Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Amy Wallace, was she involved?

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

  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
    The point of the name is either to trick William into believing he's received a call from a real client, OR to frame Marsden. The odds it is just random are incredible. That's why it's worse because it's already narrowed down the suspect pool and nothing's even happened yet.

    I’m sorry WWH but you are postulating a reason simply to knock it down. You simply state say the reason for the use of the name with any certainty. It might simply have been a name that William had seen (the shop) and it came to mind when he was looking for a memorable name. He wouldn’t have wanted to have said Johnson using a disguised voice only for Beattie to have heard it as Jameson.

    Parry was a known thief which is proven, and potentially a rapist too.

    But there’s a difference between trying to defraud the Pru and type of burglary being suggested. Potential rapist? I haven’t read the details for a while but the woman’s version was decidedly iffy.

    Caird is a stranger to Menlove Gardens too. He doesn't have a clue where it is, they just all think it's off of Menlove Avenue. William knows roughly the best way to get to Menlove Avenue. He wants help getting to the Gardens.

    On a tram that he’s used on numerous occasions.

    The board is absolutely not simple to read, if I show 10 people and literally not one single person can make heads or tails of it (specifically when people had failed to attend - basically everyone says they think the Xs are non-attendance) then it's beginning to seem likely it's not simple. How many people should I ask before it's obvious it's practically illegible? 100? And you actually think anyone is going to take notice of a person looking at a board in a café that has 100 visitors per day lol. Please tell me how many people looked at the adverts last time you used the tube, and which people those were?

    This board is simple. Are we saying that Parry could understand insurance and insurance policies but not cafe competition table? How can the x’s be non-attendance when every single player has one each?? What would be the chances of all players missing exactly one game each? Why would someone looking at it not get that chess requires 2 players and that 2 into 7 leaves a spare player? How many couldn’t suss that w=win, L=lost and d=drawn? I’m utterly staggered that anyone finds this board difficult. It tells an onlooker quite clearly that Wallace hadn’t played a match since playing Mr Lampitt on November 10th.

    I accept the point about how many people looked at the board though. It wasn’t anything that I put any weight on but if someone at the café who knew Parry and just happened to have seen him looking at the board and who’d read about the possible significance of that board? Who know?


    Julia's dead instantly, so what's the jacket doing in the fire if she's not wearing it? Are we meant to believe he's wearing it now? Or is he still shielding but waving it around the fire randomly now before pulling her out and away?

    The problem is trying to micro-manage the crime scene. We can’t possibly recreate exactly what went on. Who stood exactly where? Who was facing what way? Why they were in that position? What they were intending to do etc? But by doing this we can eliminate absolutely anything. I could easily, and perfectly legitimately, say: why would Julia have thrown the coat over her shoulders against the cold inside the house when she didn’t do the same when she’d actually gone outside of the house? How does that work?

    Julia might have been holding it when her killer struck and she fell with it onto the fire. There’s nothing impossible or even unlikely about this possible explanation. I’m not saying that it’s definitely correct but it’s possible. Maybe she was passing it to William when he struck the blow and she dropped it onto the fire?


    I don't necessarily know that the people would run away instantly. I know quite a few cases where this was not done because of overconsciousness about leaving evidence. Well - allegedly a bar and poker are missing from the house (I'm not sure they really are), why? Are these people paranoid about fingerprints? Did the one person not have gloves?

    Again, I’m not saying that they had to have left the second that the last blow was struck but, as there was no search or clean up combined with the sense of panic at how things had gone seriously pear-shaped, then immediately getting out of there would be the likeliest imo. Turning the lights off doesn’t achieve a single thing apart from waste time.

    There is some evidence as I said that someone stayed in the room loitering for a short while - I guess to prospect her wounds and see if she's really dead or something I don't know. The only other way around that is to say the floor was already littered with matches.

    But the matches could have come from any source. William stuck a match to light the room when he returned. The match probably went out so he struck another to light the gas. Often matches fizzle out straight away or you accidentally blow them out, so William alone might account for three matches. Julia wasn’t exactly OCD in her tidying up habits was she. A few matches dropped and not picked up aren’t really surprising.

    Why is his own wife going to be suspicious of him following her around? But no he's not. So she goes in there and presumably then she's lit the fire by herself is that what's happened? Or is she going to be terrified of her husband following her into the living room to set the room up for music? The fire takes time to heat up I've been told that's what I'm going by now... So it's been on for at least a short while or her body left in flames for at least a short while. If the thing about the fire is true then that's definite.

    Its been suggested in the past that William might have said to Julia “look, I’ve changed my mind about tonight. I’m not going. Shall we have a musical evening?” So naturally Julia lights the fire in the Parlour. It’s possible. As is the suggestion that she might have been intending on playing the piano when William was out. We just can’t know for certain when the fire was put on or why. We can only list possibilities. Anything that you or anyone else suggests is just as likely or unlikely as my own suggestions.

    So it's been on. What's she doing back down there? Regulating the gas? Turning it off (it would still be hot directly after turning it out)? Has she been hit with a non-concussive blow with perhaps a fist or just a strike that's too light and been sent crashing to the floor, and then struggled to get up when the fatal blow is struck? Why is she down there?

    Again WWH,we don’t know. It’s certainly frustrating but that’s life. I don’t think that she had to have been down there. She could have been struck when she was standing and she crumpled down onto against the fire? If we place to much emphasis on MacFall’s blood spatter scenario then we would have to ask, if she was kneeling near to the fire whilst regulating it when the killer struck why no blood spatter on the fire grate?

    Why is William waiting for her to go down there and do all this? She's hit on the front side of the head. Why not the back of her head as soon as she's knelt down. Isn't he racing against time? Hitting someone on that location is kind of bizarre by the way - when it comes to premeditation... Look at all cases of premeditated murder like this, it's really peculiar... A shot to the front implies moreso a momentary action - because generally people feel more confident to strike when the person is not looking at them. And look at the angle too... From the angle on the morgue photos where the giant gaping hole is... Well I'm thinking she's been down at the fireplace - apparently NOT lighting it because it's already on - so regulating the gas or something of that nature since the room is now warm. It's then as she's turned her head to the left, that someone standing there over her has struck downwards and you see then how it happens... How the direction of force matches her going into the fire, and the spray.

    Again I think we are in danger of over-thinking. If William was the killer (yes I know that you don’t) but before the murder he wouldn’t have been thinking “I’ll wait until she’s regulating the fire then I’ll speak so that she turns her head 100 degrees then I’ll strike with an arc of....” He intended to smash her over the head with something. Everything else are details that he’d have had little control over. More than a random killer of course (and that’s not for or against either) but not much.

