No announcement yet.

Amy Wallace, was she involved?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Here's a new clue for you... Julia's own box of matches seems very out of place.

    They're found on the table at the very back right of the room in the main "famous" crime scene photo of the parlour. There are two tables in that corner/side of the room, both have plants on them... Julia's matches are on the table at the farthest back.

    What I want to know is... She's lit the lamp, right, then the fireplace, then sat in the armchair. What are her matches doing over there? Florence found them in this position.

    Who put them there? Did William find them first and place them there?

    He likely had his own box as when William entered the house he lit the kitchen, and lit a match in the threshold of the door, then the lamp on the right side of the mirror above the fireplace.

    If Julia's been battered to death by the fireplace how have her matches teleported over there? If she put them there herself why? Why would you get up from lighting the fire then go put the box of matches on the opposite side of the room then go back to the armchair to the left of the fire?

    Has someone else been using them? Did people back then keep their box in their pockets? I imagine they might as there's no electric switches and you'd want to be able to see when walking into a pitch black room. You'd probably need them a lot at night wouldn't you? So I wonder if they did.

    The cushions on the lounger couch make it seem it was sat on. But could have been an officer who did that.

    If so, wouldn't Julia put them back in her pocket after she's done lighting the fire and lamp? Then has the killer taken them out of her pocket? If her skirt is twisted and had a pocket and the match box is in there is this why it's twisted?

    Why does the person need matches if they aren't going to light any more lights unless it's to illuminate the way as they move in darkness?

    I am not sure. I think just this has been overlooked and needs mentioning for consideration.
    Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 04-20-2020, 07:35 PM.


    • Disregard the above it's another false fact. What is up with literally everyone even witnesses ******* up their own testimony?

      Gannon claims she said originally in her original statement that she asked if it was HIS box of matches and he said yes, then just said something different on trial. Their placement matches with him having lit the lamp on the right of the mirror, because Julia's on the left I presumed if she'd set up the parlour they'd be in her pocket or on the left sideboard.

      It's just unreal, not only do we have a century of rumours (often perpetuated in books) but also basically every witness themselves saying about 20 completely different mutually exclusive things.

      Beattie gives about 1000 different accounts of what the caller said, Mr Johnston can't decide if he went to the police before or after William checked the cash box, Lily Pinches (well not much even needs to be said about that lmao, just read her testimony on trial, unreal), Lily Lloyd can't decide whether the guy she thinks was William is going down one entry or the complete opposite other.

      William himself doesn't seem to know what's going on. The prosecution tells him he said "whatever have they used" and he accepts he said it when we know Florence did LOL.

      Man...... Was everyone back then just on heroin or whatever like McFall?

      The hunt goes on.

      If it's William's box then where's Julia's? I would expect them to be taken away like the bar since the bar's removal signifies fingerprint fear. And the attacker would probably want a light source of some kind to navigate out of the home.
      Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 04-21-2020, 11:23 AM.


      • Right okay.........

        I think I see what's gone on here, for real...

        FIRST OFF another HUGE "error" by Gannon (not an error but just unproven claims given as being 100% certain): Marsden's "flu" alibi. There is NO statement saying that this is his alibi, he has made this assumption based 100% on a note that doesn't even say Marsden's name on that handwritten part. Just a scrawling on the side of Wallace's list of suspect names.

        Now if you look at the page he makes this assumption based on, you can see why. It definitely does look like it's saying it's his alibi:

        But then look just directly below that, another note - more in depth actually, but covers multiple names. Bamber, Albert Wood, Jenkinson etc... The way the lines are drawn there even the bottom alibi includes the end of the description into Marsden.

        So it looks like it was his given alibi - but it's not a CERTAIN FACT, though it is now accepted as such.


        Anyway I think I see what's happened here. I think I'm probably wrong and this - which incorporates my grandpa's idea is probably right. I feel I can't put this in any way that doesn't sound insulting (lol) but he has a criminal mind, and he was brought up in that sort of era. So he's been destroying me with ease on this case.

        But anyway, I can forensically prove that the jacket wasn't used which is one of the vital pieces of evidence against William doing everything... I think what's happened is this...


        1. First of all as I already mentioned about the chess schedule earlier, anyone can see when Wallace is expected, and CAN'T see when he hasn't been - because if someone doesn't turn it up, be it Wallace OR his partner, no letter is put by the number which makes it look like both failed to show using the logic provided by many authors about this chart. Furthermore - you can't completely exclude the possibility someone had tried on a prior date but saw that Wallace did not leave his house so did not make the call.

