Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi Wallace, good updates there, as usual. Interesting forensics on the weapon, ruled out the Iron Bar and Mac speculation. The shipyard type tools might tie in better with the killer having it on him already, more so than a crowbar or such. From what limited knowledge I have, if your ruling out an iron bar, I think the killer picking up a weapon in house goes out, particularly a pronged weapon.

Shame about the Johnstone's statement. More so in light of the fact you painstakingly accessed, photographed and published the entire case file in the interest of openness. What's in that statement that's so secret?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hey WWH,

in regards to the curtains, I'm not sure too much can be taken from those photos. One photo is from the night of the murder and the other during the day.

The crime scene one might be after they moved the curtains to check the windows for a sign of a break-in...and we know lots of things were moved in that room that night.

When the appointment was first mentioned I don't know, but they'd discussed it at some point. Not necessarily the same event. He says he wasn't sure about going and talked it over with Julia. That could be the discussion.

It is a little convenient Amy turned up that day.

She also never took the stand (maybe because there were rumours about her from the coroner's trial thing where she ranted)?

Regarding anyone having done it in the time allowed:

But to your original question.. I see no way that anyone could have committed the murder without getting seriously blood stained. And then certainly have done it in the time frame allotted.

So I don't tend to think William did this alone without a third party. That third party has to escape and Sefton Park (Ullett Road) might be too far to travel bloodstained. It's my only issue really.

The state of the curtains when found I'm not sure but it stands if a light was on in there. Neighbours saw the light in the middle bedroom and back room. I don't know if a light would show in the bay window there if a light was on at night.

With Amy she just has a little too far to go to get home. That's really my only issue. She may have invented her visit for the sake of William.

I'm English myself so I know in 1990s+ our use of tea time and stuff is a bit peculiar. Middayish fits better with old timey dinner as he stated. Sometimes we use terms interchangeably for no reason but I don't think that's happened here.

If Amy killed her or w.e. consider that's a 3 man conspiracy again but with Amy not Marsden. Because Gordon placed the call.

I have asked about blood tracking actually. Waiting for an answer but 3 men were randomly shot in his county recently so he's v busy.

There wouldn't be as much blood on the shoes as expected because apparently the large skull-opening wound is LAST not first. Everywhere else yeah. But the pooling is from that wound.

Antony has no reason to not show the statements. The fact he won't makes me think they've done it. I don't necessarily think the call and crime are linked on purpose at all... The phone box was right by Lily's cinema that she worked at and Gordon is known to have placed prank calls regularly...

The details of the call are bad both for murder and robbery.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi Wallace, good updates there, as usual. Interesting forensics on the weapon, ruled out the Iron Bar and Mac speculation. The shipyard type tools might tie in better with the killer having it on him already, more so than a crowbar or such. From what limited knowledge I have, if your ruling out an iron bar, I think the killer picking up a weapon in house goes out, particularly a pronged weapon.

Shame about the Johnstone's statement. More so in light of the fact you painstakingly accessed, photographed and published the entire case file in the interest of openness. What's in that statement that's so secret?

Yes the weapon not being from the house suggests it was brought in, which is more like a hit or a housebreaking tool.

Johnston's alleged confession uses a jemmy and he works at the shipyard (Cammell Laird).

An iron bar can be used but it has to be patterned like a threaded pipe.

I know Phyllis, the daughter Flo and John claimed to be visiting, said she was not expecting them and when they did call it was earlier usually 6 to 7 PM.

The fact he won't share it makes me think they did it. He has a serious interest in maintaining mystery because that's how he sells the books. He shuts down at the Johnstons.

If the two events are 100% independent. Parry placing one of his typical prank calls, then the robbery/murder having nothing to do with it. Then the killer has to ideally live close or have a car because they'd be bloodstained even if they'd worn the jacket, and neighbours have keys that would affect entry into the house. Visitor or not it seems Julia was lying on the couch by the cushion arrangement.

I really might go with the Johnstons. They're very suspect. The move was planned for February but they then moved the next day or in January or whatever.

...

I don't necessarily mind Amy hsving done it or physically been there when it happened. She didn't even like Julia from what Goodman says.