    It cannot make sense in the way presented otherwise.

    Fair enough. There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing of course. All that I’d say WWH is that we can tie ourself up in knots trying to recreate exactly how the murder occurred but it’s unlikely in the extreme that we’re ever going to know. So basically someone hit Julia on the head more than once. Definitely in the Parlour. It’s likely that the body was moved (away from the fire) and that the burning of the mackintosh and the singeing of the skirt occurred in that room so there’s a high probability that they occurred pretty much simultaneously. Everything else is conjecture. Nothing wrong with conjecture of course.

    I try even to ignore the burning - think maybe it's been done on purpose for the PURPOSE of making me focus on it like this. I can't see any way these events could have happened - I don't care who did it, it doesn't make sense with what McFall says. He must just be completely wrong. It's impossible she falls into the fire from the chair unless the chair has been moved. She's facing the total opposite way.

    I think that MacFall was thinking of the blood spatter and nothing else. Why did the blood spatter on over the armchair have to have been from the first blow? Julia being killed whilst sitting in that armchair has never made sense to me. To be honest WWH it’s not something that I’ve though about much because I dismissed it (rightly or wrongly) early on. It doesn’t fit. I think that the first blow was struck in front of the fireplace somewhere. Standing, kneeling...who knows. Personally I go for...standing perhaps very slightly to the right of the fireplace. She turns to face the killer so she’s looking at the corner of the room that out of shot in the photo. Then a right-handed killer struck the left side of her head and she crumpled against the fire. The mackintosh is between her and the fire (perhaps she was holding it at the time?) In a couple of seconds the killer sees that the mackintosh is burning he pulls it away at puts out the smouldering then he sees smouldering coming from Julia’s skirt so he grabs Julia’s arm and pulls her into the position where she was found.

    Perhaps we should arrange a seance? Any good with a Ouija board WWH?

    Leave a comment:


  • WallaceWackedHer
    replied
    Originally posted by moste View Post
    Couple of things worthy of note I think. William may well have knocked reasonably loud on the front door and not been heard.Remember all of the terraced houses including the ones opposite , had the classic, front,’not used very often’,parlours.So people who were at home Were mostly occupying the middle kitchen/living room.Therefore, though William’s plan to be heard knocking may not have worked out quite as he intended, it was important to him to be seen exasperated by his failure to gain access ,but not vital, thus the double visits to the front and back of the house.What was vital , and actually handed him on a platter was the Johnstones leaving at just that moment, as I have mentioned before ,if necessary he would have summoned the Holmes people as witnesses of his plight.

    The trip out to Allerton for Wallace, and his return journey. Having wasted so much time reassuring himself that he was on a fools errand, he apparently finds himself on Green Ave, now he tells us he becomes familiar with his surroundings and knocks on his supervisors door,
    continuing on having had no reply, makes his way to what would have been a familiar route namely tram along Allerton rd. to Penny Lane transfer. One of the weaknesses for me with all this is , having numerous trips out to Allerton a couple of years back, for violin lessons at Crewe’s home, why did Wallace not call Crewe at the office during the day to explain his good fortune of what sounds like a lucrative insurance sale, and explain his dilemma of not knowing the area too well, as it happens Crewe would certainly have known of the Menlove Gardens, about 4 or 5 minutes walk away, and although Wallace would not know that ,would certainly have been adding to the feathers in his cap by showing initiative and how industrious he was, and so on. In fact the Prudential offices would certainly have had a map for anyone to consult,( addresses of customers being partly the name of the game) . Instead he wants us to believe, he wings it, on a hope and a prayer . Incidentally , notice he doesn’t leave a note at Crewe’s , to say he had called by etc.
    Yeah well exactly, is this what we're convicting a man based on, for being stupid? How many times have we ourselves probably done things very similar to this - it's just that we didn't come home to a dead wife to then have our stupidity made a big deal of.

    So you're saying people can't hear knocking on the front door, so in that case they won't hear the unknown visitor come? I'm not sure. I do think they're as likely to hear the visitor as they are to hear Wallace's own knocks on the front door. Now admittedly I live in semi-terraced housing and basically never hear anyone knock on my neighbours door...

    Crewe wouldn't have known where the place was anyway. Check his questioning on trial. Not that William could have KNOWN he wouldn't but still... It's evidently not an area of common knowledge.

    Cross-examined by Mr. Roland Oliver — Did you, as
    a matter of fact, know whether there was a Menlove
    Gardens East or not ? — Menlove Gardens are behind the
    main road, and I would suggest very few people, only
    those that reside in those Gardens, ever came through
    them.

    Just answer my question. Did you know whether there
    was such a place or not ? — No.
    People seem to have difficulty believing Wallace might be guilty but not have actually killed and/or called. Or that Parry is involved but did not actually kill Julia. I'm not sure why so many people have a hard time with those things. I could see Wallace being guilty but doing it all alone of course not... And I can certainly see Parry involved in some way even unwittingly - but committing the murder - of course not.

    For me I have no problem coming to terms with those things.

    I also have no problem coming to terms with the fact that he evidently cared about Julia at least until very recently before her death, suggesting that if he had killed her it had been a sudden event causing motive. I do not have issue in accepting this. I can see it by the diary entries, I'm not gonna do a Gannon and say that he rushed down to the police station worried sick about Julia and then realized that - because of her coming home late - it occurred to him he'd actually quite like for her to be dead.

    It's "Slay J" anagram tier stuff there.

    And people ALSO can't seem to understand that maybe a man who kills his wife might feel remorseful. Like apparently all the later diary entries are some con-job. Like it can't possibly be that even if he's guilty that he feels some remorse or has fond memories of the days before things turned bad?

    Man.........

    Obviously the best thing to do would be to stop trying to argue our point, but to actually work on figuring out some of the mysteries in the case. For example, the exact series of events leading up to her murder. What exactly is the point in arguing about lights when I LEGITIMATELY don't think it's valid (and another poster as well as my friend who used to post here don't see the significance in that) while another person apparently does. Like what's the point?

    Wouldn't we be better off say - trying to piece together the crime scene?

    As I have it, APPARENTLY the fire has to have been on for at least a little while in order for her skirt to be burned. If this is true, then for her to be down there AGAIN in that position to be hit, she had returned to regulate the gas after the room had warmed (perhaps for example she had put the fire on, left the room, then come back in after some time now it would be nice and toasty) or was simply regulating it in general... Or she's turning the fire out... Or she's been sent down there by some sort of act of aggression and the hit that we see killed her was done as she was attempting to get up.

