Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[Ven]

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!

[Ven]

So WilliamWhackedHer, anything from the experts why there was no blood around the house....even though 12 of your suspects were covered/drenched init?

[WallaceWackedHer]

And this is what I mean about the penned corrections.

John:



Florence:



Florence in handwriting so you can see what she says about herself asking what was missing:



She says there he did not cry but she means at that moment I guess, because on the next page or two she's saying he's basically having a mental breakdown and can't even talk due to emotion, half collapsed on Julia's armchair in the kitchen, crying, putting his head in his hands etc.

Once I get Gannon's approval I can make the whole lot public domain crediting him.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi, I know you said you weren't going to comment......what makes you think the Johnstone's statements were separate? And by how much? Hours? Days?

"What have they taken?" So, it was obviously a burglary....

Corrected by pen? They both got it that wrong? "He said wait, no actually I said I'll wait?" Both of them? Occam's razor, the simplest solution is often the right one. I await the full details. Cheers Mr Gannon.

Because they are written as separate statements like "I am Florence Sarah Johnston of 31 Wolverton Street..." type thing and police are not meant to ever interview witnesses together. Their statements are very different and say different things so I assume they are interviewed separately. The same amendments are made to both but there are several statements. Maybe a later testimony was given and the original corrected in pen? I don't know how it works. John's corrects it the opposite way, the pen says he said he'll wait. Their statements differ in various places and and on trial.

I don't know... The statements are typewritten here and marked 21.01.31 so this is going to be the A.M. down at the police station, then corrections marked in pen. They've also made handwritten testimonies and that's where it gets really interesting. The statements are all over the place really.

John neglects to mention he offered to get his key. That is penned in over what he originally wrote. Florence said John offered to get his key.

Even in a later statement he also does not say he said he'll get his key. Just that he said it's funny it won't open, try it again... Then Wallace went and opened it easily... The statement isn't dated but it says he's living at Townsend Avenue so it's after the move took place, so after the initial statement. It's very barely legible.

Florence's statement says SHE said "what have they taken?" John's statement says HE asked "what have they taken?" and that he asked this after Wallace pointed out the broken off cabinet lid and grabbed the cash box off the top shelf... Florence says "My husband and I and Mr. Wallace went into the kitchen and I said "what have they taken?".

She said a lot about his mental state, seems he was not callous and uncaring at all. She said he's in a state of near collapse on Julia's armchair in the kitchen and unable to speak due to emotion at one point, says he cried several times, earlier said he had turned white and was highly distressed etc. A different commentary on him coming out into the yard:

"He then came rushing into the yard and cried in a very distressed and agitated tone 'come look; she's killed.'"

She ALSO corroborates the diary entry of how upset Wallace was when Julia didn't get home until late via her daughter. She says she was friends with Julia and Julia was also friends with her daughter and Julia had told her daughter about how when she'd returned home late that night (this less than 4 weeks before the murder), Wallace was so upset they sat up late having tea and talking (this was after 1AM)... but I think I mentioned this in a previous post. There's a lot to go through. I can tell I'm going to have to pay someone to actually transcribe these documents because John's is illegible. I can mostly read Florence's. John's is really hard to decipher. The lettering is neatly spaced but the handwriting is very weird. Some words look like nonsense. This page mentions the conversation about the back door, again failing to mention the key:



I can make out most of it, but some of the words are illegible to me. I think I can share one page like that without breaking trust.

[etenguy]

My thoughts when seeing how severely the original statements were changed on trial.

Wallace according to the Johnston's statements was NOT "walking in the ordinary way" to his back yard door but hurrying just as one example... John said Wallace was "walking quickly", Florence says "walking hurriedly". A lot of the original statements align with Wallace's words but are for some reason very different on trial. There is a lot here to go through.

Something weird here... I think the Johnstons' statements were taken separately but they made the same "error" which was then corrected by pen. Both originally said Wallace told them to wait while he goes inside. Both changed their statements to say that THEY said they'll wait outside while he goes and looks around.

Both said he was noticeably upset when he came out. Florence says "he was hurried and his voice was raised but not to a shout. His tone was distressed." John: "He was upset [when he came out and said she had been killed]". John of note is slightly deaf in his right ear.

Both Johnstons also said they were the one who said "what have they taken". Florence says she asks before Wallace pointed out the broken off door. She said naturally he didn't seem to give a f**k about the missing money.

Much more to come. Gannon will be on vacation for a week and I will ask when he returns.

Hi WWH

Sounds like you have a lot to go through. Good of John Gannon to share. I hope you find some interesting and helpful information.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

My thoughts when seeing how severely the original statements were changed on trial.