Amy would have all the detail necessary to commit the crime if her visit was real.

...

I like the forensic's suggestion of someone still in the house. The tidiness is what leads me to Johnston from Denison.

Parkes says Parry dropped an iron bar. But as said no regular iron bar was used. He may well have called it that anyway but it was no ordinary bar. It's definitely patterned or pronged etc.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I forgot to add if William and Amy killed her then consider still there's a chance Gordon's funny phone call has nothing to do with the thing at all...

But if you look at the crime ALONE without the phone call whatsoever then I'd say the Johnstons are the best suspects since their fingerprints are at the scene, they discovered the body (that's another stat, like how often husbands kill wives, it's common for the killer to be at the discovery of the body), and apparently the crime scene compared to the month prior at #19 Wolverton is BIZARRELY similar down to a cash box stolen from and replaced, nothing else touched, and some pillows randomly chucked around in a bedroom.

Antony also has details of that since it's in the police file but he won't share that.

The Johnston confession according to Stan seems wrong... I don't know... I suppose in this scenario Julia is lying on the sofa in the parlour to take a nap. She hasn't brough her cup of tea in there it would seem. Forensically it's a match. The jemmy and the only theory to have Julia on the correct side of the room when attacked. If he did do it I wonder if he's forgetting details or something due to dementia or purposefully keeping the names of others (like Florence) out of guilt. Because I can see basically the same scenario as Parry and Denison except Florence is in the front and would attack Julia, then John would finish her with his jemmy bar.

Julia - people should know - was prone to heart attacks.

Ven It would be worth looking more into Amy. I know she told the press that Julia would let in strangers then raged at the coroner saying they'd tricked her saying they were cops (or something) and never had permission to print it. She was known as being a very loud and dominant type of woman. A member of parliament interested in the case said Amy used to "beat black boys" for sexual gratification while in British Malaya. She's the only key witness to not take the stand AFAIK, but keep in mind public opinion was against her and that's probably why...

Her husband Joseph had been living abroad for around 2 years without her. She initially lived with him but moved back. Later after some years she moved back to Malaya with Joseph.

According to her statement she saw Julia that day in the kitchen. On musical evenings of course she would be received in the front room (the parlour). But see if you can find out whether or not she was usually received in the kitchen when there wasn't music. I ASSUME she would be as a member of the family but there might be details regarding that... She said they had shared a cup of tea and Julia discussed Wallace's appointment with someone in Calderstone's as well as the recent burglarlies in the street... Allegedly she had tickets to a pantomime and had called at the house to invite Julia who seemingly wasn't well enough... Being unwell according to Goodman is something else Amy didn't like, she saw it as weak to allow yourself to succumb to illness.

Keep digging in that direction, and see if you can come up with muder implements with ends like a jemmy (split).

If Julia was killed and Amy took away all the bloodied clothing and weapon, leaving the mackintosh is quite strange. It's clearly incriminating. If Julia had it on it's less clear why. Just chucked on until the parlour's warmed up?

[Ven]

When the appointment was first mentioned I don't know, but they'd discussed it at some point. Not necessarily the same event. He says he wasn't sure about going and talked it over with Julia. That could be the discussion. Not sure what you mean here, but my argument is that he never discussed the appointment with Julia. One. so that she wouldn't pass comment that the place didn't exist. Two. to make her believe he would be home as per usual. and Three. If he didn't, Amy could not have had the conversation with Julia.

I just want to clarify that I don't think Amy assisted with the murder, only the set-up.

It is a little convenient Amy turned up that day. AGREE, and then to meet him at 4pm after she met with Julia at a prearranged place - William could have been anywhere on his rounds.

She also never took the stand (maybe because there were rumours about her from the coroner's trial thing where she ranted)?

Regarding anyone having done it in the time allowed:



So I don't tend to think William did this alone without a third party. That third party has to escape and Sefton Park (Ullett Road) might be too far to travel bloodstained. It's my only issue really.

The state of the curtains when found I'm not sure but it stands if a light was on in there. Neighbours saw the light in the middle bedroom and back room. From the backyard only
I don't know if a light would show in the bay window there if a light was on at night. Probably not, if the curtains were closed, and then, would any think twicew about it anyway?