    There is SOME reason why she is back down there again. And there is SOME WAY that jacket got burned although I'm extremely wary that it might have been done on purpose to confuse me.

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    Nothing unusual with Parry for example scrutinizing the notice board I don’t think , there were other items of interest on the board beside the chess league fixtures, for other patrons of the club/cafe.

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    Couple of things worthy of note I think. William may well have knocked reasonably loud on the front door and not been heard.Remember all of the terraced houses including the ones opposite , had the classic, front,’not used very often’,parlours.So people who were at home Were mostly occupying the middle kitchen/living room.Therefore, though William’s plan to be heard knocking may not have worked out quite as he intended, it was important to him to be seen exasperated by his failure to gain access ,but not vital, thus the double visits to the front and back of the house.What was vital , and actually handed him on a platter was the Johnstones leaving at just that moment, as I have mentioned before ,if necessary he would have summoned the Holmes people as witnesses of his plight.

    The trip out to Allerton for Wallace, and his return journey. Having wasted so much time reassuring himself that he was on a fools errand, he apparently finds himself on Green Ave, now he tells us he becomes familiar with his surroundings and knocks on his supervisors door,
    continuing on having had no reply, makes his way to what would have been a familiar route namely tram along Allerton rd. to Penny Lane transfer. One of the weaknesses for me with all this is , having numerous trips out to Allerton a couple of years back, for violin lessons at Crewe’s home, why did Wallace not call Crewe at the office during the day to explain his good fortune of what sounds like a lucrative insurance sale, and explain his dilemma of not knowing the area too well, as it happens Crewe would certainly have known of the Menlove Gardens, about 4 or 5 minutes walk away, and although Wallace would not know that ,would certainly have been adding to the feathers in his cap by showing initiative and how industrious he was, and so on. In fact the Prudential offices would certainly have had a map for anyone to consult,( addresses of customers being partly the name of the game) . Instead he wants us to believe, he wings it, on a hope and a prayer . Incidentally , notice he doesn’t leave a note at Crewe’s , to say he had called by etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • WallaceWackedHer
    replied
    The point of the name is either to trick William into believing he's received a call from a real client, OR to frame Marsden. The odds it is just random are incredible. That's why it's worse because it's already narrowed down the suspect pool and nothing's even happened yet.

    Parry was a known thief which is proven, and potentially a rapist too.

    Caird is a stranger to Menlove Gardens too. He doesn't have a clue where it is, they just all think it's off of Menlove Avenue. William knows roughly the best way to get to Menlove Avenue. He wants help getting to the Gardens.

    The board is absolutely not simple to read, if I show 10 people and literally not one single person can make heads or tails of it (specifically when people had failed to attend - basically everyone says they think the Xs are non-attendance) then it's beginning to seem likely it's not simple. How many people should I ask before it's obvious it's practically illegible? 100? And you actually think anyone is going to take notice of a person looking at a board in a café that has 100 visitors per day lol. Please tell me how many people looked at the adverts last time you used the tube, and which people those were?

    Julia's dead instantly, so what's the jacket doing in the fire if she's not wearing it? Are we meant to believe he's wearing it now? Or is he still shielding but waving it around the fire randomly now before pulling her out and away?

    I don't necessarily know that the people would run away instantly. I know quite a few cases where this was not done because of overconsciousness about leaving evidence. Well - allegedly a bar and poker are missing from the house (I'm not sure they really are), why? Are these people paranoid about fingerprints? Did the one person not have gloves?

    There is some evidence as I said that someone stayed in the room loitering for a short while - I guess to prospect her wounds and see if she's really dead or something I don't know. The only other way around that is to say the floor was already littered with matches.

    Why is his own wife going to be suspicious of him following her around? But no he's not. So she goes in there and presumably then she's lit the fire by herself is that what's happened? Or is she going to be terrified of her husband following her into the living room to set the room up for music? The fire takes time to heat up I've been told that's what I'm going by now... So it's been on for at least a short while or her body left in flames for at least a short while. If the thing about the fire is true then that's definite.

    So it's been on. What's she doing back down there? Regulating the gas? Turning it off (it would still be hot directly after turning it out)? Has she been hit with a non-concussive blow with perhaps a fist or just a strike that's too light and been sent crashing to the floor, and then struggled to get up when the fatal blow is struck? Why is she down there?

    Why is William waiting for her to go down there and do all this? She's hit on the front side of the head. Why not the back of her head as soon as she's knelt down. Isn't he racing against time? Hitting someone on that location is kind of bizarre by the way - when it comes to premeditation... Look at all cases of premeditated murder like this, it's really peculiar... A shot to the front implies moreso a momentary action - because generally people feel more confident to strike when the person is not looking at them. And look at the angle too... From the angle on the morgue photos where the giant gaping hole is... Well I'm thinking she's been down at the fireplace - apparently NOT lighting it because it's already on - so regulating the gas or something of that nature since the room is now warm. It's then as she's turned her head to the left, that someone standing there over her has struck downwards and you see then how it happens... How the direction of force matches her going into the fire, and the spray.

    It cannot make sense in the way presented otherwise.

    I try even to ignore the burning - think maybe it's been done on purpose for the PURPOSE of making me focus on it like this. I can't see any way these events could have happened - I don't care who did it, it doesn't make sense with what McFall says. He must just be completely wrong. It's impossible she falls into the fire from the chair unless the chair has been moved. She's facing the total opposite way.
    Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-20-2020, 01:02 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

    The middle bedroom had a window which they could see from where they were standing, from the yard the windows you see are the windows into the middle kitchen and middle bedroom.



    That's why I said if the burglars I named were involved, since they often climbed drainpipes, if they had done the same thing here they would enter the middle bedroom or bathroom windows, since those are the ones exposed from the yard.

    Julia wasn't sitting in a darkened house. If Wallace is the killer what he would have done is been all "don't worry I'll do the lamps dear" and let her go down to the fire... Well I mean why exactly he's doing this is anybody's guess. There are milk boys and more walking around outside, right past that window. You are telling me they need to put the lights out so nobody can see - but there are apparently lights on in there before he leaves on his journey and nobody sees them?

    He wouldn't put the lights on at all, not in the front room. Why he dawdled letting her go for the fireplace is bizarre in and of itself. Considering the way the Sunbeam gas fires worked, she's not just bending down and lighting it in half a second, why is he even waiting for her to put the fire on? Why isn't he just battering her? Is it already on? If it is are the lights not also on?

