defence when it came to the appeal process. Hanratty seemed to do his level best at times to damage his credibility in the jury's eyes, not least by changing his alibi.

And that makes me think that if Wallace really had taken a route on that Monday evening which did not go near the phone box, he would surely have made more of it, and urged his defence to double check with the tram staff, and track down any regular passengers too, in the expectation that someone would remember seeing him. The uncomfortable contrast between Monday's Invisible Man and Tuesday's Ubiquitous Qualtrough Hunter is stark.

Love,

Caz
X

[WallaceWackedHer]

Cheers, OneRound, and good to see you back here.

I suppose the main distinction I would make between Hanratty and Wallace, regardless of guilt or innocence, is that the latter was considerably better at fighting his own corner and was able to help his defence when it came to the appeal process. Hanratty seemed to do his level best at times to damage his credibility in the jury's eyes, not least by changing his alibi.

And that makes me think that if Wallace really had taken a route on that Monday evening which did not go near the phone box, he would surely have made more of it, and urged his defence to double check with the tram staff, and track down any regular passengers too, in the expectation that someone would remember seeing him. The uncomfortable contrast between Monday's Invisible Man and Tuesday's Ubiquitous Qualtrough Hunter is stark.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes and you would also think he would make something of the fact SOMEONE other than him had indeed seen Julia alive (the milk boy) after something like 4.30 PM when first questioned by police - at least, if his alibi was what everyone suggests - the "impossible timeframe" thing.

Modern forensic analysts seem to believe the idea of how the mackintosh was used does not match the physical evidence, and that they believe the jacket was on her in some way when she fell, as opposed to being used as a shield by the assailant.

For William as the killer acting alone, if modern forensics rule out the idea of how the jacket was used, there is no ACTUAL evidence at all that he is guilty alone. The only evidence if modern forensics rule out that he could have worn that jacket and escaped blood-free, would be for a conspiracy to commit murder which is the evidence given by Lily Hall. This IS evidence because William flatly denied her eyewitness account.

She, like Lily Pinches, seems to have become very confused when questioned and that is annoying since it's hard to see what she's saying exactly. I have put together some maps etc. and all of her statements I am aware of to show this:

https://www.williamherbertwallace.co...alls-sighting/

Their questioning of her was not remotely thorough or clear enough. All I get is where she got off the tram, and where she saw what she strongly believed to be William.

Modern forensics say the thuds heard by the Johnstons could well be consistent with Julia's time of death. This is 20:25 to 20:30 when they hear these two thuds. Lily says she sees William at 20:35 talking to another man. Isn't this a stronger line to pursue?

I do wish some things had been clarified better in court. Clearly both defence and prosecution were scared of what answers they might get about some things. I wish they had just flatly outright asked what he meant when he said he was a stranger in the district. He indicated to several people already that he's familiar with how to get to Menlove Avenue so can't have been planning to act like he had no idea where Menlove Avenue was, so I would have liked to have seen it clarified.

[caz]

We already sort of have semi-proof he wasn't working to beat the alibi clock by getting out "impossibly" soon after Alan left, and we know that because of the failure to mention the boy.

I really think you are missing the point here, WWH, when you keep referring to this 'alibi clock'. All a guilty Wallace would have been thinking about was the latest time he could afford to leave the house, considering the bogus appointment time was 7.30 at an address he claimed not to know. He had to wait for Close to deliver the milk and then judge if there was still time to do the crime and leave the house at a reasonable time for that appointment. That's all. That's the only reason for Close to feature in the story. He was a potential obstacle, and not under Wallace's control. Had Wallace been unable to leave the house until gone seven, for instance, everyone would have been much more suspicious than they were. Wallace knew he had to abandon his plan or get cracking and get out of that house as soon as he could. So the fact that he did have enough time [always assuming he did the deed] means that the milk boy could not have provided him with an alibi, even if he had thought to mention him. It merely turned out to be a bonus that he'd had to rush things so much that doubt was thrown on whether it was possible. He didn't plan it that way. How could he?