        Right by the very publicly visible noticeboard is the door, and on it the phone number of the café.

        Now on the night of the call, the 19th, you see that whoever called the club was near the house and knew his address. So you have to wonder why they didn't leave a note...

        I think it's done on purpose for two reasons: First off because they don't want anyone or police in subsequent inquiries to know the caller knew where the address was (if Murphy isn't lying about the caller asking for the address - sadly it seems he is as per usual) - they'd have to consider the possibility of people who didn't know the address but were given it by Beattie - widening the suspect pool. According to Josh he thinks that's a crap suggestion but I like it so it goes here.

        But importantly if it's a phone call, and this is Josh's suggestion which I think is probably correct and better than my own, it allows for the possibility of the message being a mix up which can then be used to gain entry into the home.

        This is important. Because I think what's happened is they've got a stranger to go in there pretending he's there for the appointment telling Julia there's been some sort of mistake.

        2. So roughly around the appointment time (probably just before) "Mr. Qualtrough" turns up for the appointment - claiming there must have been a mix-up in the taking of the message. Many authors have made what I think is a false leap of faith here in assuming the caller needed Julia to know the name to get in. I don't think so at all. I think even if she doesn't know the name etc. with the guy turning up around this time etc. and knowing about the call etc. it's probably going to fool her.

        William's trip to/from the Gardens is about 20 minutes at the minimum isn't it. That's with insane luck and moving like Jack Flash. So if he'd turned up at the Gardens at 19.30 as requested, he's not getting home until past 19.50 at the absolute minimum.

        The nature of the robbery is such that it's so stupid-simple it could be done in 5 minutes. They might turn up at say, 7.20 or something like that.

        3. So because of the call as opposed to a note being used, this claim can be believed, and Julia lets him in. As with any stranger she takes him into the parlour of course. She sets it up as you would expect and sits herself down in the armchair.

        The attacker has like many before me have suggested has made an excuse to go out the back into the kitchen where the cash box is kept:

        He gets the cash box, probably hoisting himself up onto the cabinet thing there if he's a shorter man like average height back then.

        But now tragedy strikes for this criminal: They open the box and find £4. LOL. Not all of it is even in useable money, some of it is in the form of a check.

        4. This is where my grandpa made a suggestion, and I had to edit my own site etc. because I think I'm probably wrong and what he said is probably right...

        I mean he asked me unprompted why there's only £4 in there, and then was like "how much should there have been?" and then was like "oh that's what's happened then isn't it". Lol. I mean I didn't know what he meant.

        But he said what's happened is someone's gone in there expecting there to be a huge sum of money in that box, at least £20 etc. (and that's over £1,000 in modern money - and beyond that the cost of living was cheaper so that amount took you further than it would today), seen there's only £4, and thought the "rest of it" is being hidden by the Wallaces somewhere else in the house.

        So they've opened up William's little photography cabinet there thinking it might be in there, but there's nothing, and become even MORE frustrated.

        5. Because this is a stranger to Julia, he just outright confronts her and demands to know where they're hiding the "rest of the insurance money". The weapon was suggested by my forensics as being long - which doesn't seem like something a criminal would bring to commit a robbery like this, you'd expect something small and concealable... If Goodman is right that the bar was found, then he's taken the poker from the kitchen (the room where the cash box is) and gone back in there to threaten her with to give up the location of the hidden money.

        Not only does HE want more money, but he's going to be worried about going back to Parry with £4, because Parry will think he's lying about that being all there was and probably beat his ass thinking he's pocketed the rest for himself. So it's two-fold.

        There should be at the minimum of £16 more and she either refuses to tell him where more money is, or he doesn't believe her claim William was ill, so he cracks her with whatever weapon he was holding... She was apparently leaning forward in the armchair so it might even be that she was in the middle of getting up when he struck her... Actually that might even explain the lack fo defensive wounds which I find weird regardless of the attacker (the strike has come from in front of her and hit her on the front side of her head - I'd expect her to have seen it coming whoever did it).

        (This is the position of the body after being moved by the way, not the originalposition).

        6. Julia flops down, the attacker is soaked in blood.

        But keep THIS in mind... Regarding footprint trails leaving the room, remember that blood doesn't pool instantly, he could still right now (until there's pooling he's stood in) walk around the home leaving no trail of footprints whatsoever.

        He's standing there you must remember, holding what would be a large weapon soaked in blood, his hands probably bloodied, his face, clothes... There's nothing in that room you could easily use like a towel/rag. I thought that thing on Julia's chair was a cloth but actually it's a cushion says the City Analyst, other items like the tableclothes have items on top you'd need to move. So if you needed a towel-like item you would need to leave the parlour to find something convenient. William's jacket is just outside the door on the peg and would be the first useable item to hand.