    Im missing something here? We can’t know the exact order of things or describe an exact scenario. If Julia had gone in there for something would William have been following her like a shadow making her suspicious? Maybe he hadn’t intended to kill her in the Parlour but she went in there after the Close had left and William was waiting for her in the kitchen?(maybe she intended to play the piano while William was out?)

    That no one saw the lights on is irrelevant as no one was looking for them. If any light would have been left on it would have been the hall one. But it was off.

    We can’t really say “well this must have happened so this is impossible” if there are reasonable alternative explanations. It’s overwhelmingly likely that after the murder, which was totally unplanned, the intruder(s) would have scarpered via the backdoor. Piddling about turning off lights would have been a complete waste of time and effort. There’s not a single benefit for anyone but an over cautious William.


    The window of opportunity for another killer is enough. It's so unnecessary to be out for all this length of time. Say he goes to Sefton Park, okay, while he's there having obviously been fooled, he decides he might as well visit Amy. Oh there goes some more time. Do you realize how awful of a plan the fake address is? I would say fake name but we know it's a real one - used to either implicate Marsden or used by Marsden/someone associated with him. Which actually makes it even WORSE.

    I just don’t get this. You keep saying it’s an awful plan. Why? And if it’s an awful plan for Wallace why isn’t it an awful plan for Parry? He’s simply placing as much time between him leaving and returning as possible. We know that TOD estimation is fraught with the possibility for error. Maybe he was hoping that MacFall would have said “it’s my opinion that Mrs Wallace died somewhere between 7.15 and 8.30.” Wouldn't this at least have been in his favour? This isn’t an awful plan. It’s just a plan thought up by a fallible human being.

    How does the name make it worse? You’re exaggerating I’m afraid. Qualtrough was Marsden’s customer. Would Wallace have been expected to have known all of the Pru’s customers? or even any of Marsden’s? Of course not. And if Marsden was involved, as you suggest, is Parry going to be so monumentally stupid as to use such a very unusual name that could have been linked to Marsden (who was also likely to have been interviewed by the police)


    This is riskier than smashing his wife's head in and relying on making megaaaa tight timings just to barely convince people he couldn't have done it? That's riskier than poisoning her and shoving her down the stairs or something? There are infinite better ways this could have been done.

    I don’t see how. An unexpected blow on the head with a heavy object is simple. A bar to the head wouldn’t be heard by anyone except Wallace. Julia wouldn’t have had time to cry out. She’d have been overwhelmingly likely to be dead or unconscious after the first blow, easy to apply more if needed. No risk at all as long as you manage the blood contamination. As I said, you can survive a fall down the stairs or things can go wrong with a poisoning. A frail 70 year old woman isn’t surviving a blow with a heavy instrument. Simples.

    I'm not even sure the address is fake on purpose.

    I wouldn't have seen he hadn't been the last 4 times, it is complete gibberish to me until you explained it and only now do I understand it - and still some of the boxes have basically MANDARIN in them, like not even legible numbers or letters. I have showed several people now. Anybody glancing at the board briefly is seeing he's meant to go on that day.

    And I still say that the board is simple to read. Perhaps Parry was lucky that no one saw him reading a chess notice and mentioned it later on

    What exactly is SOOOOOO important about the fact that it works? Aren't these people breaking into 30 homes per month? It might be a nice little bonus but I doubt their lives would have ended if it didn't work out for them.

    I don’t understand this point. Who are these people? Parry wasn’t a Housebreaker. Marsden wasn’t a Housebreaker. In fact we only have William’s word that he’d ever done anything wrong. Strange how much of this case relies on William’s word.

    If he was banging and yelling at the doors I'd think it's a hint of guilt, trying to get a neighbour to notice him there struggling and come out to help like in that TV drama. Not go front back front back game over. Wasn't it like 1 minute tops? So 1 minute with his pillow-fisted knocks hoping someone just might on the off chance peer out of the window and see him in the dark there randomly?

    Yes.

    What advice of his friend did he ignore? Caird gave a crap route, Queen's Drive lol, that's way further out. He knows where Menlove Avenue the moment Beattie said "Menlove Gardens" he said "is it Menlove Avenue?", and told Caird in detail how he planned to get to the general area - where he would then make inquiries.

    It might have been crap advice to you but William was a ‘complete stranger’ in the area.

    It would have been a bit of a disaster yes if he had got out at the top of Menlove Avenue and then asked someone only just then and got told it's a good 5 minute tram ride further down the road. Good thing he asked. Maybe he asked one tram too early but I'm not sure - because the final tram, like buses nowadays I would think perhaps some take turns or different routes or miss certain stops, so I would indeed definitely want to know the tram I was getting on last would take me to my destination.
    We have a good general idea of William’s character I’d say and I’d expect you’d agree. Reserved, cautious, by-the-book, sensible?

    So I’ll ask, to have very, very simply avoided all of this rigmarole, why didn’t he simply check a directory or even a map before he left? And why, when going to an area in which he was allegedly unfamiliar (and you’ve admitted that it was a large area) didn’t he catch an earlier tram? Why did he arrive with a mere 10 minutes to find the address in time for his appointment? Perhaps something delayed him



    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 02-20-2020, 12:33 AM. Reason: Forgot something

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    The middle bedroom had a window which they could see from where they were standing, from the yard the windows you see are the windows into the middle kitchen and middle bedroom.
    And this is why I never became an architect. I’m crap at 3D stuff which, for an alleged artist, isn’t good.

    Cheers WWH

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    https://liberalhistory.org.uk/wp-con...d_Hemmerde.pdf

    An article I’ve just found on Hemmerde. I haven’t read it yet though but there appears to be no mention of the Wallace case.

    Leave a comment:


  • WallaceWackedHer
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post


    I just read in Rowland that Hemmerde said that the Johnston’s saw a light go on in the middle bedroom before they’d seen a light in the lab. How? This was a terraced house. The middle bedroom had no windows.


    The middle bedroom had a window which they could see from where they were standing, from the yard the windows you see are the windows into the middle kitchen and middle bedroom.



    That's why I said if the burglars I named were involved, since they often climbed drainpipes, if they had done the same thing here they would enter the middle bedroom or bathroom windows, since those are the ones exposed from the yard.