Wallace according to the Johnston's statements was NOT "walking in the ordinary way" to his back yard door but hurrying just as one example... John said Wallace was "walking quickly", Florence says "walking hurriedly". A lot of the original statements align with Wallace's words but are for some reason very different on trial. There is a lot here to go through.

Something weird here... I think the Johnstons' statements were taken separately but they made the same "error" which was then corrected by pen. Both originally said Wallace told them to wait while he goes inside. Both changed their statements to say that THEY said they'll wait outside while he goes and looks around.

Both said he was noticeably upset when he came out. Florence says "he was hurried and his voice was raised but not to a shout. His tone was distressed." John: "He was upset [when he came out and said she had been killed]". John of note is slightly deaf in his right ear.

Both Johnstons also said they were the one who said "what have they taken". Florence says she asks before Wallace pointed out the broken off door. She said naturally he didn't seem to give a f**k about the missing money.

Much more to come. Gannon will be on vacation for a week and I will ask when he returns.

Hi, I know you said you weren't going to comment......what makes you think the Johnstone's statements were separate? And by how much? Hours? Days?

"What have they taken?" So, it was obviously a burglary....

Corrected by pen? They both got it that wrong? "He said wait, no actually I said I'll wait?" Both of them? Occam's razor, the simplest solution is often the right one. I await the full details. Cheers Mr Gannon.

[WallaceWackedHer]

My thoughts when seeing how severely the original statements were changed on trial.

Wallace according to the Johnston's statements was NOT "walking in the ordinary way" to his back yard door but hurrying just as one example... John said Wallace was "walking quickly", Florence says "walking hurriedly". A lot of the original statements align with Wallace's words but are for some reason very different on trial. There is a lot here to go through.

Something weird here... I think the Johnstons' statements were taken separately but they made the same "error" which was then corrected by pen. Both originally said Wallace told them to wait while he goes inside. Both changed their statements to say that THEY said they'll wait outside while he goes and looks around.

Both said he was noticeably upset when he came out. Florence says "he was hurried and his voice was raised but not to a shout. His tone was distressed." John: "He was upset [when he came out and said she had been killed]". John of note is slightly deaf in his right ear.

Both Johnstons also said they were the one who said "what have they taken". Florence says she asks before Wallace pointed out the broken off door. She said naturally he didn't seem to give a f**k about the missing money.

Much more to come. Gannon will be on vacation for a week and I will ask when he returns.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Okay I've hit total paydirt courtesy of John Gannon he's sent me so many files. I do not feel I can publicly post them right now because they are coming from him and I will need to ask for his permission which I will do. Once I have permission I will post them all on my site public domain credited to Gannon. Otherwise I will have to get the files myself from Hill Dickinson.

Give me some time with these, I now have McFall's crime scene sketch and a lot of important files I was missing which I have sent across to the forensics to have a look at.

I also have the statements of John and Florence Johnston, they are quite interesting. I will post again soon, there is a LOT to go through here. Apparently the housebreaker stuff is in here somehwere.

Great news Wallace. Thanks to John Gannon, hope he agrees for you to publish.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Okay I've hit total paydirt courtesy of John Gannon he's sent me so many files. I do not feel I can publicly post them right now because they are coming from him and I will need to ask for his permission which I will do. Once I have permission I will post them all on my site public domain credited to Gannon. Otherwise I will have to get the files myself from Hill Dickinson.

Give me some time with these, I now have McFall's crime scene sketch and a lot of important files I was missing which I have sent across to the forensics to have a look at.

I also have the statements of John and Florence Johnston, they are quite interesting. I will post again soon, there is a LOT to go through here. Apparently the housebreaker stuff is in here somehwere.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Thanks for the clarity WWH, sorry I misinterpreted your earlier posts about the lounger.

More information, as you say, would help. I hope the files you are seeking access to supply that.

Of course, if the Johnstons are involved, it would explain why they said they heard nothing, but nor did the neighbours the other side.

If your information is correct, re Stan's tip that she was likely rising from the lounger when attacked, then I think it still rules out an interrupted burglary. It leaves Wallace, or someone who entered quietly and went through to the parlour with a weapon and attacked Julia. They though would need to have anticipated attacking or killing Julia by bringing the weapon with them. It also must have been almost immediately they entered, or else they would have alerted Julia who would most likely come to investigate or if scared, might have made to leave. I struggle to find a scenario where she discovered a burglar and yet the attack took place where she was with no-one hearing any screams for help.