With Amy she just has a little too far to go to get home. That's really my only issue. She may have invented her visit for the sake of William. I don't believe she was there at the time of the murder.

I'm English myself so I know in 1990s+ our use of tea time and stuff is a bit peculiar. Middayish fits better with old timey dinner as he stated. Sometimes we use terms interchangeably for no reason but I don't think that's happened here. William agreed that his Statement read - DINNER AT 2.10pm (this would have been a more substantial meal than Scones at 6.05pm) and TEA when he got home (at 6.05pm). A few minutes later, in response to another question, he said he told her at TEA time. pretty clear cut in my opinion.

If Amy killed her or w.e. consider that's a 3 man conspiracy again but with Amy not Marsden. Because Gordon placed the call. I don't agree that Gordon placed the call. From what I recall your "proof" is that he could have been at the Kiosk...so could have William. William's "accent"was never mentioned... did he have one...some people pick up accents quickly when in a different environment. Phone Operators were't asked about an accent and didn't mention one.

I have asked about blood tracking actually. Waiting for an answer but 3 men were randomly shot in his county recently so he's v busy. Also, besides the blood tracking, have they/can they explain why there are no blood splatters in the corner where the door is, on the wall, door, floor... if Amy was hit with her head over that way... the lack of splatter after the additional blows concerns me.

There wouldn't be as much blood on the shoes as expected because apparently the large skull-opening wound is LAST not first. Everywhere else yeah. But the pooling is from that wound.

Antony has no reason to not show the statements. The fact he won't makes me think they've done it. I don't necessarily think the call and crime are linked on purpose at all... The phone box was right by Lily's cinema that she worked at and Gordon is known to have placed prank calls regularly...Are there no other copies, how does Antony have the only copies that I thought would be publicly owned...like you weren't allowed to keep the original Trial docs etc.??

The details of the call are bad both for murder and robbery.

Answers/Questions in Itallics

EDIT - DNAG , you comments come up as Itallicised! Changed to BOLD

[Ven]

Yes the weapon not being from the house suggests it was brought in, which is more like a hit or a housebreaking tool. I don't think the pipe that we have always referred to was ever fully described (William claims he didn't even know of it). Could the pipe have been, although round, included some type of pattern/edging...can't remember it ever being described as smooth.

Johnston's alleged confession uses a jemmy and he works at the shipyard (Cammell Laird). Johnston is my second favourite suspect.

An iron bar can be used but it has to be patterned like a threaded pipe. And as mentioned above the existing one could have been...and also round...it could have been a cut-off piece of Rebar! A stabbing motion (driving the end, not length into her head may cause those hammer-like holes(?)

I know Phyllis, the daughter Flo and John claimed to be visiting, said she was not expecting them and when they did call it was earlier usually 6 to 7 PM.

The fact he won't share it makes me think they did it. He has a serious interest in maintaining mystery because that's how he sells the books. He shuts down at the Johnstons. Yes, strange

If the two events are 100% independent. Parry placing one of his typical prank calls, then the robbery/murder having nothing to do with it. Then the killer has to ideally live close or have a car because they'd be bloodstained even if they'd worn the jacket, and neighbours have keys that would affect entry into the house. Visitor or not it seems Julia was lying on the couch by the cushion arrangement.

I really might go with the Johnstons. They're very suspect. The move was planned for February but they then moved the next day or in January or whatever.

...

I don't necessarily mind Amy hsving done it or physically been there when it happened. She didn't even like Julia from what Goodman says. So Amy could have easily been talked into assisting by William.

Amy would have all the detail necessary to commit the crime if her visit was real.

...

I like the forensic's suggestion of someone still in the house. The tidiness is what leads me to Johnston from Denison.

Parkes says Parry dropped an iron bar. But as said no regular iron bar was used. He may well have called it that anyway but it was no ordinary bar. It's definitely patterned or pronged etc.

