Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[Ven]

So Julia owned/had her own mackintosh... was this item named in evidence(?).. if not... why... this is a big piece of evidence.. could explain the "undamaged/ unstained mackintosh " lying next to her body... and this doesn't lead to anyone...just another fact to consider

[WallaceWackedHer]

were there two mackintoshes at the scene? Does this explain the unmarked. unburnt, Mack in the photo?

Nobody knows. It seems doubtful. If there's two then Wallace might have been right in saying "her mackintosh and my mackintosh". I doubt it though, it would be pretty serious of a thing to have a century of books saying there's one mackintosh and no mention of any other anywhere ever on trial transcripts or whatever.

It's probably her cardigan or something sort of bunched up that you're seeing. The forensic crime scene investigator did point out a point of fabric you can see past the single-person chair near the sideboard, it does appear consistent with being the same item. The item under Julia's head on the window side does not match any statement or testimony. So I think it is her cardigan.

The mackintosh should be to the sideboard side (opposite of the window) of the body. It was round the back sort of thing almost like she was lying on it. Her body on its side, right arm basically under the body, left hand dangling down over her breast almost touching the floor. By the time the crime scene photos are taken the mackintosh is substantially moved and the body is no longer in its original position (albeit not too different, it's like they just rolled her flat onto her front).

Of course on the fireplace fender there appears to be the missing poker so really, who knows wtf the police or investigators were doing with this case. Bailey (one of the police officers) son said his dad told him Hugh Moore turned up drunk, went upstairs, used, and flushed the toilet... I can point out at least 4 or 5 items moved between the two photos of the bathroom...

Leslie Walsh the prosecutor in an interview claimed the policemen kept stepping in the blood pool and had to be stopped once noticed. I notice that if this really happened they did not leave boot prints.

[Ven]

Let's clear up the crime scene before we go any further..including weapon

[Ven]

LOL , another piece to the puzzle

[Ven]

were there two mackintoshes at the scene? Does this explain the unmarked. unburnt, Mack in the photo?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi WallaceWackedHer, thank you for the balanced response. I appreciate all you've done and your constant feed back. I only ask about the mack because the colourised version seems to lack the stains and burn marks it is reported to have. Although it is in a picture, was it the mack that was used? Whether
William used it not is of no consequence...anyone could have used it, that's why i'm asking the experts to justify the "absurdity".... the trial docs seem to say it was covered in blood and had burns on it...the crime scene photo doesn't seem to show that... is it the mack that was found under Julia... we know how much other stuff was moved!!?

That is the mackintosh he is supposed to have worn to slay his wife yes. The burning and staining is imagined as being much vaster than reality quite naturally I think, because such a big deal is made of it. The extensive staining is from the pool, for example Julia's skirt was "extensively stained" on the bottom (as in the part on the floor). That was taken into account when I asked about it and the opinion was rendered.

There is really no case against Wallace whatsoever, you could easily argue a circumstantial case against James Caird, such is the evidence the police managed to gather. Caird is one of the few people we know for sure had all the vital info necessary to have committed the crime. He wasn't due at the club that night, prompted Beattie that Wallace was there to deliver the message (depending on the version of events written in books), stood there and listened as the message was delivered so knew all the details of the trip or confimed Wallace had got it, then asked Wallace while going home if Wallace had "definitely decided to go on the trip then". He lives close enough (it's one street over, basically you cross the road from the back entry and there's his house) to have escaped with the blood the attacker would inevitably have upon him. He was named as a person Julia would admit into the house without question, had known the couple for 16 years, and had played chess with Wallace in the kitchen.

Caird's chess nights were always Thursdays not Monday. The same night as Parry's drama club meetings. Wallace had attended on Thursday once or twice to watch the matches or something, or play some friendly game. Something along those lines. Caird was not even due at the club and as soon as Wallace walked in he offered him a game.

For all you know Caird went and murdered her... No motive needed... When we're convicting people based on if they hypothetically could have done it rather than if they did, then ironically he's probably a better fit than Wallace because Wallace physically couldn't have done this according to experts I have been in touch with and the presence of the raincoat considering that it's NOT a shield is more consistent, as per people I have contacted, Florence Johnston, and Roland Oliver, with having been on Julia's person in some way and caught along with the skirt when she went into the fireplace.

...

Alan Close's timing can be placed at 18:37. Wildman is pretty adamant. But so is Dougie Metcalfe who says it was 18:45. It can't be 18:30 because Elsie Wright heard the 18:30 church bells before Alan Close had even got to Wolverton Street.

[Ven]

From Mrs Johnstons statement..."Whatever was she doing with her macintosh and my macintosh round her”. Before he said this about the macintoshes... " implies TWO mackintoshes at the scene...

