Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Amy Wallace, was she involved?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by moste View Post
    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 , 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.
    I live in semi-detached terraced housing. We would hear iron bars bashing things into the ground. We hear when they, for example, are hammering on the OPPOSITE wall doing DIY work (not the one that separates our homes) because it causes a vibration. And then it's like that vibration "sound" that you can't block out no matter how loud you play your music or white noise.

    I thought these people were able to hear if anyone had gone to the Wallace's door with their supersonic selective hearing? And conversation with Amy taking place through the wall because the dividing party wall was so thin? But of course a wacking of a wife is silent unless the statement was given as 6.45 when the sound occurred in which case it would of course be accepted.

    I'm also sure if the forensics I hired said the jacket was definitely used as a shield and the assailant wore it (which I would not have hidden or deluded myself into believing is BS) that too would then be amazing and true discoveries.
    Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 03-11-2020, 01:02 AM.

    Comment


    • Quote: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. unquote..
      Possibly a number 7 iron golf club? Anyone know if William was partial to 9 holes of a Sunday morning?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
        There is evidence there was no desperation for a time alibi which we can almost prove by the neglect of mentioning Alan Close who did not even immediately come forward. Remember without Alan he could have killed his wife at any time from 6.05 PM until he left, as opposed to 6.35 or whatever it is. To make no mention of it shows he does not care or was not even aware Alan had ever arrived at all.

        6.05 PM is worse for him than even 6.30 PM if he's hoping to be exonerated by timing alone. Clearly his alibi in his mind is not one reliant on timings which seem too tight. I think that has to be accepted...
        Hi WWH,

        I'm not sure anyone is arguing that Wallace was planning to use the milk boy to help provide an alibi. He had no idea if the lad would deliver early, late or at his usual time. But there is no point in saying what Wallace could have done 'without Alan'. If Wallace killed his wife, he had to factor in the milk delivery or risk being interrupted.

        But... once he had managed to do the deed and leave the house, without anyone knocking at the door expecting to see Julia, he could afford to breathe a sigh of relief that Alan was no longer a potential spanner in the works. The lad had been and gone without suspecting a thing, so Wallace could forget him and concentrate on his next moves. As I keep saying, he was no good to Wallace as an alibi, because he was clearly not the last person to see Julia alive. Wallace was still in the house with her and he'd have struck when Alan was gone. After that it was just a case of hoping there would be no way to pin down his wife's time of death, beyond reasonable doubt, to between 6 and 6.45! And that was Wallace's Get Out of Jail Free card - nothing whatsoever to do with the milk.

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


        Comment


        • Originally posted by moste View Post
          Quote: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. unquote..
          Possibly a number 7 iron golf club? Anyone know if William was partial to 9 holes of a Sunday morning?
          They can't give that kind of specificity that's usually why at court they are asked "could an instrument such as this" (item shown) cause the injuries you saw, when they don't have a murder weapon.

          Something like a fireplace poker or iron bar, as opposed to say, a spanner.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
            If nobody knew Alan had been, then in the eyes of the law he had from 6.05 to kill this woman.
            You are forgetting something really fundamental here regarding 'the law', WWH, and it's not something that was likely to have escaped Wallace, whether he was guilty or innocent. It was not up to the defence to prove he didn't kill his wife between his arrival home at 6.05 and his departure at 6.45, while the best the prosecution could do was to argue that he could have done it. With no way then - or now - to reliably narrow time of death down using forensic science to a teeny-tiny 40-minute window, the fact that Alan would have created a narrower window for Wallace is neither here not there. Wallace was rightly freed on appeal, because a different Qualtrough would have had a window of 2 hours, from 6.45 to 8.45, in which to commit the crime uninterrupted, and there was no proof that this wasn't what happened.

            My advice would be to forget the milk boy. He would only have been important to a guilty Wallace's plan before he carried it out. If Wallace was innocent, Alan would have become a hugely important witness for the defence if only Wallace had remembered him speaking to Julia at 6.45, just as he was about to leave the house himself, and had mentioned this to the police at the earliest opportunity. This clearly didn't happen.

            Love,

            Caz
            X



            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


            Comment


            • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

              My point is this:

              If Alan Close did not testify William has no alibi (not a time-based one at least).

