Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Amy Wallace, was she involved?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hey. I'm not trying to frame Wallace... I'm just trying to clear up some facts.
    1. were there two mackintoshes at the scene?
    2. is the mackintosh that is in the photo the one described ?
    3. The one in the photo not bloody or burnt as described in the trial docs?
    4. What is the poker item in the photo...if it isn't the murder weapon?
    5. why is there no blood outside of the parlour? WAITING ON EXPERTS
    6. why is there no more blood splatters inside the parlour? if hit 10 times, that amounts to 10 up strokes and 10 down swings? 20 swings and hardly any blood splatters?

    Comment


    • Sorry WWH, You didn't mention the second mackintosh!! as it was clearly mentioned in my per my questions regarding the trial questions Q1313 thru to Q1317

      Comment


      • If Julia had a mackintosh, where did it hang, and why would she not grab hers?

        Comment


        • What is Q1313 to Q1317? There's over 1000 questions?

          Unless literally everyone ever is wrong, there's one mackintosh in the room. Nothing ever was asked or mentioned about Julia's coats (except a fur one that was kept like a prized possession upstairs in the front bedroom) hence nobody knows where they were kept, or other coats Wallace owned. The investigators simply didn't care you realize. Nobody on the force cared except maybe Fred Williams who seems like a pretty decent cop as he was immediately saying not to touch things.

          Moore according to Bailey via his son turned up wasted, used and flushed the toilet, and they rest of the force have touched and moved everything. NO care for crime scene preservation. They just don't care dude. McFall didn't even take the temperature correctly, didn't even make notes on the progression of rigor (probably too high on Opium to bother?). They have a literal fake alibi in front of them and don't re-question it even though he's being pushed by Wallace as his probable main suspect. They all falsely-assume the caller and killer are definitely the same, like couldn't possibly even be a different person which is obviously not true.

          Julia had William's jacket on her person in some way and it burned with the skirt when it went with her into the fire. If there's two mackintoshes nobody ever in the past century or on trial or anything has ever said anything.

          The iron bar had gone missing since Draper's last visit. That's why I think the poker is there. Draper had been away due to illness and so Julia may have attempted to do them. The small poker would have worked as a substitute for the purpose. I don't actually KNOW what it is there on the fender it's never mentioned by anyone, defence or prosecution.

          Nobody involved in the case except Munro even gave a s**t if we're being honest, and Munro was illegally denied a lot of evidence. If there was a poker there nobody ever said a thing, the charwoman didn't say anything about it when she went there to the scene so it was moved by the time she got there? I have no idea what it is.

          The bloodstains were never photographed. McFall's sketch is a joke. The poker that WAS still there was never photographed so we don't know for example if it had a patterned bar and the missing one looked the same. Draper was not asked any key questions.

          It's a terrible, terrible, terrible investigation from all parties. It has rightly earned its place in law school curriculum for being such a disaster and joke of an investigation (well they use it as miscarriage of justice).
          Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 08-03-2020, 10:27 PM.

          Comment


          • Gannon on the front room:

            "This room was essentially Julia’s room, where she kept her coats, handbags and hats."

            So maybe all her coats were kept up here and not on the hallway pegs. I know she had a fur coat up there, not sure about any others, no mention was made.

            Comment


            • Right I see you mean the labels on the trial paper by Q1317 or whatever.

              So Florence's testimony...

              As she said he was on the window side of the room (that is, the opposite side to the jacket), he then came over to the sideboard side (the side Florence and the mackintosh was on) and said "whatever was she doing with her mackintosh and my mackintosh"

              Here's Florence's handwritten February statement:

              Before the Police arrived, Mr. Wallace and I went back into the front room, and I said to him “Whatever have they used?” He said “What was she doing with her mackintosh? And my mackintosh?” I looked, and saw the mackintosh tucked round her body, behind her, and touching the body. She looked as if she was lying on it. It looked as though a knock had come to the front door, and she had pulled the mackintosh round her shoulders, as she had a cold, before answering the knock.

              I said “Why, is it your mackintosh?”, and he just stopped down and pulled out the folds, and said “Yes, it’s mine”. There was only one mackintosh there, so far as I know. We then went back into the back room. The first Policeman arrived about ten past nine.