[Ven]

LOL, yes it's infuriating, WWH... so many bad witness statements, timings, blood trails, weapons... or lack of... that's why I love this case... and the work you've put in

[Ven]

#453 WWH Imagine Wallace coming home at 18:05 and sitting down for a nice meal with his wife chatting about their day then leading her into the front room to batter her to death. It's dumb.

A nice meal... it was tea ... Scones and tea!!! When else was he going to do it!!... "Oh Dear, thanks for the scones... now come into the parlour to DIE"

It's the perfect scenario if he knew what was going to transpire and she had no idea... "Warm up the parlour... we'll play some music... (nothing on the TV... Oops not invented yet!)"

As a side note, can we agree on Close at 6.38 pm?... leaving time either way?

[Ven]

Hi WallaceWackedHer, thank you for the balanced response. I appreciate all you've done and your constant feed back. I only ask about the mack because the colourised version seems to lack the stains and burn marks it is reported to have. Although it is in a picture, was it the mack that was used? Whether
William used it not is of no consequence...anyone could have used it, that's why i'm asking the experts to justify the "absurdity".... the trial docs seem to say it was covered in blood and had burns on it...the crime scene photo doesn't seem to show that... is it the mack that was found under Julia... we know how much other stuff was moved!!?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Was Wallace examined for bloodstained clothing that same evening.Is,nt it possible he sat in stained jacket and pants covered by an overcoat?Howmuch blood would have been on Jacket and pants?

Yes he was examined. Even if a paranormal way was discovered that he could do it, it still doesn't even mean he did. LOL.

There's actually no evidence against him having done this crime.

He's convicted because they couldn't find anyone better is what it comes down to... Like well, we have no idea who did it so let's just make it the husband 'cause he looks like Crippen and it's almost always the husband.

The only evidence, the mackintosh with the body, is proven to have not been used by the killer. Suggestions by experts and one of the only people to have seen it in the original position (Florence) is that she'd put it on to answer the door.

You could make a stronger case against James Caird having murdered her... Seriously... He has the opportunity and all knowledge necessary to have done all of this and lives in the next street. It literally could be James Caird just as much as it could be William you realize.

Imagine Wallace coming home at 18:05 and sitting down for a nice meal with his wife chatting about their day then leading her into the front room to batter her to death. It's dumb.

How do we even know nobody had motive to kill Julia? People convict Wallace when it's basically the opposite according to a multiple-corroborated event only weeks earlier where he was so scared and upset about her not coming home he'd gone to the police and sat with her for ages chatting and having tea after 1 a.m. He actually seems OVERPROTECTIVE of her, people said he rarely liked leaving her home alone and that freakout incident.

If that man apparently has burning desires to murder his wife then why not James Caird or Johnston?

It's a dumb case like that... Experts rule out Wallace alone. It's going to be solved only by professionals.

Not one of us is going to, because there's literally no evidence. No time of death, no weapon, no motive, no prints (except the Johnstons and Wallace), no DNA, pathetic crime scene photography... ******* THREE PHOTOS inside a murder scene are you JOKING?... No unusual sound except some thuds reported by Florence at 20.25 to 20.30. NEVER FOLLOWED UP ON. False alibi given by Gordon. NEVER FOLLOWED UP ON. Like wtf?

Proven bending of evidence just so Wallace hypothetically COULD have done it. McFall's original report, death at 19.50. Changed to 17.50. WHAT? Alan Close saw Julia at 18.45, made to jog with milk just so they could make it earlier. WHAT? ILLEGAL burying of evidence by the prosecution, Munro denied access to crucial evidence. WHAT? Suppression of evidence by the prosecution as pointed out by Oliver regarding the milk boy's friends. WHAT?

Like wtf is this? It's why the case is in the curriculum as a miscarriage of justice in law school. Lol at the man not giving a **** about his wife Florence said he's half collapsing barely able to speak for emotion, ghost white with shock, "very very distressed". You're not even meant to use demeanour to prove a case legally AFAIK.

[harry]

Was Wallace examined for bloodstained clothing that same evening.Is,nt it possible he sat in stained jacket and pants covered by an overcoat?Howmuch blood would have been on Jacket and pants?

[WallaceWackedHer]

The Holme family statement (not an actual statement, it's like, a report that includes them?) just for the record, says the noise they heard sounded like a door slamming. I know I read it before as a body falling.

John in a statement to the papers (who I reckon altered his words to make a cooler story) said Wallace forced the door down, he said whoever did the crime must have been a "giant with terrific strength". And myself and my friend read another statement where he says the killer was a genius or something (in a newspaper article). I was trying to find it again for him as he thought it was hilarious imagining the killer IS John saying that stuff. Haven't been able to... It'll be on the British Newspaper Archives somewhere... Back some months I searched it extremely extensively when I got a lot of these statements and also some weird rumours...