              In other words Alan Close is the absolute be all and end all of the impossible timing alibi.

              In other words if this was the method of the alibi William would have said Alan was probably the last to see Julia alive apart from himself that he knows of.

              In other words if he doesn't mention Alan, and Alan doesn't come forward, the police do not know that anyone had seen Julia alive after something like 4.30 or whatever (baker's boy, window cleaner? Something like that).

              In other words if Alan never testified the police believe that William could well have murdered Julia at 6 PM and had a full hour to get dressed.

              Failure to mention Alan means he does not view Alan as vital = his alibi in his mind does not rest on beating the clock by killing her and getting out in an impossibly short time frame after the milk boy comes.
              And my point is that Wallace would have known the police would suspect him, either because of, or in spite of the elaborate Qualtrough charade to get him out of the house. But there is all the difference in the world between the police believing he could have done it [which was pretty inevitable if he did do it!], and a court of law proving it.

              Love,

              Caz
              X
              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


              Comment


              • Originally posted by caz View Post

                Hi WWH,

                I'm not sure anyone is arguing that Wallace was planning to use the milk boy to help provide an alibi. He had no idea if the lad would deliver early, late or at his usual time. But there is no point in saying what Wallace could have done 'without Alan'. If Wallace killed his wife, he had to factor in the milk delivery or risk being interrupted.

                But... once he had managed to do the deed and leave the house, without anyone knocking at the door expecting to see Julia, he could afford to breathe a sigh of relief that Alan was no longer a potential spanner in the works. The lad had been and gone without suspecting a thing, so Wallace could forget him and concentrate on his next moves. As I keep saying, he was no good to Wallace as an alibi, because he was clearly not the last person to see Julia alive. Wallace was still in the house with her and he'd have struck when Alan was gone. After that it was just a case of hoping there would be no way to pin down his wife's time of death, beyond reasonable doubt, to between 6 and 6.45! And that was Wallace's Get Out of Jail Free card - nothing whatsoever to do with the milk.

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                I quite agree. I don't think it's what happened but I agree with the logic.

                But then people begin the time alibi arguments again due to him asking the conductors for directions. None of this behaviour is vital to show he was out looking for an address... The only thing he needs is to knock at 25 Menlove Gardens West, or Mr. Crewe's house (which he did do - but we see his did this later apparently), and he has proven that he has indeed gone out looking for an address.

                The journey time itself was something like 30 or 35 minutes. He left his house at around 6.45 PM and arrived there at, what was it? 7.20? 7.15? It is very difficult to always remember these times off by heart... Even if he had quite literally gone there, asked maybe two people (the main person of importance being the the resident at Menlove Gardens West), gone to the newsagent's, then boarded a tram home, he's away for over an hour.

                The random street people can't be trusted to come forward, I think you really need a resident of a home or someone at a store, someone where you can be like "I spoke to a lady working at ___", then that person is easy to find if they don't come forward.

                He does not need 10 or 20 people to verify it. He doesn't need to arrive home at 8.45.

                Again I would look more into the possibility that he's staying out for the time he did because he has someone else at the house doing the deed.

                Present day forensics do not believe the jacket was worn or used as a shield. Something else was done evidently. And Lily Hall's statement remains the only piece of actual evidence after the jacket shield idea is taken out. It would be quite difficult to believe William had simply forgotten talking to whoever this person was.

                The forensics also seems to suggest a scenario that she was in conversation or talking to someone. McFall also did make the suggestion, but Julia appears to be sitting in that chair or slightly in front of it. Because of the brand of fireplace etc. the valve is on the right, and so I would expect she would be positioned more centrally if she was down there doing something with the valve etc.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by caz View Post

                  You are forgetting something really fundamental here regarding 'the law', WWH, and it's not something that was likely to have escaped Wallace, whether he was guilty or innocent. It was not up to the defence to prove he didn't kill his wife between his arrival home at 6.05 and his departure at 6.45, while the best the prosecution could do was to argue that he could have done it. With no way then - or now - to reliably narrow time of death down using forensic science to a teeny-tiny 40-minute window, the fact that Alan would have created a narrower window for Wallace is neither here not there. Wallace was rightly freed on appeal, because a different Qualtrough would have had a window of 2 hours, from 6.45 to 8.45, in which to commit the crime uninterrupted, and there was no proof that this wasn't what happened.