              While Mr. Wallace was sitting with me and my husband in the kitchen, an officer came in, and said to him “There’s a mackintosh here, Mr. Wallace; what about it?” He said “Yes, that’s mine”. He was not shown the mackintosh at that time. He said “I had that on my arm all morning, and then I put my coat on”.
              More Florence:

              The photograph W.H.W.7. looks more like the room except the position of the body os not the same. The position of the body in the photograph W.H.W.6. is more like the position I saw. I saw a mackintosh but it was not in the position shown in the photograph W.H.W.7. When I saw it it was almsot hidden under her body on the side nearest the sideboard.
              WHW7 is the photo where you see the mackintosh clearly laid out by the body. WHW6 is the "classic" photo of the parlour looking into it from the hallway.

              The accused was on the window side of the body and he came to the other side and said “Why, whatever was she doing with her mackintosh and my mackintosh”. I then said “is it your mackintosh?” He tooped down, fingered it and said “Yes, it is mine”.

              Comment


              • I don't think I will discuss the case much more. I think something is accurate which nobody would ever believe due to the coincidence of it, but I really think it explains it.

                I just think Gordon who was around the area at the time saw Wallace and placed a funny call to Wallace using a Prudential "problem client" he and Marsden probably used to joke about, to send him off asking around for "men love".

                The events are completely separate.

                The night this has happened Julia's cat went missing. The Johnstons are apparently planning to move out soon. They see the cat and take it and are going to return it but then pause and realize they can use it next time Wallace goes out to burgle the place.

                Stan's statement is accurate. John really confessed to murder.

                Julia felt a pang of depression when the milk was delivered because she'd usually pour a bowl for Puss and it makes her miss the cat. So she puts on the raincoat and goes out the back kitchen door locking it behind her. She goes out the yard door and closes it (but it can't be locked from outside) then goes searching round the alley and block.

                As per Stan, Johnston never sees her return. This is because she's actually returned by the front door. This leaves the yard door unbolted and the kitchen door locked. Johnston thinks she's out and goes in with his spare key in the back.

                Julia in fact just came in set up the fire (probably doesn't even have the lamps on, or just on low) and couch and is reclining or trying to nap on there. John walks into the parlour. Julia is there. She rises. He wacks her with the jemmy producing those parallel markings. And multiple wacks to the front left until it opens and he's therefore sure she's dead.

                When Wallace returns they've pretended they were just going out at nearly 9 PM at night so they can intercept him. The door opens now in their presence because John has unlocked it.

                Matches forensics unlike anything else, the alleged confession has weird details only someone utterly obsessed with the case would even know and uses them in specific ways, Johnston prints over the scene.

                That's probably it... So many reasons... Nobody will ever believe the coincidence. I think this is what probably took place. It will never be proven. Except by forensics I can show the weapon etc. is a match.
                Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 08-04-2020, 02:42 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
                  That's probably it... So many reasons... Nobody will ever believe the coincidence. I think this is what probably took place. It will never be proven. Except by forensics I can show the weapon etc. is a match.
                  Well done with all your research and analysis.

                  Your scenario is entirely plausible. If it is what happened, the Johnston's got away with it because of a prank call which sent everyone off on a premeditated murder line of enquiry.

                  I think two strengths of your scenario, though smallish things, are why Julia was wearing the mac and why she may not have screamed if she recognized the intruder.

                  Parkes is still unexplained, but maybe Parry had been up to some other no good.

                  Comment


                  • Regarding Parry, he and his father claimed an alibi never listed anywhere which is fixing his car on Breck Road. That's not near Hignett's and his alibi does not mention this at all. Maybe that's a glimpse at his TRUE whereabouts on the CALL night.

                    Breck Road is where the phone box is, Wallace walked up to it and down West to the tram so if Parry was mending his car on Breck Road at THAT time he would be in position to notice Wallace.

                    Parkes has caused a lot of confusion if he's bullshitting. Of course at the time everyone had a Wallace story, people were claiming the milk boy had peered through the letterbox and seen Wallace naked raining down blows on his wife's head or something. You know, everyone wanted in on the action. It COULD be a total fabrication though I don't feel it is... He and his pals were discussing Parry having taken waders that he never returned etc. Knew Parry was the type to be able to put on voices on the phone as he'd seen him do it first hand, there was talk around town. Undoubtedly he was certain Gordon murdered Julia... I think Gordon probably really DID go to get his car washed. I don't know about the rest.