Yes there's absolutely no way that happened in my view, which is why I went as far as calling Rod/Antony's version of events completely impossible. There's almost no way Julia discovers someone burgling the kitchen and then goes back into the parlour unless it's a well known person... Then there's a chance she'd just forcefully tell him to put the money back and leave etc. and has gone to turn off the fire, as opposed to screaming and being battered on the spot.

If it's not someone she likes or trusts a lot it's incredibly unlikely bordering completely impossible. Even still, even if she trusts them etc. if they decided right then to kill her she'd be dead in the kitchen.

I prefer the criminal, if it's one person, making noise, REALIZING he's made noise as you obviously would, then rushing back into the parlour and intercepting Julia in a one man scenario.

I wouldn't expect the neighbours the other side to hear as much as there's two walls between them (they'd be in their kitchen, door shut likely - though not necessarily... But probably due to the cold weather which is a bigger deal in 1931. Then the hallway wall. Then the Wallace parlour wall).

In a quiet street real screams of distress would ring out I'd think so though the Johnstons can hear more, if the woman was screaming for her life I reckon the whole street would hear it. But the other neighbours might not hear her being wacked as easily. Arthur Mills should have heard this murder. He lived in the Johnston parlour which shared a party wall with Wallaces. Whoever killed her he should have heard her being smacked into the fire and smashed repeatedly on the floor.

That's one of the statements I want the most.

Read Stan's relay of Johnston's confession fully. He didn't have a weapon he had a housebreaking/burglary tool (a jemmy AKA pry bar AKA crowbar). The prong end of many I found from 1900 to 1931 would match the parallel patterned marking. The multitool shipyard crate openers sometimed had a hammer part like what I posted, which is important because John worked at Cammell Laird shipyard and I am told one wound looks like it was caused by a hammer.

Recognizing her neighbours in the house I don't think she would scream. She was on postcard terms with the Johnstons. She trusted them.

There's the best solution and the real one.

The best solution I think would be Parry and Denison, that seems to be the smartest "working backwards" answer. But I think the probable real solution is Parry placing a prank call which he often did and the Johnstons exploiting it either knowingly or unknowingly.

If you ISOLATE the call and imagine there's no crime, it's a typical prank call. Everyone would be like "lol Wallace you got punk'd bro" and a good laugh at his expense would be had by all. I mean if nobody was murdered it IS pretty funny, this bookish man wandering all over Menlove Avenue asking for a place that doesn't exist for a meeting with a Prudential "problem client" Mr. Qualtrough. It's actually quite hilarious.

I often forget what always leads me back to the same scenario. But it always circles back to nothing makes sense if it's planned unless it's Parry and a friend.

If the call is a prank I'll go ahead and say the Johnstons are guilty of murder.

Wallace having done it solo through ANY method is considered highly improbable by experts (I asked point blank) with many specific theories being full-on impossible. The prosecution and McFall don't even think it's possible hence crossdressing William assertions. So I don't think P.D. James is fully correct.

When Wilkes said to the prosecutor Walsh like, are you serious, Wallace dressing as Julia? He got really angry and said yeah look it's easy and faked a woman's voice. Wallace is about a foot taller than his wife with a moustache. Lmfao. With all these accents and voices Wallace can apparently fake it seems he should have had a career in acting. If you as a 6'2 man with a moustache can open the door to a milk boy and actually have a conversation convincing him you're Julia, you deserve an Oscar.

[etenguy]

I should be clear: She was not on the lounger when attacked. She was on that side of the room but I am going witn Stan's tip-off that she'd risen from the lounger.

Then she would be in the correct position.

I think it was said specifically she wasn't on the lounger once the attack started:

"The settee does appear to have pillows arranged for someone who is reclining, as Gannon states. But apparently there is no blood in that corner of the room. All of the blood is around the armchair. But… the violin case is lying on the arms of the chair. It would seem clear that someone was not sitting in the settee when the attack started due to lack of blood and was not sitting in the armchair either."

This is very early on in his investigations. The settee is the lounger. So I'm suggesting she has goften up from it like Stan's tip-off said and was attacked then.

Stan's tip-off (Johnston's alleged confession) as far as I know matches every single forensic fact and openly contradicted prior facts about what side of the room Julia was on. It even matches the side of the Mackintosh that was burned. And mentions a weird fact only someone obsessed with the case would even know it was so underreported and a meagre sidenote in one book.

...

I very recently asked point blank if Wallace could have done if in ANY WAY, forgetting any mackintosh theory etc. as it's been totally ruled out. Just that he battered her and left in the alotted time period. Including any idea never even presented. Just as a generality. I asked that because people think there are secret other ways he possibly did it.