                  My advice would be to forget the milk boy. He would only have been important to a guilty Wallace's plan before he carried it out. If Wallace was innocent, Alan would have become a hugely important witness for the defence if only Wallace had remembered him speaking to Julia at 6.45, just as he was about to leave the house himself, and had mentioned this to the police at the earliest opportunity. This clearly didn't happen.

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X


                  He wasn't aware of Alan's arrival so he says, when later asked. He says he was probably upstairs getting ready at the time or something like that.

                  He couldn't have seen Alan at 6.45 as he himself was leaving because if Alan had called as he was leaving his wife would have not been there to answer the door as she would be walking William down the yard.

                  He didn't come at 6.45 anyway, at least no more than he came at 6.31 (6.30 is proveably false in many ways so that is worse). The time would be 6.35ish.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
                    Look at what McFall has done... His very first report he puts the time of death as 7.50 PM. He then changes this to 6.00 PM on trial. He hasn't conducted any additional tests since the first report which was after the autopsy etc as far as I know, he has just randomly changed the time of death with no reason given. And I think the defence would have gone wild with this if they had been allowed to know. I also wonder if the defence's forensics were allowed access to these reports to read about the stomach contents etc.

                    And I wonder if perhaps this case would have been categorically solved if not for this utter disgrace of a man...

                    Say for example a real forensic expert did the CORRECT tests and gave a time of death as 6.30 PM. Or vice versa 8.00 PM. This would be very different. But this man has failed us completely. And I wonder if he's anything like Duane Deaver it's worth taking ANY of his suggestions seriously.
                    The point is that no reputable forensic expert would claim that the 'CORRECT' tests would have been able to pin down a time of death that specifically, WWH. In reality, an estimate of anywhere between the last time an independent witness [the milk boy] saw Julia alive and when the Johnstons found her dead, may have been about as much as the best 'expert' in the field should have relied on.

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X


                    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by caz View Post

                      The point is that no reputable forensic expert would claim that the 'CORRECT' tests would have been able to pin down a time of death that specifically, WWH. In reality, an estimate of anywhere between the last time an independent witness [the milk boy] saw Julia alive and when the Johnstons found her dead, may have been about as much as the best 'expert' in the field should have relied on.

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X

                      I was told by the analyst that in terms of time of death it would be better to rely on the witnesses as the estimate would be too broad.

                      The information I was given about the attack itself I think is what is important - albeit I was hoping for a time of death of course. Specifically for one thing about the jacket and the potential of its use, but also the position of Julia and her attacker when the blows were struck. As it happens McFall seems to have been right in his estimate regarding the positioning although he never specified or was asked to specify where the attacker was stood.

                      All shots to the back of the head I think she is saying took place when Julia was roughly in the position she was found in, which pushed the brain matter out of the gaping hole that the first strike had inflicted.

                      So the first strike is frontal (Julia did not have any defensive wounds but this is agreed upon both by modern forensics and the forensics of the time). You can actually see it in the morgue photos if you are so inclined - it is frontal. It's on the side front upper part of the skull, above and just in front of the ear in other words.

                      I am getting these photos colourized for the analyst as well, so she can see the wounds better than the black and whites.

                      I may hire more analysts to have multiple opinions. But I suspect they are going to agree on the fundamental points of positioning, and the probability of the jacket having being used.

                      Thanks to the UTTER INCOMPETENCE of the police force, I was able to get a photo of the jacket since they actually took it out from beneath her body and laid it beside her lmao:



                      Yes that is THE shield-jacket. Srs. I made quadrupley sure.

                      The position of the attack IS crucially important I can't believe so many people said it's irrelevant... If, for example, she was struck by an attacker by the armchair, it may be suggestive of William pretending to go open his violin case as his wife bends down to the fireplace. I think I made this suggestion recently in fact, as a possible explanation of the scene. But it seems the two are actually reversed in terms of position.

                      The FOLLOWUP strikes it appears the attacker was stood near the chair IF the blood on the ceiling I had colourized is actually blood and not a photo glitch.