The article about the taxi man is pretty prevalent though.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I typed up the Johnston statements here, probably better than the photos anyway but I will still ask for permission to use those. He seems easygoing I suspect he will be okay with it. But until then here is my transcription of all of their statements:

https://www.williamherbertwallace.co...ll-statements/

Florence paints a very different picture of Wallace that night than the one we know, mainly in her handwritten note (the handwritten February statement made on the 14th, not the pre-trial one).

She also says his yard door was ajar not closed.

I would say Wallace's statement about the discovery of the body is probably the most consistent out of the three.

I noticed Johnston came home at roughly the time Wallace left (6.45 PM). Wallace would be going out to the West, Johnston returning from Maiden Lane which is to the East and would have come in the front door. He said he got in after the milk had been delivered, suggesting Alan Close had been at his house and delivered the milk before then.

Also two from Florence:

"My milk that day was delivered from Mr. Close of Sedley Street about 6-30pm. I had my jug in the lobby and my front door open. The boy put my milk in the jug and shut the door after him. I heard the door shut and I fetched in my milk at once."

And...

"The milk boy, Alan Close, called at my house that evening, but I cannot remember the exact time. He might come at any time between ten past six and seven, but recently he had been very late."

From my recollection the events were Alan Close put the jugs on the doorstep of 29 then went to 31. The door of 29 opened and the jugs were taken in. Alan then it seems put the milk into Florence's waiting jugs and closed the door. He then went back to the doorstep of 29 and waited (which had its door open) until Julia returned with the jugs and spoke to him briefly.

Wildman interviewed in later years said he is emphatic about the time because he used that church clock (which was illuminated by the way, hence they can see it in the dark) every evening to pace his deliveries. If the time was too late he'd speed up a bit and so on.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I Have read that the experts think the mack as a shield is "absurd"... but why? i.e. why isn't holding up a jacket a feasible thing?
What would happen if they actually did hold up a coat as a shield?
... a shield that could cover them from head to toe?

Have they tried it... or not even thought about it?

Just asking... not trying to prove anything.. just seems strange they have called it absurd!

You won't get a reply from them too soon they're in court at present. One already covered the lack of staining including a contemporary expert on court who suggested the attacker wiped his feet on the rug. But that is a 1931 expert and a PhD student. Which is a very strong position to be in still compared to us (to have a PhD in forensics and have worked homicide cases for the police) but I am trying to get more input from the doctor who would be like the "boss" of the forensic team.

They of course thought about it as I asked numerous times and it's the main prosecution case.

I didn't ask for specific reasoning just I was told it's absurd and wearing it would work better. But that still even wearing it would not work that well. It can also be determined it was never over Julia's head during the attack which is the stupid-simple way to have avoided blood I would have thought... Like why would you kneel down by your felled wife and hold a jacket up hitting her instead of just putting it over her head and it should contain the blood? It's apparently carefully planned and it seems so obvious...

They went through the evidence about the blood on the jacket and believe that is the evidence they find to be highly inconsistent with what would be expected if it had been used as a blood shield by the attacker.

I have not asked the reasoning but you see that the conviction is so strong they will just instantly dismiss ideas that use it. Like there I suggested Wallace's Bull article as a confession:

More importantly he describes the assailant as using the Mac as a shield, which would not fit the evidence and probably picked up from the prosecution’s case. So if you are thinking that he is relating a story that he knows since he was the killer, it seems he has some facts wrong and therefore I do not think this supports guilt.

The woman PhD graduate forensic also uses the same phrase that it does not fit the evidence. You can see the jacket yourself at the crime scene it's not really covered in blood at all. The pooling covering a side is accounted for.

I asked also.specifically about the perp kneeling in the jacket which was 50 or 55 inches long, but apparently that does not fit the evidence because clear patterning would be expected if this was done.

Even McFall does not think the jacket would totally protect the attacker.

It's almost embarassing to ask these people about raincoat ideas because I feel laughed out of the room. I have to accept that. I have a strong feeling you could not find anyone who is a professional in that field who would support it having read the evidence and such.

I am willing to pay for a third opinion but at that point it's like wasting money just because you're desperate for a specific idea to work.

...

Importantly whoever did do this has blood upon them. Not that they resemble Patrick Bateman, but wouldn't have stood up to close scrutiny. A neighbour or someone with access to a car is therefore the best fit. I don't think Amy had a car?

I wonder if they ever checked the weird umbrella man's taxi for blood.