    Julia wasn't sitting in a darkened house. If Wallace is the killer what he would have done is been all "don't worry I'll do the lamps dear" and let her go down to the fire... Well I mean why exactly he's doing this is anybody's guess. There are milk boys and more walking around outside, right past that window. You are telling me they need to put the lights out so nobody can see - but there are apparently lights on in there before he leaves on his journey and nobody sees them?

    He wouldn't put the lights on at all, not in the front room. Why he dawdled letting her go for the fireplace is bizarre in and of itself. Considering the way the Sunbeam gas fires worked, she's not just bending down and lighting it in half a second, why is he even waiting for her to put the fire on? Why isn't he just battering her? Is it already on? If it is are the lights not also on?

    The window of opportunity for another killer is enough. It's so unnecessary to be out for all this length of time. Say he goes to Sefton Park, okay, while he's there having obviously been fooled, he decides he might as well visit Amy. Oh there goes some more time. Do you realize how awful of a plan the fake address is? I would say fake name but we know it's a real one - used to either implicate Marsden or used by Marsden/someone associated with him. Which actually makes it even WORSE.

    This is riskier than smashing his wife's head in and relying on making megaaaa tight timings just to barely convince people he couldn't have done it? That's riskier than poisoning her and shoving her down the stairs or something? There are infinite better ways this could have been done.

    I'm not even sure the address is fake on purpose.

    I wouldn't have seen he hadn't been the last 4 times, it is complete gibberish to me until you explained it and only now do I understand it - and still some of the boxes have basically MANDARIN in them, like not even legible numbers or letters. I have showed several people now. Anybody glancing at the board briefly is seeing he's meant to go on that day.

    What exactly is SOOOOOO important about the fact that it works? Aren't these people breaking into 30 homes per month? It might be a nice little bonus but I doubt their lives would have ended if it didn't work out for them.

    If he was banging and yelling at the doors I'd think it's a hint of guilt, trying to get a neighbour to notice him there struggling and come out to help like in that TV drama. Not go front back front back game over. Wasn't it like 1 minute tops? So 1 minute with his pillow-fisted knocks hoping someone just might on the off chance peer out of the window and see him in the dark there randomly?

    What advice of his friend did he ignore? Caird gave a crap route, Queen's Drive lol, that's way further out. He knows where Menlove Avenue is, the moment Beattie said "Menlove Gardens" he said "is it Menlove Avenue?", and told Caird in detail how he planned to get to the general area - where he would then make inquiries.

    It would have been a bit of a disaster yes if he had got out at the top of Menlove Avenue and then asked someone only just then and got told it's a good 5 minute tram ride further down the road. Good thing he asked. Maybe he asked one tram too early but I'm not sure - because the final tram, like buses nowadays I would think perhaps some take turns or different routes or miss certain stops, so I would indeed definitely want to know the tram I was getting on last would take me to my destination.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
    If you manage to find that quote and it's a reputable one I'll add it for sure. I do feel Wallace is the man of the relationship (well - he literally is as well lol).

    Parry is linked by many things:

    1. Knows Wallace attends the chess club at the café.

    But he couldn’t have known that Wallace would attend on that particular Monday. And if he’d read the notice board he’d have seen that Wallace had his last 4 matches hadn’t been played which points to Wallace being an irregular attender.

    2. Attends the café himself so is able to see the dates when Wallace is due to be there.

    Would someone plan something this important almost on the off-chance?

    3. He is one of the only people who knows the location of the cash box.

    Like on other matters we only have Wallace’s word for this. Yes, he’d visited the house several times and he’d handed money over when he’d filled in for Wallace when he was ill. But, as is usually stated, a visitor would have been in the Parlour whilst the cash box was in the kitchen. So it’s not certain that he knew where the ash box was. We also know that Wallace was cautious with the money so might he not have been reluctant to show anyone where he’d kept it?

    4. He knows Wallace's address and is intimate with the interior of the home.

    Knowledge of the interior of the house is hardly important. Burglars break into strange houses. The only benefit that he might have gained was the location of the box but again we only have Wallace’s word that he was aware of this.

    5. The timing he arrived at Lily Lloyd's fits for him being the caller.

    It allows for the possibility. It doesn’t point toward it.

    6. He lied about his whereabouts in regards to the time the call came through.

    We disagree on possibilities on this one but yes his alibi was certainly not an alibi.

    7. He is one of the only people (allegedly) who would be admitted by Julia - not that he was in this case, as he was off doing something else.

    Ok

    8. He knows the Prudential collection days are on Wednesdays.

    Accepted.

    9. There is an eyewitness testimony that he practically admitted to involvement in the crime.

    Yes, Hans Christian Parkes

    10. There is first hand testimony from his girlfriend that she lied about the time he arrived at her home on the night of the murder.

    After the event statements after a break-up need to be taken with a hefty pinch of salt imo.

    11. There is testimony that his parents had begged friends for help to keep Parry out of trouble (though even if he's innocent they might not have believed him).

    But he’d been exonerated by the police so why would they have needed to do this?

    By the way WWH I can’t recall where this is written, which book was it (I’m assuming Goodman or Wilkes?) do you know the page location as I’d like to re-read it to refresh my memory.

    12. He has a local accent as reported by telephone operators.

    Even I can do a passable Scouse accent. Wallace had lived there for 16 years surrounded by the accent.

    13. Was hard up for cash at the time, and a known thief.

    Do we know for a fact that he was hard up at the time or was this just a rumour? I can’t recall any evidence for this though I could be wrong.

    ---

    Even if he wasn't mentioned as a suspect, if anyone encountered all of the above they would consider him suspicious.

    But after they’d discovered his rock solid alibi for the time of the murder and that his movements on the Tuesday evening made it close to impossible that he could have played any part that nights events he would have been eliminated as there’s not a shred of evidence for his involvement.

    ---

    We can't place anyone else at the scene, because if anyone HAD given an account that someone else had been there then THEY (the person fingered as having been there) would be the ones standing in the dock of course.

    ---

    According to William Julia convinced him to go on the trip. According to Amy he told her about this trip. He explains why he was thorough in his memoirs (I recently put these on my site), whether you choose to believe the explanation or not - and displayed the exact same over-inquiring behaviour when searching for a specific pair of boots ("K-Boots") at another time. He is NOT a stranger to specific parts of Mossley Hill/Allerton including Moscow Drive, Green Lane, Calderstones Park (which does border Menlove Avenue), and the Plaza Cinema which he has been into once - he is a stranger to the back and side streets and the rest of the area etc. by and large. Menlove Avenue is over 2 miles long - a 40 minute walk, the Gardens could be anywhere along there.