                      Conversely, if she's sitting in the chair it suggests moreso she has or is expecting company, to be there as opposed to at the piano for an evening of music. If the attacker is in front of the fireplace and she's more to the left, I don't think she can be tending the fireplace (maybe getting up from doing so) because the gas valve is on the right side.

                      Also the fire has already been on I am told by people here, for the burning to have taken place.

                      Can we not begin to look most carefully at the most likely scenarios: That this is either a case of innocence, or something roughly along the lines of what John Gannon suggested? These are the strongest suggestions. You can't discredit Gannon's overall idea just because he wrote something silly about Julia paying boys for sex. Just ignore that part.

                      Lily Hall's statements need to be further analyzed.
                      Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 03-11-2020, 05:37 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Chairs can also be moved, WWH... just saying.

                        I read a post of yours from a while back, in which you suggested that all Wallace had to do, if he killed his wife, was to pretend he was going to light the gas lamps in the parlour as she was going to the fireplace, then ‘kill her in total darkness, and use the same matches for a source of light’. I got this image in my head of Wallace battering her with the blunt instrument in one hand, while using a lit match in the other to see what he was doing and make sure he was avoiding all the blood! What did he do, light another match just before each new blow? I think you’d better think it out again.

                        If Wallace killed her, he managed not to get any visible blood on himself, so I suggest it would have been done with the lights on. The older generations, as I remember them, were all totally obsessed with turning off lights and gas or electric fires when leaving a room empty for any length of time, unless there was a specific reason for leaving them on. It was so automatic that my late mother-in-law would exasperate us by turning off our kitchen lights or oven when hubby or I were still in there or about to cook! My Dad would tick us kids off for leaving lights on anywhere, or not turning the gas fires down or off whenever possible. A younger man, committing a crime in someone else’s home, would not have had that instinct to turn out the fire in the parlour, or the lights anywhere, after beating Julia to death, and would not have been overly concerned if the house had caught fire after he had scarpered, destroying any evidence of his presence. Wallace, on the other hand, would have instinctively turned everything off after moving Julia, her skirt and the mac away from the fire, for all the obvious reasons, but also so that if anyone knocked at the front door while he was pretending to look for MGE, the total darkness of the parlour and most of the house would help give the impression that the Wallaces were not ‘at home’ to visitors, or that Julia had gone up to bed early with that bad cold.

                        I wonder if Julia had turned on the parlour gas fire earlier, to dry the mac her husband had worn in the morning. It might have been draped over a chair which she had moved nearer the fire for the purpose. Immediately after the milk boy had buggered off, Wallace could have asked his wife to turn off the fire and retrieve the mac in case he needed it again for his bogus business trip. As she bent down to see to the fire, he came up behind her, whipping up his mac from the chair and giving her a hefty whack with a blunt instrument, which landed on the front side of her head as she heard his approach and was turning to face him. The gas fire would still be alight, or at least hot enough to scorch anything falling too close to it. Wallace managed to avoid getting covered in blood, helped by the mac, then he only had to move the chair back to its normal place, make sure the fire was now off and nothing was in danger of burning the house down, put on his coat, then extinguish the lights before leaving by the back door with his briefcase.

                        We know from the practical tv experiment I have described before, which was carried out professionally and objectively with no expected or preferred outcome in mind, that a very similar murder could have been committed without leaving any visible blood on the killer. The white overalls used for the experiment by the ‘murderer’ remained spotless. That has to count for something, despite professional opinions that Julia’s killer would have been covered with blood. The total lack of any blood found downstairs outside the parlour must also count for something. Nobody, not even Wallace, needed to be that fastidious, and Wallace would hardly have had the time anyway. So the fact that all the blood was contained within the parlour [apart from the clot on the loo and smear on the note – both upstairs] would support the result of the experiment in that other case, that the killer could have left the murder room without dripping or treading any blood as he went.

                        I don’t begin to understand your argument that the mac automatically incriminated Wallace. He was always going to be the prime suspect regardless, but in theory anyone could have grabbed that mac from a peg in the hall and done exactly the same with it. It would have been infinitely worse for Wallace if the mac hadn’t featured at all, but he’d left a blood trail up to the bathroom for example, or had any visible blood on him as he was asking the world and his wife for directions to MGE!

                        I think that’s covered much of what I wanted to say about the gas fire, lights, mac and blood.