Answers/Questions in BOLD itallics

[Ven]

Ven It would be worth looking more into Amy. I know she told the press that Julia would let in strangers then raged at the coroner saying they'd tricked her saying they were cops (or something) and never had permission to print it. She was known as being a very loud and dominant type of woman. A member of parliament interested in the case said Amy used to "beat black boys" for sexual gratification while in British Malaya. She's the only key witness to not take the stand AFAIK, but keep in mind public opinion was against her and that's probably why...
Do you have any official docs/statements regarding Amy besides what we can find in books?


Her husband Joseph had been living abroad for around 2 years without her. She initially lived with him but moved back. Later after some years she moved back to Malaya with Joseph.

According to her statement she saw Julia that day in the kitchen. I did read somewhere (can't remember where though) thjat Amy was one of a few that would have been received into the Living kitchen. On musical evenings of course she would be received in the front room (the parlour). But see if you can find out whether or not she was usually received in the kitchen when there wasn't music. I ASSUME she would be as a member of the family but there might be details regarding that... She said they had shared a cup of tea and Julia discussed Wallace's appointment with someone in Calderstone's as well as the recent burglarlies in the street... Allegedly she had tickets to a pantomime and had called at the house to invite Julia who seemingly wasn't well enough... Being unwell according to Goodman is something else Amy didn't like, she saw it as weak to allow yourself to succumb to illness. Why would Amy invite her to the Pantomime if she didn't like her? Again this reeks of the discussion not being about William's appointment or going to the pantomime, but Amy making sure Julia knew nothing about it and Amy then going of to rendezvouz with William to let him know everything was ready to!

Keep digging in that direction, and see if you can come up with muder implements with ends like a jemmy (split). As mentioned above, it could be the existing bar, just not smooth and cylindrical like we have all imagined it to be.

If Julia was killed and Amy took away all the bloodied clothing and weapon, leaving the mackintosh is quite strange. It's clearly incriminating. If Julia had it on it's less clear why. Just chucked on until the parlour's warmed up? I don't believe Amy was there at the time of the murder. Also, I still can't see Julia draping it over her shoulder's...she didn't when collecting the milk and not when she walked William out the back (not that she did this...cos was dead!!)

BTW WWH, what's the chances there's room in your budget to have someone transcribe the DPP notes, Trials, Statements, Letters etc...it would be so much easier to locate stuff? pretty please

[Ven]

Attached is an image of Pages 114 and 115 from the Trial transcript. Testimony from Jane Draper the Charwoman.

Although we can't see the examples of the "pieces of Iron" she was shown, she claimed the missing item was round but "rougher" than the the one she was shown. So

this could still be the murder weapon.
n.

[WallaceWackedHer]

1. I think they would think twice when questioned by the police about it. The front curtains are off the wall kinda significantly I think light would get over that. Buf it looks like there's a second set. If anyone has such curtains please test them. My living room curtains are similar ans my and grandad's at their house I could see. Light is visible in mine. Not sure about my granddad's.

2. By patterning he means very obvious patterning not just rust or whatever but actual, for example, threaded bits (but he said he doesn't think it's a threaded bar - just similar as a possibility). He liked Wallace's spanner suggestion but disregarded the events as impossible because of the jacket shield... But anything with obvious separation like that.

3. The distinction between told and discussed is important because I know he discussed it in depth whether to go he claims. Can you show me where he says that's when he actually told her about the call?

4. I am certain, absolutely positive that Gordon placed the call. Lily's cinema is on the same triangle of road. I think possibly he mistakenly thought she was at the cinema and was killing time waiting around, made the call to kill time, then drove to her house to see where she was. Maybe asked someone at the cinema and found out she wasn't there.

A murderer doesn't care about two pennies. Broke Gordon did. And Gordon regularly prank called people for fun.

The FIRST operator connected the call successfully. The "technical problem" was the caller pressing B cutting off the call and returning the pennies. All so he could a back and claim he'd pressed A and therefore can't get his coins back and trying to tell them he's already paid for a call so they'll refund this "other" two pennies and give him a freebie.

Check Louisa Alfreds on the trial. She got a pickup from the city cafe and heard a voice from the café. Not Gladys we can assume. Louisa Alfreds is the FIRST operator.