    Its perhaps telling that you mention that Menlove Avenue is a 40 minute walk. The unknown MGE could have been anywhere in that rough area according to the ‘stranger’ William. I think then that a massive and very pertinent question is.....why did William arrive leaving himself a mere 10 minutes to find the address?!

    It is literally straight up untrue the lights being out benefit only him, the lights never going on to begin with does though. Nobody heard William knocking on the front door on his return, nobody heard Julia being beat down in the parlour. The only report of sound we have is the thuds heard by the Johnstons coming from the Parlour. The Holmes heard a "body fall" but it is impossible this was the case because it was before the door closed on Alan and Alan claims he saw Julia when she came back to the door to hand back the jugs.

    Why would the lights have been out in the first place?? Julia sits in a darkened house? Answers the door via a darkened hallway? Invites a visitor in to sit in a dark house? So the lights had to be turned off after the murder. This is common sense. A burglar killing Julia unexpectedly and in panic (because she’d heard the robbery - and so the cash box had already been emptied) would have left straight away and via the backdoor into the dark alleyway. Turning off the lights would have been a completely pointless waste of time. There’s not a single benefit for them.

    Im not suggesting that the fact that no-one heard anyone at the door is a killer point but it’s one worth mentioning. The Holme’s heard Close knocking at the front door after all. So our conman was lucky in that he knocks the door and stands there talking to Julia explaining himself for what? 30 seconds? A minute? It only needed one person to look out of a window from a house opposite (in such a narrow street) or some bloke off to the pub or some kids on their way home.


    He knows how to get to Menlove Avenue roughly, if not definitely. But not Menlove Gardens hence why he was asking his friends at the club. He believes it is probably somewhere off of Menlove Avenue owing to advice from the chess club. He took the tram which stopped directly outside of the Gardens and I'm not sure if all of the others made that stop.

    But if he was a stranger why did he ignore the advice of two people. One of whom was his best friend?

    You can't convict a man on idiotic behaviour and statistics, which is what he is convicted on, essentially. That he was foolish. The single piece of evidence against him is the jacket - and it's only reasonable evidence against him in two instances:

    1. He was wearing it.

    2. When he first hit Julia she did not die immediately, and sort of dragged his jacket off of him with her.

    If he wanted a shield he would have used any other thing in the house apart from his own jacket. I DON'T think that's a mistake someone can make unless they're VERY VERY VERY stupid.

    Its not. It has even been suggested that the killer (other than William) might have used it. The defence might even have said that the killer had used it to implicate William. If we knew for absolute certain that the iron bar was the weapon would that definitely make William guilty because it was his iron bar? No.

    Literally the entirety of the rest of the case is circumstantial and considering him guilty purely due to the fact he did dumb as hell things.

    Its a mountain more than Parry I’m afraid, for whom a large part of the suspicion about him is down to Wallace.

    If he wanted to pretend he couldn't get into his house he would have done it like that nonsensically inaccurate TV drama I uploaded on YouTube, he would have made a fuss to actually draw the neighbours out. Not knock so gently that nobody hears him there. What happens if nobody comes out? He would be doing it to rouse attention to gain a witness if he was play acting, there isn't any other reason to do so.

    We might also say that if he was genuine why wasn’t he banging loudly and yelling loud enough to wake the street? I’m not suggesting that Wallace was expecting anyone to emerge but it would have benefitted him if someone across the road had seen him trying to get in. Although Wallace tried to disassociate himself from the idea he had to admit to thinking at the time that someone was inside the house. So he was trying to give this impression. But does William strike anyone as the hero type? A dangerous intruder inside? I’m 6’2” and 19 stone and I’d ask my mate to accompany me inside if I’d been Wallace. Why didn’t he? Maybe he had something to do?

    The same with the plan, which is completely unnecessary in so many aspects. Not only were there far easier ways to dispose of his wife, but the entire story itself is unnecessary. Nonexistent name? Pointless. Nonexistent address? Pointless. Asking 10000 people? Pointless. The ONLY thing he has to do to get away with the crime (and he would have, if guilty, and he did this) is to make up a more normal name and real address farther away from home... Perhaps cause a scene """accidentally""" on one of the first trams, I can really think of so many ways this could be done it's trivial. Talk to nobody else except the people at the house where the appointment is. Come home.

    Not so. An existing address but with a non-existent householder means that he has to come straight back. He’s creating a bigger window of opportunity for another killer. He’s also trying to give the impression that he’s genuinely searching for an address.

    That's it. He did that and he's got away with it.

    I think that he did get away with it, yes.

    Even easier, poison her and push her down the stairs before going out on his trip, come home and oh no what a horrible accident!

    Pushing her downstairs gives him less control. What if she’d survived it? What if she’d screamed out? No chance with an unexpected blow to the head with a lump of iron. He might have been a bit paranoid about the use of poison. Seeing the lab might have caused unwanted attention. Poisoners have been caught out of course.

    ---

    Yes the man is a bit foolish, and he is definitely a little OCD and/or autistic (I literally mean this in the actual true sense so I better not get a warning for this - the guy lists his height weight age, hat jacket and glove size in every diary. That's not normal.

    For me there’s far too much to write down to eccentricity.

    If he killed her I want to know what event happened between December and January 21st, because in December he was not planning to kill her. Gannon had to suggest that him worrying about her being gone made him realize he actually would have preferred if she had died - which is a bit of a silly statement to make lol.

    A man writing a diary, in an unhappy marriage, might have been thinking of murder months in advance. Maybe a year or two but he never really felt that he’d ever go through with it. But as time goes on and things seem even more depressing....who knows?

    And he’s hardly likely to have entered:

    December 24th - ”Another Christmas with that horrible woman. God I wish she was dead!”


    I just read in Rowland that Hemmerde said that the Johnston’s saw a light go on in the middle bedroom before they’d seen a light in the lab. How? This was a terraced house. The middle bedroom had no windows.



    Leave a comment:


  • WallaceWackedHer
    replied
    If you manage to find that quote and it's a reputable one I'll add it for sure. I do feel Wallace is the man of the relationship (well - he literally is as well lol).

    Parry is linked by many things:

    1. Knows Wallace attends the chess club at the café.

    2. Attends the café himself so is able to see the dates when Wallace is due to be there.

    3. He is one of the only people who knows the location of the cash box.

    4. He knows Wallace's address and is intimate with the interior of the home.

    5. The timing he arrived at Lily Lloyd's fits for him being the caller.

    6. He lied about his whereabouts in regards to the time the call came through.

    7. He is one of the only people (allegedly) who would be admitted by Julia - not that he was in this case, as he was off doing something else.

