Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Amy Wallace, was she involved?

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

  • I believe the overcoat/mackintosh Wallace wore the evening of the murder was an extra one he had been wearing that day.
    I cannot find a reference to Wallace being examined by the police,who at that time had no cause to examine or to search.A visual glance at his outer garment was the most they could accomplish,and from reports he seems to have spent quite a time just sitting.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by harry View Post
      I believe the overcoat/mackintosh Wallace wore the evening of the murder was an extra one he had been wearing that day.
      I cannot find a reference to Wallace being examined by the police,who at that time had no cause to examine or to search.A visual glance at his outer garment was the most they could accomplish,and from reports he seems to have spent quite a time just sitting.
      His suit of clothes he wore that night was subjected to benzidine testing. The mackintosh found with the body which belonged to him (slate grey that he'd gone on his afternoon rounds with) was not held up or worn by an attacker during the assault to shield from blood.

      I am told by professional forensics...

      The description of staining on the garment by McFall, the analyst etc, is inconsistent with the theory that it was used by an attacker. Even if an attacker had held it up or worn it (which is ruled out by the evidence anyway) the level of protection would be insufficient and the attacker would have noticeable blood upon him. Though mainly on the face, hair, and trousers (if that mackintosh had been worn, as it was only 50 or 55 inches long - holding it up is considered laughable and even less efficient). The hands/gloves would also be bloodied.

      The attacker did not kneel while wearing it, otherwise distinct blood spray marking would be expected forming I guess a kind of ring around the portion that was knelt on.

      So...

      Most likely the attacker left by foot (and lived close preferably) or got a ride in a car. A weird man did take a cab near the street at about 7 PM which would be minimal exposure to others, though still dangerous - the police sought him out straight after the murder. It says in the paper some days after it was found to be unrelated though I did not see that they had actually found him or their reasoning etc. It was about the time they started targeting Mr. Wallace having him shadowed etc.

      Public transport and/or lots of face to face conversation would not be feasible for the attacker. Car or foot escape with minimal to zero conversation would be expected to have actually gotten away with it.

      The best match for the attacker would be a close neighbour like Johnston or Caird, or someone with access to a car... There was a large area of field an attacker could have fled through on foot as well, which comes out around Clubmoor. He'd be well protected by darkness.

      I am presently in contact with a forensic professional who specializes and is internationally recognized in blood pattern analysis. But she is presently backed up with court cases and I expect she will start on it in a week or two.

      The main goal is to position Julia and her attacker in the room, and I will also ofc ask about the raincoat. It's already been laughed out of the room twice but this woman specializes in blood spatter specifically.

      Comment


      • The testing seems to have been done after Wallace was arrested,sometime later.How could the police be sure it was the same as that worn on the evening Julia was killed?How many changes of clothing did Wallace own?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by harry View Post
          The testing seems to have been done after Wallace was arrested,sometime later.How could the police be sure it was the same as that worn on the evening Julia was killed?How many changes of clothing did Wallace own?
          As opposed to testing him before he was arrested?

          The time frame, as attested to by independent witnesses, rules out a clothes change. It rules out Bill full stop.
          Thems the Vagaries.....

          Comment


          • Wallace was arrsted two weeks after Julia was killed.Thats the earliest the clothes could be tested.,without his consent.With Wallace clothed in a raincoat the night of the murder,how could it be determined what he was wearing beneath? Remember too,Wallace had protection of the law as regards search that evening,and was at that time considered a witness only.He hadn't been cautioned.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by harry View Post
              The testing seems to have been done after Wallace was arrested,sometime later.How could the police be sure it was the same as that worn on the evening Julia was killed?How many changes of clothing did Wallace own?
              I thought that. It's still not plausible in any case and the raincoat idea needs to be rightly dismissed already. In plausibility (aside from the physical evidence ON the jacket ruling it out) there are too many areas that were exposed on the attacker. The raincoat shield is discarded by any professional.

              You can hire any forensic professional on the planet and they will tell you the same. Even McFall if you read when he's questioned by Roland Oliver, and you can tell he really doesn't want to admit it... Even in a raincoat the face, hair, hands, trousers, and shoes would have blood upon them and the jackets don't go low enough to cover more than some of the trousers. Nobody knelt down or there'd be obvious patterning. Holding it up would not work at all and would be far worse than wearing it.

              The entire idea is discarded by the physical evidence of the jacket, the description of the blood on it etc. It's fully discarded. I sent one guy the John Bull finale and asked if it's a confession (OJ Simpson style) and he dismissed it based on the raincoat featuring in it. That is how strong the evidence is that it wasn't used, you can apparently dismiss ideas based solely on it...

              Simply the blood described on the raincoat is not consistent at all with it being worn or held by the attacker, even taking into account the side obscured by being in the pooling.

              The jacket was also not over Julia's head during any of the attack because otherwise "true tears" in the material should have been detected by the lab.

              That's about 50% of book theories dismantled. It's not actually scientifically possible.

              ...