Think about it. If Wallace wanted to kill his wife and make it look like someone did it in his absence, he'd never have made that appointment time as early as 7.30 unless he felt confident that Close would be long gone by the time he had to leave the house himself. There is no way he would have risked Close knocking on the door just as he was about to kill his wife, or in the immediate aftermath, so he would have been expecting the milk early enough to avoid that possibility, and would have been most put out if Close did not come at his usual time.

Love,

Caz
X

[WallaceWackedHer]

I really think you are missing the point here, WWH, when you keep referring to this 'alibi clock'. All a guilty Wallace would have been thinking about was the latest time he could afford to leave the house, considering the bogus appointment time was 7.30 at an address he claimed not to know. He had to wait for Close to deliver the milk and then judge if there was still time to do the crime and leave the house at a reasonable time for that appointment. That's all. That's the only reason for Close to feature in the story. He was a potential obstacle, and not under Wallace's control. Had Wallace been unable to leave the house until gone seven, for instance, everyone would have been much more suspicious than they were. Wallace knew he had to abandon his plan or get cracking and get out of that house as soon as he could. So the fact that he did have enough time [always assuming he did the deed] means that the milk boy could not have provided him with an alibi, even if he had thought to mention him. It merely turned out to be a bonus that he'd had to rush things so much that doubt was thrown on whether it was possible. He didn't plan it that way. How could he?

Love,

Caz
X

You will find most people have Alan featuring as part of chess grandmaster William's plan to make it seem like he couldn't have done it.

I think you agree the idea is silly, which it is.

I hired professional forensic scientists to review the notes, they are saying the eleven blows is tenuous (though they would be happy to say multiple) and that they strongly doubt that the assailant shielded himself with the jacket, and also that even if he did, there would still be blood on his clothing due to a high amount of blowback splatter in this type of attack (e.g. spurts that travel up inside the sleeves, on his ankles for sure) and if he had knelt down beside the body, different stain patterning on the jacket that would have been very obvious if this was done.

They reviewed all forensic notes and testimony on the trial, as well as the post-mortem and crime scene photos.

They agree with Julia being in about the position McFall had stated, and agree with the subsequent blows happening on the back of the skull, with the head now already roughly in its final resting spot. They have the assailant in front of the fireplace as the most likely position.

[moste]

You will find most people have Alan featuring as part of chess grandmaster William's plan to make it seem like he couldn't have done it.

I think you agree the idea is silly, which it is.

I hired professional forensic scientists to review the notes, they are saying the eleven blows is tenuous (though they would be happy to say multiple) and that they strongly doubt that the assailant shielded himself with the jacket, and also that even if he did, there would still be blood on his clothing due to a high amount of blowback splatter in this type of attack (e.g. spurts that travel up inside the sleeves, on his ankles for sure) and if he had knelt down beside the body, different stain patterning on the jacket that would have been very obvious if this was done.

They reviewed all forensic notes and testimony on the trial, as well as the post-mortem and crime scene photos.

They agree with Julia being in about the position McFall had stated, and agree with the subsequent blows happening on the back of the skull, with the head now already roughly in its final resting spot. They have the assailant in front of the fireplace as the most likely position.

If the assailant was in front of the fire place how did blood spray up the wall to a height of seven feet over his right shoulder and to the left of the fireplace ,pray tell.

[WallaceWackedHer]

If the assailant was in front of the fire place how did blood spray up the wall to a height of seven feet over his right shoulder and to the left of the fireplace ,pray tell.

It didn't go over his right shoulder and to the front of the fireplace. She's suggesting the same thing as McFall, that the position is the opposite way round in terms of Julia and the assailant.

It might be helpful if I get the forensic professional who suggested that positioning to draw on the blueprint where she thinks Julia and the assailant may have been when the first strike landed. She has worked live homicide cases with multiple police forces, I figured it would be helpful to get actual answers about the jacket etc. from people qualified to speak on the matter with far more modern training.