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X
                        Last edited by caz; 03-12-2020, 01:02 PM.
                        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                        Comment


                        • Actually yes the parlour would be left in darkness was my suggestion, because I was being told he turned out the lights so people outside wouldn't see, and there is evidence multiple matches were lit and dropped. They were in the folds of the jacket.

                          As you know, a murderer also has reason to delay the discovery of their crime for as long as possible.

                          I said he would pretend he WOULD light the lamps so she'd go for the fire. Because I thought they were positioned the exact opposite way.

                          He couldn't avoid the spray like I said. This has been confirmed to me. The use of the jacket was the only way he could avoid it while wearing the same clothes he's about to go out in. If the jacket wasn't worn he either disposed of ALL the clothes he was wearing and changed, was nude and bathed (etc.) or he didn't do it himself.

                          I agree the jacket may have been draped near the fireplace but overall it seems least likely. But I agree. It seems least likely because by any means it should be dry enough by now.

                          The clot on the pan I've been told to disregard as transfer.

                          NOT seeing the fact that putting your own jacket under a corpse incriminates you shows incredible prejudice as even people unfamiliar with the case think it does, as did the police and prosecution. As do I. Hence why I list it as one of the only real pieces of actual evidence along with Lily Hall's testimony against the man.

                          The specific injury would cause blowback spray in significant amounts and the fact it is not on one part of the wall that was indicated to me (hence the positioning of the attacker given to me by the expert) suggests the assailants body blocked it.

                          Gordon's clothing we are told was taken apart TO THE SEAMS. If he wore the same clothes he would not get away with it. And the jacket was not used by the attacker as a shield.

                          Housebreaking gangs at the time (including the onetI very tenuously fingered) were in the habit of literally bringing spare shoes with them. Did you know that? They would enter homes either barefoot or wearing a type of rubber shoe known as galoshes.

                          According to 21st century experts, William did not kill his wife and then walk out in the same outfit, and it's very unlikely the jacket was used. Work around that and you'll come closer to an idea that fits the facts.

                          Comment


                          • Visitors who knocked wouldn't even expect the front parlour lights or bedroom lights to be on if they knocked. Neither room was even used, nobody would actually expect them to be in the front room unless they were playing music or had company. And the front door is solid, it has no glass which would show light.

                            If light would have shown they were never put on or they'd be seen by the delivery boys etc. still milling about.

                            This is why if that was a fear in a premeditated killing by William then they would have not been turned on to begin with.

                            Though of course if anyone would prefer to believe things happened in a certain way because it's mysterious etc. then that's cool. I'm not really that way inclined lol. I like answers... I remember reading threads on YoLiverpool I was sent by my friend from when books came out over the years like Gannons... And people were literally saying thank God it's not definitely solved... Some people legitimately don't want the case to ever be solved so they can maintain the mystery or keep speculating fine points... But I'm not like that lol.

                            I want to literally close the case and then probably I'd move onto Maddie McCann. This is like the greatest mystery ever and it would sadden me to solve like when a great TV series ends. But I'm gunning for the real answers despite that, I'm just that way inclined.

                            If I hired people who said the jacket was and could be used etc. I would have posted what they said here anyway. I'd never hold cards close to my chest etc. or hide things to make me look right... In Antony's book he says Murphy has edited the forensic statement, left out certain parts and made up paragraphs which aren't in the report.

                            That's why I refuse to read Murphy's book now. Because he's apparently quite literally making things up. The man is a complete liar and can't be trusted, disgraceful because at the time nobody else saw those files so trusted him. He should be ashamed.
                            Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 03-12-2020, 03:40 PM.

                            Comment


                            • You know what's strange about Julia's body position. If she was bending down from the chair (or just kneeling in that general area to do something with the fireplace) it doesn't make any sense because the gas valve as far as I can tell from advertisements would have been on the opposite side of the fireplace, which she would not be able to reach from there.

                              As it's a gas fire she doesn't need to stoke it or add wood etc. anything involving the fire requires only the gas valve and a match. The part you strike the match at may have been reachable.

                              If the valve is on the left I will be able to retract this entirely. Just one advert in a newspaper for the brand of fireplacd they owned showed a black knob looking thing on the right side.