              Therefore I can only imagine that the jacket was on Julia in some way - which seems most likely due to the burning - or that it was placed there to make it look like she'd answered the door when actually the person had come in the back (like John Johnston's alleged confession. Florence is the one who first pointed out it looked like she'd put it on to go answer the door).

              I think the bottom grill of the fireplace is removable and the grid could have caused the burning rather than the actual fireplace if it was taken off while hot and put aside against the body etc... Someone might do that if they want to use a bare flame to burn evidence since those Sunbeam fireplaces are enclosed AFAIK and work by radiant technology... That also means Julia couldn't have caught fire immediately upon lighting the fire and being hit because the radiants need time to heat up. If I could buy one of these fireplaces to test I would.

              There's further evidence it was later than that because the couch appears used and set up. The investigators (McFall) said he'd perched on the arm. The cushions there seem like someone was lying down, there's even one kind of jammed down the side as well as the one in a pillow position. The armchair wasn't sat in so you can assume Julia was on the sofa. Her box of matches are by that sofa too, as pointed out by Florence when she went into the home... The newspaper is also open at the center pages on the kitchen table despite being delivered only very shortly before the milk.

              It could also be an attempted framing or red herring but those are a stretch and only reconciled by chess player prejudice that William would plan to put his jacket there etc. because he kills people like a chess game... People do spend a lot of time thinking about that jacket which did not play a role in the attacker escaping the scene.

              ...

              By Johnston's confession Julia exited by the back in the jacket to look for the cat. Apparently they had it - Antony seems to think they were the cat's original owner though I haven't seen it corroborated yet. But I do know it was originally a neighbour's cat and Julia had looked after it during their vacation.

              Florence may have sent her out saying she just saw it or it was spontaneous because she was upset and reminded of the cat when the milk came and went looking down the alleys shortly after... It is said they waited and never saw her come back so John went in the back with his spare key... Possibly Julia had come back in the FRONT door after searching the block hence not seeing her return, which would mean the yard door is unbolted and the back kitchen door locked but unbolted, meaning John could enter with his key.

              If she had been searching for the cat, came in the front and felt weary and like lying down from her cold, she may have come in the front and set up the parlour to lie down by the fireplace where they have a lounger, without removing the jacket because it would be initially cold in the room. That's where John allegedly found her and allegedly she rose from the lounger and he hit her with a jemmy bar he'd brought in to prize open locked cabinets etc.

              The fork end leaving the characteristic tram track injuries.

              ...

              Gordon's call is likely a joke. According to Parry's dad, Parry's alibi was that he was mending his car on Breck Road which is the road William walked down to catch the tram on the chess night. Actually that features nowhere in his alibi at all and Hignett's is far away, so maybe that was his true whereabouts on the call night which as we all know he proveably faked to cops... So he could have seen him. He knows he goes to chess, and he often placed prank calls in funny voices, he was known for doing it. Sending "sexually odd" William off searching for Men Love seems pretty jokeish. The details don't work as a good plan for anyone unless the address was a mistake by the caller. Nor does wanting to scam two pennies seem likely for someone with murder or w.e. in their mind.

              The trip to the Gardens tram stop and back without even getting off the tram is about an hour. That's enough time for whatever the person needed to do.
              Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 08-13-2020, 10:11 AM.

              Comment


              • Hi WWH,

                In case I missed it, I'm assuming all your forensic professionals have done practical reconstructions of the crime, using similar murder weapons, to see how the crime scene looks afterwards and how much 'blood' ends up on them and their clothing? Otherwise it would be down to opinion rather than personal experience, wouldn't it?

                I ask because of the experiment carried out concerning a very similar murder case, which featured on a series of the bbc tv programme: Murder, Mystery & My Family.

                The theory was that the murderer would have been covered in the red stuff, therefore the defendant should have been found not guilty on the basis that no blood was found on him.

                The forensic professional carrying out the reconstruction in this case wore white overalls and made no particular effort to avoid the blood spray, spatter and what have you, and yet - contrary to expectations - no traces of blood ended up on her person or overalls. The conclusion was that the defendant could not therefore be ruled out on the basis proposed.

                Even if one were to argue that out of 100 similar experiments, the other 99 would almost certainly have produced a very different result, the fact remains that this one exception is enough to test the rule.

                Interesting and informative posts as always, by the way!

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                Comment


                • Originally posted by caz View Post
                  Hi WWH,

                  In case I missed it, I'm assuming all your forensic professionals have done practical reconstructions of the crime, using similar murder weapons, to see how the crime scene looks afterwards and how much 'blood' ends up on them and their clothing? Otherwise it would be down to opinion rather than personal experience, wouldn't it?

                  I ask because of the experiment carried out concerning a very similar murder case, which featured on a series of the bbc tv programme: Murder, Mystery & My Family.

                  The theory was that the murderer would have been covered in the red stuff, therefore the defendant should have been found not guilty on the basis that no blood was found on him.

                  The forensic professional carrying out the reconstruction in this case wore white overalls and made no particular effort to avoid the blood spray, spatter and what have you, and yet - contrary to expectations - no traces of blood ended up on her person or overalls. The conclusion was that the defendant could not therefore be ruled out on the basis proposed.