[moste]

The outcome of the method of the murder for me speaks volumes . Anyone,and I mean anyone would have protected themselves against the terrible mess. A paid killer for example would simply have swatted her to the floor then ( if this was to be the weapon of his choice ) thrown something ,anything, over her head to do the bludgeoning. An unknown burglar, would simply have smacked her to the ground ,and only if she was barring his way out, or trying to stop his egress .A burglar known to Julia, well, extremely unlikely that they would be violent,more likely to ask for forgiveness and in a river of tears,( genuine or otherwise) plead with her not to tell any one. I’ve said this before, but the person who created such open carnage, luxuriated in the terrible blood bath .This tells us ,far from being any kind of a spur of the moment thing , this was a crime of passion of immense proportions. Surely it’s obvious, we are dealing here with someone with many axes to grind.
I think along with a forensic expert, a good acquisition would be a top notch Crime Profiler WWH.
P.S. good post Caz. ( having shared the A6 thread, never thought I’d have heard myself say that.LOL)

[moste]

It didn't go over his right shoulder and to the front of the fireplace. She's suggesting the same thing as McFall, that the position is the opposite way round in terms of Julia and the assailant.

It might be helpful if I get the forensic professional who suggested that positioning to draw on the blueprint where she thinks Julia and the assailant may have been when the first strike landed. She has worked live homicide cases with multiple police forces, I figured it would be helpful to get actual answers about the jacket etc. from people qualified to speak on the matter with far more modern training.

No, that would be to the left of the fireplace not in front,. I think you said the assailant was in front of the fireplace.

[moste]

I know it’s an attractive idea to have assistance from experts in a case like ‘Who killed Julia Wallace’ . But at the end of the day, we are dealing with mostly supposition ,ie ,where the exact location of the attack was ,which way the head was turned, and so on. But not wanting to rain on the parade, I can’t see that there could be anything missed, that would draw us closer to a solution.Tangible facts like ‘ the killer seemingly being indifferent to the awful mess he was causing,as alluded to previously, and Wallace’s almost relentless search for suitable alibi fodder. To get ahead with regards to possibilities, we need to get to the bottom of where Joseph was throughout all this, with his comings and goings. But I fear ,it being 90 years ago nearly , as with other aspects of the case, no headway is likely to be made.

[WallaceWackedHer]

No, that would be to the left of the fireplace not in front,. I think you said the assailant was in front of the fireplace.

The fireplace is in the center of the room. The assailant is in front of the fireplace. Julia is to his left closer to the armchair.

She could not place Julia exactly because of the lack of quality photography and some other factors. But Julia is anywhere in the region suggested by McFall in her opinion.

The marks on the ceiling might be a photo glitch as I've not seen it mentioned in reports or the trial etc, but if not, then the follow up blows she said were done from a position likely over near the chair (the assailant standing there), with the raising of the weapon causing cast-off on the ceiling.

It is difficult to tell with these photos what's blood and what's a photo glitch etc.

[WallaceWackedHer]

The outcome of the method of the murder for me speaks volumes . Anyone,and I mean anyone would have protected themselves against the terrible mess. A paid killer for example would simply have swatted her to the floor then ( if this was to be the weapon of his choice ) thrown something ,anything, over her head to do the bludgeoning. An unknown burglar, would simply have smacked her to the ground ,and only if she was barring his way out, or trying to stop his egress .A burglar known to Julia, well, extremely unlikely that they would be violent,more likely to ask for forgiveness and in a river of tears,( genuine or otherwise) plead with her not to tell any one. I’ve said this before, but the person who created such open carnage, luxuriated in the terrible blood bath .This tells us ,far from being any kind of a spur of the moment thing , this was a crime of passion of immense proportions. Surely it’s obvious, we are dealing here with someone with many axes to grind.
I think along with a forensic expert, a good acquisition would be a top notch Crime Profiler WWH.
P.S. good post Caz. ( having shared the A6 thread, never thought I’d have heard myself say that.LOL)

I can get a profiler.

The forensic expert does not agree there were 11 blows. She says simply multiple. She thinks 11 is a very weak suggestion along with the actual use of the jacket by the killer as a shield. McFall initially said something like 3 or 4 strikes.

Essentially she agrees with McFall's positioning and the other expert's (I forget which, the defence brought them in) opinion regarding the jacket. And Roland Oliver/Florence Johnston's idea about the jacket.