The response I got from that is:

"I find it highly improbable that he could have done the crime and gotten out in the available time."

Wallace's John Bull article recreation of the crime was ruled out forensically. That's strongly favorable IMO as he wrote an elaborate series of events that made me think it's a confession. But it's not possible... Any raincoat theory is also ruled out forensically.

There is enough evidence to solve the case you just need to pester Hill Dickinson and the police for the files. They contain McFall's blood spray sketches which could help forensics nail down her position.

Gannon mentions blood in parts of the room never mentioned in books. I posted myself a sighting (though it's an impossible one if the guy got the time right) that was never mentioned in books.

Authors are holding cards close to their chest. There's MUCH more information than you can know.

I don't like probability I want to know what happened. The full file will show it, there's lots of forensically vital.trial exhibits missing. McFall's post mortem sketch and blood patterning sketch among them. Then we can place her definitely in a certain position.

Thanks for the clarity WWH, sorry I misinterpreted your earlier posts about the lounger.

More information, as you say, would help. I hope the files you are seeking access to supply that.

Of course, if the Johnstons are involved, it would explain why they said they heard nothing, but nor did the neighbours the other side.

If your information is correct, re Stan's tip that she was likely rising from the lounger when attacked, then I think it still rules out an interrupted burglary. It leaves Wallace, or someone who entered quietly and went through to the parlour with a weapon and attacked Julia. They though would need to have anticipated attacking or killing Julia by bringing the weapon with them. It also must have been almost immediately they entered, or else they would have alerted Julia who would most likely come to investigate or if scared, might have made to leave. I struggle to find a scenario where she discovered a burglar and yet the attack took place where she was with no-one hearing any screams for help.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi again, John

I will explain why the interrupted burglary scenario seems very unlikely to me, and would be interested in your thoughts.

WWH has done some excellent research with forensic experts that identifies the most likely position of Julia Wallace when she was attacked. His latest research suggest she was on the lounger. (It is quite easy to imagine Julia resting on the lounger with the mac as a cover, since she was not so well). Others have suggested she was lighting the fire or sitting on the armchair which had the violin case resting on it.

None of those positions, especially the latest, suggests she had interrupted someone in the kitchen. If, as WWH's latest research suggests, she was resting on the lounger, it follows that she was not concerned about either anyone else being in the house with her, or any crime taking place in the house. Quite the opposite in fact. If she had interrupted a burglar and had time to rush back to the front parlour to sit (or perhaps be pushed onto) the lounger afraid for her life, she would have screamed and the Johnstons at the very least would have heard her.

Instead, we appear to have someone relaxed and taken by surprise - which suggests that anyone else in the house was not a concern for her. This to my mind suggests that Wallace was the most likely murderer.

In addition, again following research by WWH, it has been identified that the missing iron bar was not the murder weapon. Nothing else that could have been the weapon was reported as missing from the house. This suggests the killer brought the murder weapon into the house. So whether it was Wallace or someone else, they entered the house with at least the possibility of murder on their mind.

I should be clear: She was not on the lounger when attacked. She was on that side of the room but I am going witn Stan's tip-off that she'd risen from the lounger.

Then she would be in the correct position.

I think it was said specifically she wasn't on the lounger once the attack started:

"The settee does appear to have pillows arranged for someone who is reclining, as Gannon states. But apparently there is no blood in that corner of the room. All of the blood is around the armchair. But… the violin case is lying on the arms of the chair. It would seem clear that someone was not sitting in the settee when the attack started due to lack of blood and was not sitting in the armchair either."

This is very early on in his investigations. The settee is the lounger. So I'm suggesting she has goften up from it like Stan's tip-off said and was attacked then.

Stan's tip-off (Johnston's alleged confession) as far as I know matches every single forensic fact and openly contradicted prior facts about what side of the room Julia was on. It even matches the side of the Mackintosh that was burned. And mentions a weird fact only someone obsessed with the case would even know it was so underreported and a meagre sidenote in one book.

...

I very recently asked point blank if Wallace could have done it in ANY WAY, forgetting any mackintosh theory etc. as it's been totally ruled out. Just that he battered her and left in the alotted time period. Including any idea never even presented. Just as a generality. I asked that because people think there are secret other ways he possibly did it.

The response I got from that is:

"I find it highly improbable that he could have done the crime and gotten out in the available time."

Wallace's John Bull article recreation of the crime was ruled out forensically. That's strongly favorable IMO as he wrote an elaborate series of events that made me think it's a confession. But it's not possible... Any raincoat theory is also ruled out forensically.