    8. He knows the Prudential collection days are on Wednesdays.

    9. There is an eyewitness testimony that he practically admitted to involvement in the crime.

    10. There is first hand testimony from his girlfriend that she lied about the time he arrived at her home on the night of the murder.

    11. There is testimony that his parents had begged friends for help to keep Parry out of trouble (though even if he's innocent they might not have believed him).

    12. He has a local accent as reported by telephone operators.

    13. Was hard up for cash at the time, and a known thief.

    ---

    Even if he wasn't mentioned as a suspect, if anyone encountered all of the above they would consider him suspicious.

    ---

    We can't place anyone else at the scene, because if anyone HAD given an account that someone else had been there then THEY (the person fingered as having been there) would be the ones standing in the dock of course.

    ---

    According to William Julia convinced him to go on the trip. According to Amy he told her about this trip. He explains why he was thorough in his memoirs (I recently put these on my site), whether you choose to believe the explanation or not - and displayed the exact same over-inquiring behaviour when searching for a specific pair of boots ("K-Boots") at another time. He is NOT a stranger to specific parts of Mossley Hill/Allerton including Moscow Drive, Green Lane, Calderstones Park (which does border Menlove Avenue), and the Plaza Cinema which he has been into once - he is a stranger to the back and side streets and the rest of the area etc. by and large. Menlove Avenue is over 2 miles long - a 40 minute walk, the Gardens could be anywhere along there.

    It is literally straight up untrue the lights being out benefit only him, the lights never going on to begin with does though. Nobody heard William knocking on the front door on his return, nobody heard Julia being beat down in the parlour. The only report of sound we have is the thuds heard by the Johnstons coming from the Parlour. The Holmes heard a "body fall" but it is impossible this was the case because it was before the door closed on Alan and Alan claims he saw Julia when she came back to the door to hand back the jugs.

    He knows how to get to Menlove Avenue roughly, if not definitely. But not Menlove Gardens hence why he was asking his friends at the club. He believes it is probably somewhere off of Menlove Avenue owing to advice from the chess club. He took the tram which stopped directly outside of the Gardens and I'm not sure if all of the others made that stop.

    You can't convict a man on idiotic behaviour and statistics, which is what he is convicted on, essentially. That he was foolish. The single piece of evidence against him is the jacket - and it's only reasonable evidence against him in two instances:

    1. He was wearing it.

    2. When he first hit Julia she did not die immediately, and sort of dragged his jacket off of him with her.

    If he wanted a shield he would have used any other thing in the house apart from his own jacket. I DON'T think that's a mistake someone can make unless they're VERY VERY VERY stupid.

    Literally the entirety of the rest of the case is circumstantial and considering him guilty purely due to the fact he did dumb as hell things.

    If he wanted to pretend he couldn't get into his house he would have done it like that nonsensically inaccurate TV drama I uploaded on YouTube, he would have made a fuss to actually draw the neighbours out. Not knock so gently that nobody hears him there. What happens if nobody comes out? He would be doing it to rouse attention to gain a witness if he was play acting, there isn't any other reason to do so.

    The same with the plan, which is completely unnecessary in so many aspects. Not only were there far easier ways to dispose of his wife, but the entire story itself is unnecessary. Nonexistent name? Pointless. Nonexistent address? Pointless. Asking 10000 people? Pointless. The ONLY thing he has to do to get away with the crime (and he would have, if guilty, and he did this) is to make up a more normal name and real address farther away from home... Perhaps cause a scene """accidentally""" on one of the first trams, I can really think of so many ways this could be done it's trivial. Talk to nobody else except the people at the house where the appointment is. Come home.

    That's it. He did that and he's got away with it.

    Even easier, poison her and push her down the stairs before going out on his trip, come home and oh no what a horrible accident!

    ---

    Yes the man is a bit foolish, and he is definitely a little OCD and/or autistic (I literally mean this in the actual true sense so I better not get a warning for this - the guy lists his height weight age, hat jacket and glove size in every diary. That's not normal.

    If he killed her I want to know what event happened between December and January 21st, because in December he was not planning to kill her. Gannon had to suggest that him worrying about her being gone made him realize he actually would have preferred if she had died - which is a bit of a silly statement to make lol.
    Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-19-2020, 07:32 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    I intend to re-read all of the books soon but I know for a fact that I’ve read somewhere that Amy complained that William treated Julia like the ‘little woman.’ I just can’t recall where I read it though.

    Were never going to agree on this but there’s a mountain of things pointing us toward William and to discount him we have to keep coming up with excuses and justifications.

    For example it’s ‘assumed’ that the Wallace’s were happy and those that would have seen them at closer quarters and not in more formal ‘best behaviour’ scenarios like Curwen and Wilson are dismissed as irrelevant. What I’d like to see is a proper list (with actually quotes) of the ‘everybody’ that said they were happy. We are simply expected to believe this but who do we really have? Sarah Draper for example said that they seemed to get on ok but she turned up once a week and probably only saw William and Julia together for the hour or so of William’s lunch break (when she would undoubtedly have been working in some other part of the house.) The Johnston’s had been in the house three times but the only time that the Wallace’s were actually together Julia was dead. Wallace was out at work all day. Caird was William’s best friend and would have visited the house occasionally where it’s quite possible that William and Julia might have put on a front. Amy, again an occasional visitor, probably during the day when William was at work. Yes they occasionally visited her house but you don’t normally go visiting whilst having a row.

    William is the only suspect that can be placed at the scene for a start.

    We have statistics pointing to William.

    We have him being entirely up suspicious about this absolutely strange, out of the blue call (why did he want William in particular above every other Pru agent, why was in such a rush to see William, how did he know that he was a chess club member, how did he know that he’d be there on that Monday?) So we say that Wallace was on the scent of a potentially lucrative commission - ok, so lucrative that on the Monday evening he’d told Caird that he hadn’t made his mind up to go (he’d have known of the possibilities on the Monday just as well as the tuesday.)

    Then we have to suspend belief about William’s extraordinary behaviour on the journey. His provable lie about being a complete stranger to an area that he’d visited numerous times and using the same tram. The fact that this stranger is given 2 pieces of advice on how to get to where he has to go and yet he ignores both.

    Then we have to ignore his remarkable bloody mindedness in searching for a commission that he wasn’t too bothered about just 24 hours before. He ignores everyone (including a Constable on his beat) who tells him that the address doesn’t exist. Then he becomes worried about Julia! I’d have thought that he’d have been worried after Green and Mather?