                              The position of her body and the subsequent burning makes little sense. If she has fallen against the fire itself I think perhaps we might have seen at least some blood on the fireplace itself. We do not. I am not a forensic expert though so I will need to have this checked.

                              What if the burning isn't from the fireplace? I don't know what else it could be, at all, and the movement of the body to where it ended up is also quite unusual. But falling into the fire from the chair also doesn't make sense considering the distance and yet the position of her body when struck suggests something of that type of nature.

                              I also want clarification on the marks to the LEFT of the chair (the wall beside the sideboard) and how they got there. They are different markings to the "direct" blood impact we see in the classic parlour photo, and can only be seen in very high quality images of the other view (that shows the piano), which is why I took close ups.

                              The fact she is sitting in the armchair with the violin case across the arms suggests she was perched on the front, which probably implies she was not expecting to stay there very long. If she was expecting to spend a considerable time with someone while she sat in the chair, I feel she would move it so she could relax.

                              For an evening of music I expect she would light the fire and either then wait for the room to warm up while sitting in the living kitchen for a bit, or move to the piano rather than the armchair.

                              Sitting upon the armchair is suggestive of a visitor moreso.

                              The jacket WAS in the hallway we are told - I see no reason to distrust that. So it was most definitely taken into that room. But we know from more up to date forensics that its use by the assailant is extremely unlikely.

                              If the use of it as a shield is ruled out then it leaves only Florence's idea, on-the-spot quick thinking framing, the use of the jacket to douse flames, or the idea that Julia had brought it in to someone (which would suggest William). He would then get rid of all the clothing he was wearing of course, I should imagine gloves and socks would be removed immediately.

                              If OTHER items were successfully incinerated, perhaps there's a possibility they had slipped off the fire if it was on and the jacket caught from that.

                              Given the lack of defensive wounding DESPITE the blow being frontal, I expect it was extremely fast and she was struck before she even had time to react.

                              Can anyone think of anything OTHER than the fireplace that might have caused the burning? The precise movements of the body after the strike is very confounding. We can place her at the first strike (at least in the general area of that corner by the chair to the left of the fire), but the movement is incredibly difficult.

                              The followup blows definitely happened when Julia was roughly in her final resting position.

                              So it's:

                              1. Julia in or near the armchair to the left of the fire. Attacker in front of the fireplace. In other words in the classic parlour photo he's to the right more than she is.

                              2. Frontal strike likely with a longish instrument. Draper said the iron bar was kept beside the fireplace, which would be in easy reach of any attacker in that position. Keep that in mind.

                              3. [ Weird period in which burning and movement of the body occurs. Due to the photo quality literally not showing some blood marks (this was even mentioned on trial by McFall, that many didn't show up in the photos) they cannot help me with this much. ]

                              4. Julia in the position she was found in is struck several more times on the back(ish) of the head causing brain matter to be pushed out from the frontal wound in her head onto the rug.

                              5. The assailant removes his socks or shoes hence a lack of footprints. Though forensics suggested to me the feet may have been wiped there.

                              I find it difficult to imagine anyone being able to completely wipe all blood off of their feet on a rug or w.e., but the suggestion was made both at the time and by my modern analyst, and I must defer to expertise.

                              But of course either suggestion is a possibility still as both would lead to a lack of footprints.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
                                You should link your document again. I don't have that anymore. As I recall, moste's route given somewhat recently was the one William claimed to have taken. Not getting off at Menlove Gardens North.
                                Actually for the purpose of clarification. Leaving Penny Lane roundabout heading south , the tram , depending on which one your on, goes a couple or 3 stops then either branches left up Menlove Ave. Or branches right up Allerton rd. Travelling along Menlove Ave.the route Wallace took, After a few stops the tram would have a stop at Menlove Gds.west. Then, after a couple more stops it would arrive at Menlove Gds North. This is also the east end of Green Lane. The west end of Green Lane(Allerton Rd.) would have been where Wallace alighted a couple of years back I believe ,for his few visits to Mr. Crewes house. Consequently ,he could claim no knowledge of ‘the Gardens’
                                Interestingly though I think, for his visits with Julia over the years to Calderstones park, it would appear that the tramcar route most likely to have been used would in fact be the Menlove Gds. Route taking them past stops Menlove Gardens West and Menlove Gardens North.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X