                    I think if the FULL file was publicized including ALL reported sightings and incidents and rumours then we might view the ones we have thus far in a different light. It seems Parkes had told people Gordon had come and had his car powerhosed that night. But it seems that's the story period. It doesn't seem by the other witnesses that he had said anything about an iron bar or glove.

                    Maybe Parry had gone there to get his car cleaned and been told Wallace's wife was murdered while he was out looking for a fake address and panicked because of course he knows he made the call. Maybe he acted a bit weird. I don't really know what's gone on there tbh...

                    But a normal iron bar is quite impossible as the murder weapon due to the tram track lines. Someone might refer to a pry bar as an iron bar I guess so when Parry is saying he dropped the iron bar I suppose what that iron bar is could take many forms.

                    Anyway... Crowbars we now all think of as having that distinct shape but the old fashioned "pry bars" and jemmies weren't necessarily like that.

                    Click image for larger version  Name:	vintage-stanley-straight-crow-bar-no-h616-usa-made-nail-puller-pry-bar.jpg Views:	0 Size:	17.3 KB ID:	739113

                    You had a number that were just like that. Not curved entirely over. And also various multitool type things. I think I posted one on an earlier page that I think would be a better fit. But basically many were just bars of iron with a fork on one end.

                    Then you had others with these like, flat surface parts where the fork is:

                    Click image for larger version  Name:	s-l225.jpg Views:	0 Size:	8.1 KB ID:	739114

                    That one seems too small, but a pry bar is a fit as a weapon and is claimed - against all prior ideas and theories ever proposed - to not be the iron bar or poker or whatever. I think Goodman thinks it's something from outside the home. But that's a specific forked implement which would coincidentally be a perfect fit for the wound patterning.

                    ...

                    Early on posting I wrote a lot on the Johnstons. So I can resurrect that.

                    Firstly I thought it was pretty weird they're urging him to investigate upstairs for a burglary (though they've already seen him from outside go through upstairs) when there's a dead body there... I would think Johnston would have rushed out immediately. I also thought for a woman Florence's reaction to the sight was quite flat... According to Florence she is good friends with Julia. Julia was also friends with her daughter. They're on postcard terms. And here she is with her brains everywhere... It might be "misogynistic" but I'd expect a woman to scream or something walking in on that.

                    I also saw they said "what's missing?" Rather than "is anything missing?" Regarding the burglary. The series of events there is critical actually. I wrote down their versions and Wallace's:

                    a. John: Wallace pointed out a broken cabinet lid → John asked if anything is missing → Wallace reached up and took down the cash box and said about £4.

                    b. Florence: No mention.

                    c. John: Wallace pointed out a broken cabinet lid → Wallace took down the cash box and opened it → John asked if anything was missing → Wallace said about £4.

                    d. Florence: [Uncertain placement of the time Wallace pointed out the broken cabinet lid] When they all went into the kitchen Florence asked if anything was missing → Wallace then reached up for the cash box and took it down and said about £4 but did not seem to care about the money → Does not know whether she or her husband then asked Wallace to check upstairs.

                    e. John: Wallace pointed out a broken cabinet lid → Wallace took down the cash box and opened it → John asked if anything was missing → Wallace said about £4.

                    f. Florence: Wallace pointed out a broken cabinet lid → John asked if anything is missing → Wallace reached up and took down the cash box and said about £4 → Now remembers her husband had been the one who asked that he check upstairs.

                    g. John: Wallace pointed out a broken cabinet lid → Wallace took down the cash box and opened it → John asked if anything was missing → Wallace said about £4.

                    h. Florence: Simply confirms in answer to a question that Wallace had pointed out the broken cabinet lid and taken down the cash box. No series of events given.

                    Wallace 20/01/1931: “After my neighbours had been in, Mr Johnston went for the police and a doctor, I asked him to go. I afterwards found that about £4 had been taken from a cashbox in the kitchen, but I’m not sure of the amount.”
                    John had reported the murder as well as the burglary of £4 at the police station so you definitely have to get the series of events accurate there. Some authors claim Florence and Wallace had discovered £4 was missing after John is out of the house so you can see why it's so important the facts are right there.