        I can PROVE with modern forensic expert testimony that the jacket wasn't used as a shield or worn by the attacker - so we have to think of alternative possibilities and this is one that occurred to me but I really don't know what to think.

        The use of the thing as a rag is just one possibility I thought of and as I said may be way off base.

        [TBC due to image limit]
        Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 04-24-2020, 02:30 PM.


        • [Cont...]

          7. So anyway, I noticed the mention of the horizontal burn marks on Julia's skirt.

          As ALL of us have had trouble with, it simply makes no sense at all how she can "fall into the fire" from the position she was in. But then I had a thought... Maybe rather than Julia being taken to the source of heat, the source of heat has been brought to her...

          In no photos online (even when I try to scan photos across where it's clearly visible) can you see this very well but there's a grid on the bottom of this fireplace. Gannon says the grid is removable... Presumably what would happen to operate this fire, is you'd take off the covering, light the gas, then put the covering back on. Turning off the fire you'd just use the gas tap to turn the gas off... When the fire has been on this grate would be SCALDING hot... You can SORT of see it in this which I scanned across from my computer:

          This advertisement shows it better, I think this is in fact the exact model of fireplace they owned (advert from 1926), it looks identical:

          There you can definitely see the grate...

          So Julia has just been hit getting up from the chair and she's flopped forward onto the ground face first. The attacker has at some point - I'm not sure when - perhaps removed this grid while the fire is still on, and put it aside where it has made contact with Julia's skirt and caused the horizontal patterned burn marks... Julia's skirt didn't catch fire, it's contact burns - even on trial they say "contact" but with the "fireclays" whatever that is... FIRE just spreads, it doesn't follow neat little lines. Whatever burned her skirt then - if they're like, neat patterened lines, is contact with a hot object but not fire.

          The reason for removing this grid - and I think if the prosecution had used this they could've ****ed Wallace bad - would be to get access to the BARE flame. The attacker wants to incinerate things. I would expect the money and DEFINITELY the check to be incinerated if so - anything that had been handled and would burn. If that jacket had been used as a rag as I suggested (again - I can PROVE forensically with multiple modern forensic expert's testimony that this thing was not worn or used as a shield so we HAVE to think of alternative reasons), maybe an attempt was made to burn it but caused too much smoke etc. etc. so they pulled it out.

          I don't know why the grid has been put back on. So again I might be wrong.

          7. The reason the burning of the jacket (given it was 1000% not used as a shield and I can prove it) is important is for the same reason as the removal of the iron bar/poker (Goodman claims the iron bar was found - which ironically hinders my case despite him using it to prove innocence - but luckily there was a poker gone too)...

          Removing an item you just battered someone with is danger. To expose yourself to such danger, there's a good reason. A good reason is fingerprints.

          The attacker burned things due to a fear of fingerprints. He can't burn the weapon if it's a big piece of iron or w.e. so he's just wiped that off and taken it with him. He perhaps thinks the jacket can't be burned fully, not sure why... Smoke, fire hazard, smell, thinking someone's back at the house... I don't know... But it's not been fully incinerated, so instead it's been put into a pool of blood to remove the prints.

          8. As you can imagine, doing stuff like that requires staying in the home, and so putting off the lights is even more beneficial than normal, since if people knock WHILE HE'S INSIDE and lights are on, that's really bad lol. Naturally anyone with half a brain would have flipped the bolt on the front door too, otherwise anyone with a key or a returning William can just walk in while he's in the front room with the corpse lmaoooo.

          The light idea is a bizarre one anyway, because ANYONE benefits from their crime being discovered as late as possible to give them time to get away - not only William - very weird point...

          9. At whatever point, the killer is satisfied he's done a good job of avoiding leaving incriminating evidence, and has left through the back door or an unsecured window.


          In other words some of my theories are close to that but basically probably BS and most likely my grandpa rekt me and got a hole in one in minutes. Just lol.

          Hussey then would be the most accurate. Rod actually combined Goodman and Hussey's idea but has Julia catch the man red handed and he's invented sort of this pantomime thing of Julia being physically dragged into the front room and shoved down onto the seat for a beating.


          I'm sure I will have to refine this and work on it more. I have TOPPPP level forensics working for me and I'm waiting for them to render an opinion on certain things. I expect they will take a few weeks as they are working live murder cases and have to testify in court so that of course takes priority for them.