There is enough evidence to solve the case you just need to pester Hill Dickinson and the police for the files. They contain McFall's blood spray sketches which could help forensics nail down her position.

Gannon mentions blood in parts of the room never mentioned in books. I posted myself a sighting (though it's an impossible one if the guy got the time right) that was never mentioned in books.

Authors are holding cards close to their chest. There's MUCH more information than you can know.

I don't like probability I want to know what happened. The full file will show it, there's lots of forensically vital.trial exhibits missing. McFall's post mortem sketch and blood patterning sketch among them. Then we can place her definitely in a certain position.

...

The odds Gordon the sole person seemingly framed for the call would have no alibi for the call. Combined with all the facts that make it seem like him including the accent it's like... How can anyone get him out of that... Please do so I can get Johnston in there.

Maddock who tested the chess routes:

"With reference to Mr Wallace’s journey on 19 January… the time he states as 30 minutes is reasonable and consistent. It is also possible to go round by the telephone box and, provided one takes a tram direct from there, and there is one available immediately, it is possible to arrive at the City Café in about the same time, but this does not allow any time for making the telephone call."

Antony and Gannon contradict each other with Maddock. Antony says the telephone route minimum is 24 minutes. Gannon claims 26 assuming zero wait time.

[etenguy]

Exactly. But such hard facts don't seem to matter when you have a convoluted theory to promote, unsupported by any evidence, of course. It's like the forensic evidence which effectively rules Wallace out, supported by modern forensic experts and the experts at the time. And the impossibility of Wallace disposing of the murder weapon, another inconvenient truth.

Hi John

Of course hard facts matter, the problem with this case is that there are insufficient hard facts to determine what happened with complete confidence. To try and find the best explanation for what happened that night, some conjecture is required. When someone puts up a theory to be tested, then of course, they try to answer the challenges from others to test the theory. If the challenges overwhelm the theory, the theory fails. However, if the challenges can be met, perhaps with some refinement of the theory, we get closer to producing a scenario that helps to understand possibly what happened.

I will be revisiting the forensic evidence that WWH has compiled to test whether it really does rule out Wallace as the murderer, or rules out only the scenarios that have been previously presented.

[etenguy]

Overwhelmingly a robbery gone wrong. A perpetrator who was interrupted, resulting in an unplanned murder, is hardly likely going to spend time searching for valuables, especially if they believe that the neighbour may have been alerted.

Hi again, John

I will explain why the interrupted burglary scenario seems very unlikely to me, and would be interested in your thoughts.

WWH has done some excellent research with forensic experts that identifies the most likely position of Julia Wallace when she was attacked. His latest research suggest she was on the lounger. (It is quite easy to imagine Julia resting on the lounger with the mac as a cover, since she was not so well). Others have suggested she was lighting the fire or sitting on the armchair which had the violin case resting on it.

None of those positions, especially the latest, suggests she had interrupted someone in the kitchen. If, as WWH's latest research suggests, she was resting on the lounger, it follows that she was not concerned about either anyone else being in the house with her, or any crime taking place in the house. Quite the opposite in fact. If she had interrupted a burglar and had time to rush back to the front parlour to sit (or perhaps be pushed onto) the lounger afraid for her life, she would have screamed and the Johnstons at the very least would have heard her.

Instead, we appear to have someone relaxed and taken by surprise - which suggests that anyone else in the house was not a concern for her. This to my mind suggests that Wallace was the most likely murderer.

In addition, again following research by WWH, it has been identified that the missing iron bar was not the murder weapon. Nothing else that could have been the weapon was reported as missing from the house. This suggests the killer brought the murder weapon into the house. So whether it was Wallace or someone else, they entered the house with at least the possibility of murder on their mind.

[etenguy]

Hi,

I'm afraid I would have to disagree. The recipient of the call, who knew Wallace well, was convinced that it wasn't him. And there's no evidence that Wallace had the ability to disguise his voice. That's solid evidence.

Hi John

Both you and WWH have made this point. Could Wallace have disguised his voice over the phone sufficiently to fool Sam Beattie? I have certainly been able to do that with my friends, whether they would swear to that in Court is another matter. Nevertheless, given Sam's insistence it was not Wallace, I agree that we would have to accept that the caller was extremely unlikely to be Wallace. This does not mean, however, that Wallace did not kill or conspire to kill his wife.

Parry lied about his whereabouts at the time of the call, and we have a witness who states he had a history of making prank calls. That's solid evidence.

This is solid evidence that Parry lied. This is solid evidence that Parry was a phone prankster. It is not solid evidence that Parry made the fateful call. All this tells us is that we cannot rule out the possibility that Parry made the call.