                    If I can get Munro's Wallace statements too (these are different IIRC) I might be able to get a better idea on the series of events which doesn't seem to be clear among anyone who testified.

                    John's certainly transforms though from asking what's missing as soon as the broken cabinet is pointed out to asking after Wallace had reached up taken down the cash box and opened it.

                    I would probably assume the original version given by John. Wallace said there's a cabinet they've broken open, then John asks what's missing...

                    There's also a crucial change which was used by the prosecution against Wallace. On trial John claimed Wallace was walking in the ordinary way. This is a direct contradiction to earlier statements from both John and Florence that he was hurrying and speaking anxiously.

                    There's another, you'll see some statements (Florence's mainly) claim Wallace's yard door was shut to or ajar, others say closed IIRC? I remember Dorothy L. Sayers being curious that the yard door had been closed. But it seems maybe it was actually just ajar or pushed to not actually shut...
                    Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 08-04-2020, 10:04 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Hang on they asked is anything missing* I got that wrong writing that out just now. Not sure what made me think they'd said it the other way...

                      I often get excited and write things without checking when excited (I tend to check after posting) so you will have to expect that sometimes lol. Let me spend some time with this properly.

                      The mending the car on Breck Road alibi was really said...

                      Edit: I see where I got it "My husband and I and Mr. Wallace all went into the kitchen and I said “What have they taken?”"

                      Florence's second statement, 14th February, is the closest to incriminating themselves. It also aids Wallace by describing how upset he was, and how he didn't give a f___ about the money and they're asking him to investigate. Doubt the day is relevant but maybe she felt sad for Wallace being without Julia on Valentine's lmao... It's a really lengthy piece though and VERY good for Wallace.
                      Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 08-04-2020, 10:53 AM.

                      Comment


                      • You might also enjoy this:

                        Flo: "He did not say at that time that he had been to the front door again, but we assumed that he had done, because we had seen him passing us on the way back again, after we had heard him knock."

                        John: "He said “I’ve been out and find I can’t open the front door. It’s been bolted against me”. I asked him “Have you tried the back kitchen door?” He said “Yes, I couldn’t open it”. I said “That’s funny, try it again and I’ll wait”."

                        Apparently he already knew he'd been to the back because they heard Wallace knock. Failure to mention the spare key offer. Also on the initial statement the spare key thing is penned on. The original typewriting omits it.

                        I mean the statements are on my site you can read them and check for evidence. I'll fix the typos when I wake.
                        Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 08-04-2020, 11:12 AM.

                        Comment


                        • What is Q1313 to Q1317? There's over 1000 questions?

                          Unless literally everyone ever is wrong, there's one mackintosh in the room.

                          Then explain the testimony i pasted?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Ven View Post
                            Hey. I'm not trying to frame Wallace... I'm just trying to clear up some facts.
                            1. were there two mackintoshes at the scene?
                            2. is the mackintosh that is in the photo the one described ?
                            3. The one in the photo not bloody or burnt as described in the trial docs?
                            4. What is the poker item in the photo...if it isn't the murder weapon?
                            5. why is there no blood outside of the parlour? WAITING ON EXPERTS
                            6. why is there no more blood splatters inside the parlour? if hit 10 times, that amounts to 10 up strokes and 10 down swings? 20 swings and hardly any blood splatters?
                            Can you answer any of these questions without going on a rant about your 14th "attacker"

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Ven View Post

                              Can you answer any of these questions without going on a rant about your 14th "attacker"
                              Omg. I told you there's one ever stated. Florence identifies it as the one in WHW7 which is the one you claim isn't bloody or burned enough.

                              When it was bunched up there Wallace thought it was two initially. That's where that comes from.

                              Just read...

                              Comment


                              • You can WAIT ON EXPERTS all you want for the rest... I already actually asked on your behalf, they're busy saving people from actual current death sentences or jailing criminals. You have to be patient or just pay yourself.

                                The case is being presented at the AAFS next Feb in Houston so the entirety of the forensic field can gather at the seminar there just to confirm what even McFall knew that the jacket idea wouldn't work...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X