5. I think they have the attacker to the armchair side during the followup shots, or kneeling near the mackintosh. "To the right of Julia when she's on the floor" it's said. The armchair area blood being cast off apparently IIRC. It's all on my site if you go to case files I have both convos in full with the experts. Convo #1 is a PhD student and #2 is a forensic doctor who works as the main expert for the police in various counties.

6. Do you refer to the parallel lines with rebar? I would ask Greg buf he's being very short where he's busy so I've just let him alone. He's reading Murphy's book right now.

6. I can personally see the statements myself but the case file is always being pruned by police. It seems Antony just wants to burden my with the annoyance of going all the way to Liverpool as opposed to just showing their statements which he has written down. Which just makes me think it's inciminating and he's hiding it.

7. Rusting wouldn't be enough, we're looking for weapons with very obvious separations similar to a threaded pipe or jemmy bar or spanner or anything like that.

8. I don't.

9. This tends to rule her out as the killer because Julia's in the parlour. Wallace could not have done it forensically so I favor Amy.

10. If she's dead when William left someone else has killed her. I'm told it's not possible for William to escape blood free in the time allotted even wearing the jacket. She did drape something round her neck when she opened the door to the backer's boy Neil Norbury.

11. Yes if you can find someone who will do this please give me their email. I've been really wanting to have this done.

[WallaceWackedHer]

What I'm thinking... It's not as neat as Denison and Parry sadly... But...

Parry loitering the cinema for Lily thinking she's there (she's not) and placing a funny call to waste time. No fake address or name is necessary to set this up, as mentioned by Hemmerde a real address farther away suits everyone better... But that includes Wallace.



Now that "3" is the cinema says Gannon. The kiosk is on the same triangle of land.

Now the issue with the Johnstons hearing nothing is mostly to do with the back door:



The homes have thin walls. People lived in the kitchen. Arthur Mills actually lived in the parlour. The kitchens have windows.

To have heard the back door open would be trivial from there.

I think it would be easier to have seen Wallace was headed out.

They may have known Gordon I'm not sure. But the mention of the cat is so obscure whoever mentioned that has very intimate knowledge of the cat and extreme creativity to actually use it.

It's not possible Wallace did this. It's not possible he'd escape free of blood he'd be drenched. Hence I'd favor Amy but then her journey home is too far and no drains are used.

...

If it's not Denison it's Johnston. I don't know the specifics of what went down but the yard door is unbolted and the forensic expert suggested to me someone was still in the house.

Then failing those, Amy or Caird.

It cannot be Wallace. He would be covered in blood and the time is too tight. That's agreed upon by the people I've hired.

But yeah I'll get the trial transcribed if you link me the email of someone who does it.

Focus all efforts on Amy and Johnston. I have Denison as the killer based on Parkes testimony. Without Parkes it's Johnston or Amy IMO. Johnston's alleged confession has bizarre statements "only the killer could know" almost. Not quite but almost. E.g. the cat... And the only idea to put Julia in the forensically correct position going against everything else said in any other theory.

[Ven]

1. I think they would think twice when questioned by the police about it. The front curtains are off the wall kinda significantly I think light would get over that. Buf it looks like there's a second set. If anyone has such curtains please test them. My living room curtains are similar ans my and grandad's at their house I could see. Light is visible in mine. Not sure about my granddad's. A second set is usually more WW2 block out sheets. however, the point still remains about whether they were closed or not and if anyone would have noticed and remembered anyway.

2. By patterning he means very obvious patterning not just rust or whatever but actual, for example, threaded bits (but he said he doesn't think it's a threaded bar - just similar as a possibility). He liked Wallace's spanner suggestion but disregarded the events as impossible because of the jacket shield... But anything with obvious separation like that. I never mentioned RUST but "rougher" (and it wasn't me who mentioned it but the Charwoman"- Draper) i.e. not smooth... therefore covering your experts claim of not smooth

3. The distinction between told and discussed is important because I know he discussed it in depth whether to go he claims. Can you show me where he says that's when he actually told her about the call? For the third time IN HIS TESTIMONY" in the Trial docs!!!! I don't care if he said he discussed it with Julia... or if he did he said at TEA time... AFTER Amy visited.... please read and comprehend!!