    Then, worried about his wife and taking a more unfamiliar route, no one hears a word from him. He’s suddenly confident.

    Then we have the dodgy doors. Witnesses who tell us that the front door wasn’t bolted but Wallace said that it was.

    We have the lights turned out which would have benefitted no one except possibly William.

    We have the most unlikely robbery scene.

    We have no one seeing or hearing anyone knocking and talking to Julia on the front door step.

    We have no cogent explanation for the presence of the mackintosh except that it was used by William. Then, coincidentally, William suggests the very same thing after he’s exonerated.

    We have no blood outside the Parlour which tends to point us toward some level of caution which would have been irrelevant to anyone but William.

    Now, even after all of this, and much more I’m still not saying it’s game over. Just that William is the most likely murderer and, imho by a considerable distance.

    ~~~

    We also might ask why we mention Richard Gordon Parry in respect to the case?

    We know that he wasn’t the murderer and the time available make it close to impossible that he could even have played any role in the evenings events.

    He was initially suspected only due to Wallace introducing his name.

    Then he gets a mention from Hans Christian Parkes (not the most believable of witnesses?)

    He appears to fit the bill as the phone caller but there’s no more evidence that he was than there is for William.

    He gives a definitely dodgy alibi for Monday night.


    ~~~

    Now compare the two. Parry links are tenuous at best. I believe that it’s more a case of types. Parry appears to be the type and William doesn’t.

    Did anyone think of Crippen as a potential murderer?




    Leave a comment:


  • WallaceWackedHer
    replied
    Originally posted by Ven View Post
    Looks like I missed all the fun... although Herlock had a good point in having his doc commented on, which wasn't necessary, just post it as is and let the reader decide.
    I already explained to him and he now understands that the article was not meant to be published or viewable by anyone, I don't know how he even saw it as it was a draft copy. I intended not to publish it until I got his permission on the entire thing. You can see it is a draft even because like, 50% of it wasn't even formatted yet. I also have draft entires on Gordon and William, essentially explaining their background etc. which I need to finish.

    But you understand I can't though, in good faith, publish parts where I know for certain the facts are wrong. For example as far as I know I've not ever seen it in any book or anywhere that Amy was critical of how William spoke to Julia. She was actually rather the opposite, very much a William fan-girl. She berated Julia for being unladylike by helping William with insurance business.

    And furthermore like I said I would literally, not even joking, appreciate VERY much a critique of my own article - just post some long thing in the comments. I'll approve it and reply, you can call me retarded or w.e. like, don't feel stifled to speak freely on any of my sites. I don't think you're allowed to call me names here but that's not my decision, personally I'm fine with it.

    Most of the case against William actually rests on his own suspicion actions rather than evidence. Apart from his jacket there is really not anything. The rest is just like, he was stupid enough to fall for a trick, asked for directions to a place in a district he knew - but only knew parts of (like I'm sure there are towns near you where you know specific parts but not all the side streets).

    If he just went to 25 Menlove Gardens West, knocked, and came home, he wouldn't even have been arrested in my opinion. It is literally the fact that people look at how bizarre and seemingly unnatural he is behaving and base a conclusion on that.

    For him to be entirely innocent it requires a set of coincidences for absolute sure - and maybe he's just an idiot (or been an idiot unfortunately around that time)? But there were definitely easier ways to get away with murder. Honestly... But like I said look how many killers are totally stupid and drop themselves in it...

    The age motive is sort of contradicted by his diary entry regarding the play:

    20 March 1929: Listened to ‘The Master Builder’ by Ibsen. This is a fine thing, and shows clearly how a man may build up a fine career, and as the world has it, be a great success, and yet in his own mind feels that he has been an utter failure, and how ghastly a mistake he has made to sacrifice love, and the deeper comforts of life in order to achieve success. Curious that Julia did not seem to appreciate this play! I feel sure she did not grasp the inner significance and real meaning of the play.
    It says nothing about age there, but the play is about a man who's obsessed with his career to the point of ignoring the more important things in life. He specifically says in it, that he feels "chained to his corpse of a wife", and so marries a younger woman instead... This younger woman encourages him to climb a tower which is what made her first fall for him when she was still a little girl - but this time he climbs the tower and falls to his death... So in being critical of the actions of this character, it would tend to lead us away from such a motive.

    We also have diary entries VERY close to the murder which are corroborated as being real - like when his wife got home at about 1:30 AM or something due to a train accident. He had gone to the police station distressed, and Julia relayed the tale to his colleague Albert Wood. This was only a few weeks before her death... So to me it would seem like something happened within those few weeks that suddenly brought about the motive...

    Doing it alone as well... Well, if you understand that I am positive that another man made the call, then you understand the simple SOLE reason why I put "solo Wallace" so low as an idea. I CAN'T put it higher because I am essentially certain he did not place the telephone call - for a number of reasons. Also because I don't think John Parkes is outright lying. I think he's being truthful... And if a complete layman was to hear all of this they would probably say "obviously Wallace killed his wife and Parry cleaned up the mess".

    ---

    The neighbours did not hear him knock on his own front door either. They heard him knock on the back but not the front. They also didn't hear Julia being battered and falling into the fireplace etc. unless the noises at 20:30ish the Johnstons claimed to have heard (thuds) was the killing.

    I also think they might have been threatened... Just based on the way they ran away the next day. It could be that they were traumatized, but also potentially afraid. I think they might know something. Not for sure - but I think they might.
    Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-19-2020, 03:33 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ven
    replied
    From all the evidence, I don't see any proof that 1 or up to 5 people were involved.
    No blood anywhere else in the house... minimal blood in parlour.. only in one corner... some sort of shield must have been used
    No full robbery
    No hearing of knocks after 6.45 by neighbours
    Williams weird demeanour on trams to a place/region he knew quite well
    If William had an accomplice to do the deed he would have left from the front door with the milk boy
    Why would William get an accomplice to make the phone call (only).. too risky
    Who grabs a jacket from the entry hall as an afterthought to murder someone? And the uses an object from the room?

    This is why I think William did it on his own.

    Although I do like the cat theory... someone came on the night saying "Is this your lost cat"....but then any theory could be ok...wandering ninjas!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Ven
    replied
    great website WWH, however, your arguments are all over the place, its hard to keep up. I published my doc and have had no response as to whether my points were invalid. I would be interested in in any response, keeping in mind that Amy does not need to be involved to still make William the only culprit.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X