I quoted the reports I received maybe a couple of pages back.

The time of death estimate is not massively helpful because the range is so wide due to the techniques used at the time.

It is her opinion a long instrument was used while Julia was somewhere at or near the chair with the assailant in front of the fireplace (more to the right than Julia I think? But I didn't clarify the X vs Y axis).

The crime of passion idea is unsupported and quite prejudicial in fact. The idea is supported by only the 11 blows which McFall himself only said much later despite examining the body and coming up with 3 or 4. Even then I can show similar attacks in home invasions etc. Some people are really, really not pleasant at all.

3 or 4 makes sense if it's in line with the thumping heard by the Johnstons. The first strike should not make a tonne of noise because it's a strike through the air. The ones that will be most likely to be heard will be the strikes that hit the head against the floor, as you can probably imagine if someone is striking down with a heavy instrument against a semi-hard object like a skull onto the floor... I mean if you basebal batted someone in the head there will be a very obvious THWACK I'd imagine, but whether the sound would travel as far I'm not sure... Florence also said it sounded like boots being taken off. Boots would be plonked down on the floor, it would be harder to mistake the basebal bat type wack with plods against the floor.

They may have heard the two follow-up strikes. I did hear the suggestion from Gannon the jacket was there as a sound muffler.

It makes more sense in general too, as you would expect a "frenzy" with 11 or 12 strikes to be much more audibly obvious if those strikes are all raining down on the back of the head against the floor. A man relying on escaping free of any particle of blood would also be wise to not rain down 11 blows.

Especially if emotion has taken over how are you expecting such a clean and silent kill? Because frenzy is implying, like, wild man tier wacking.

All single person theories in this case are weak or even can be essentially disproven like Rod's idea which is SO similar to my own just that he has one person in there. Which makes much less sense unless Julia knew the person because I don't know that a stranger robbing her house would cause her to go into the parlour and sit down.

She's not going to be mute while he drags her in there nor would he bother to do this? So the idea she retreated into the parlour is actually stronger than the one in Antony's book.

So it is quite amusing really, that the least likely idea that is essentially not even possible, is basically identical to the one I think is correct.

[moste]

I might be wrong but I believe the neighbours heard a thud from the parlour ,and believed it to be the old Dad dropping his boots to the floor prior to donning his house slippers . Now are we to believe that these people make a mental note of what time Dad drops his boots every night ? Ridiculous in the extreme!

[moste]

I’ll tell you what I believe the Johnsons heard from the Wallace’s house .Nothing ,absolutely Zilch.

Next door neighbours in these types of dwellings tolerate what I believe is known as white noise.

There are ongoing sounds from through the walls ,more of a muffly noise really, which is completely

taken on board by persons choosing to live in these types of dwellings, and hardly ever alluded to , except perhaps where a major shouting match is in

progress, to which annoyance the answer would be a good bang on the wall ,with a loud ‘WILL YOU KEEP IT DOWN PLEASE’, which 9 times out of 10 did the trick.As you can probably perceive, I have

first hand knowledge. Forget about trying to tie in Julia’s murder with anyone hearing anything next door, unless we’re talking SCREAMING.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I might be wrong but I believe the neighbours heard a thud from the parlour ,and believed it to be the old Dad dropping his boots to the floor prior to donning his house slippers . Now are we to believe that these people make a mental note of what time Dad drops his boots every night ? Ridiculous in the extreme!

Well considering people take every other time that suits them as flawless evidence... I'm sure if they heard 10 thuds that they thought was someone coming down the stairs in heavy boots at 6.45 it would be determined to be gospel.

I don't expect at all they would know the exact time of "boots being taken off". But I think they would probably know whether the sound happened before or after 19.00 at least.

The time here may be REASONABLY close because they went out of their home only 15 minutes later, so they have some kind of reference to work with, with the fixed time for definite as 8.45 (when they left their house).

If she's off by 30 minutes I would not at all be surprised. Beattie was off by like 20 minutes in regards to when the call came in. That's normal in my opinion.