4. I am certain, absolutely positive that Gordon placed the call. I'm happy you are... but there's no actual proof Lily's cinema is on the same triangle of road. I think possibly(!!?) he mistakenly(!!? too many "possibly" and "mistakenly's for me)) thought she was at the cinema and was killing time waiting around, made the call to kill time (wow! just made the name and convenient address up on the spot!!), then drove to her house to see where she was. Maybe asked someone at the cinema and found out she wasn't there.

A murderer doesn't care about two pennies. Broke Gordon did. And Gordon regularly prank called people for fun.

The FIRST operator connected the call successfully. The "technical problem" was the caller pressing B cutting off the call and returning the pennies. All so he could a back and claim he'd pressed A and therefore can't get his coins back and trying to tell them he's already paid for a call so they'll refund this "other" two pennies and give him a freebie. Not a showstopper by any means... I will double check)

Check Louisa Alfreds on the trial. She got a pickup from the city cafe and heard a voice from the café. Not Gladys we can assume. Louisa Alfreds is the FIRST operator.(Not sure this is relevant...any operator)

5. I think they have the attacker to the armchair side during the followup shots, or kneeling near the mackintosh. "To the right of Julia when she's on the floor" it's said. (Position is still debatable... but whatever, where are all the blood splatters... the don't all go back onto the attacker!!) The armchair area blood being cast off apparently IIRC. It's all on my site if you go to case files I have both convos in full with the experts. Convo #1 is a PhD student and #2 is a forensic doctor who works as the main expert for the police in various counties.

6. Do you refer to the parallel lines with rebar? No, not just parallel lines but also round wounds. A one inch wide roud iron bar would do similar damage as a hammer if used in a stabbing motion.I would ask Greg buf he's being very short where he's busy so I've just let him alone. He's reading Murphy's book right now.

6. I can personally see the statements myself but the case file is always being pruned by police. It seems Antony just wants to burden my with the annoyance of going all the way to Liverpool as opposed to just showing their statements which he has written down. Which just makes me think it's inciminating and he's hiding it.

7. Rusting NEVER said rusting...it was rougher!! wouldn't be enough, we're looking for weapons with very obvious separations similar to a threaded pipe or jemmy bar or spanner or anything like that. Like, rougher!

8. I don't.Not sure what this response relates to.

9. This tends to rule her out as the killer because Julia's in the parlour. Wallace could not have done it forensically Yea he could have, we just haven't worked it out yet.. like any other method!! so I favor Amy.

10. If she's dead when William left someone else has killed her.Not if William killed her...we're going round in circles here!! I'm told it's not possible for William to escape blood free in the time allotted even wearing the jacket. Never said he wore it. She did drape something round her neck when she opened the door to the backer's boy Neil Norbury. Can you send statement to prove this please

11. Yes if you can find someone who will do this please give me their email. I've been really wanting to have this done.

I have 6 student kida always looking for a quid or two...what's your hourly rate... if you can't find a local secretary!

You'll have to give me time on the responses WWH as you've numbered them whereas I replied to each of your points.. but here goes...

[Ven]

Just thought I'd like to ask... the burns on Julia's skirt... 3 vertical stripes at her "private parts" level i.e. higher up on the skirt... can't see that happening on the Parlour fireplace.
1. Were the scorch marks already there...on her home made clothing? i.e. she would continue to wear them around the house.
2. Just because the Mackintosh was burned that night doesn't mean her skirt was.
3. They talk about her dress being out of alignment... this supports your theory of her being dragged...which can twist the position of her skirt.

[Ven]

I'll make some posts and keep them separate so they can be answered individually -

I have lived in attached and fully detached homes - never heard a thing from the attached homes either side ,old 1880 brick single fronted places. In the detached homes, they were old weatherboard places, on stumps, and I could hear their kids running around!!weird!

[Ven]

Lead piece.. round but rough (NOT RUSTY)...suits murder weapon, used as a bat or a dagger.

[Ven]

No blood splatters other than left hand corner of room (from entry). None on floor except for pools on rug. Where was her head when hit after first blow and where did blood splatter go?...please don't say ALL against the attacker!