                  Even if one were to argue that out of 100 similar experiments, the other 99 would almost certainly have produced a very different result, the fact remains that this one exception is enough to test the rule.

                  Interesting and informative posts as always, by the way!

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  I've seen the program mentioned before in prior threads but have not seen a link to the episode, I would like to see it if there is a link. I don't believe anyone who is not a professional in that field should render any opinion on where Julia is positioned etc.

                  Beyond the raincoat, the fire was lit for some time for the radiants to have heated enough to cause burning and the sofa had been lounged in/used by either Julia or a visitor by the appearance of things. Amy had visited that day but was received in the kitchen.

                  Contrary to all prior ideas, John's confession is the only one to place her there which fits the evidence including forensically what I am now told. Her matches are by the sofa, her feet are on the window side and it's hard to envision anyone chucking her feet over to the opposite side during a frenzied attack.

                  She was on the window side of the room most likely. By appearances lying down, which is what "Stan" claimed John told him. Julia had risen from that lounger.

                  Of course you'd think "Stan" deserves some investigating himself. He's the one randomly spitting out forensically verified information, contradicting all prior theories about where she was sat etc and being right, mentioning bizarre minute details about the case, and mentioning a weapon that contradicts all prior belief that it was the iron bar yet fits the forensics because of the parallel wounding. It's just his word John confessed to all this. For all we know it was him or someone else he knew/knows...

                  Comment


                  • Don't quote me, WWH, but I think the episode in question may have been no.8 of series one, but it is currently unavailable:

                    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09vgd7d

                    It's purely the matter of the blood that I would prefer to see firmed up in the Wallace case. Too many questions for my liking.

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X
                    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by caz View Post
                      Don't quote me, WWH, but I think the episode in question may have been no.8 of series one, but it is currently unavailable:

                      https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09vgd7d

                      It's purely the matter of the blood that I would prefer to see firmed up in the Wallace case. Too many questions for my liking.

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X
                      I'm talking to someone who specializes in blood pattern analysis specifically. Like how you can become a doctor and specialise in the brain and end up being a neuroscientist... I already know the jacket will be ruled out again but still it is a focal point for the prosecution case so they have to look at it.

                      I think it'll turn out the neighbours did this. Parry and Denison works well and the door locks situations etc. would be the same but the neighbours explain more details.

                      The case in the episode you linked is quite different, if it's the one where the guy knocked her unconscious then stabbed her through the throat.
                      Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 08-13-2020, 02:22 PM.

                      Comment




                      • Wtf?

                        I'll keep posting hidden testimony.

                        This man left choir practice on the night of the murder and walked down Walton Breck Road on his way home to Richmond Park. He glanced at Holy Trinity Church clock at 8.35 PM (the same one Lily Hall and all the delivery boys etc. say they looked at).

                        About halfway up the street opposite #26 Richmond Park he says he was accosted by a stockily built man in a felt hat asking for a non-existent address. He told the man the address did not exist. He stepped into his house at 8.40 PM. He says he knows both Mr. Wallace and Lily Hall and didn't see either of them.




                        Both Lily Hall and this other witness however, describe a short stocky man in a cap, I guess seemingly lurking the area considering two people saw him.

                        And really bizarrely, asking directions to a fake address.
                        Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 08-21-2020, 08:31 PM.

                        Comment


                        • How ,and when,did the macintosh,and Julia's garment come to be burnt?If it was after Wallace had departed to Menlove Gardens,would not the smell of burnt cloth have lingered?No one,the police especially,are reported as noticing a smell.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by harry View Post
                            How ,and when,did the macintosh,and Julia's garment come to be burnt?If it was after Wallace had departed to Menlove Gardens,would not the smell of burnt cloth have lingered?No one,the police especially,are reported as noticing a smell.
                            She in fact was killed after he departed to the Gardens.

                            It's not considered forensically possible that William killed his wife. McFall and the prosecutors had the "Wallace dressed as Julia" angle to get around what they knew was scientifically impossible.

                            This is a very rare case where you can actually prove someone's innocence of having done something. Usually that is not necessary, but in this case you can prove at the very least that he did not do it with his own hand.

                            I am having a blood pattern analysis expert who lectures and teaches the topic internationally look at the evidence. If she also rules out the idea then I consider the theory legitimately disproven entirely.

                            I would look at the fact there's a man in a hat lurking around the crime scene asking for a fake address. That is something strange.

                            I noticed the police report written up by Hubert Moore says the operators refunded the second call... they did believe the caller had paid for the first (though he actually refunded his money). Scamming two pennies in a murder plot is inconceivable. Especially in light of the fact it means your voice is exposed more, and you as a caller are noticed more. Actually it's inconceivable you'd talk to the operators in your normal voice even. What fool would not know the police would be STRAIGHT down the telephone exchange requesting anyone come forward who put a call through to the café that night?

                            Inquiries to the exchange were made by the chief constable (higher power than the lead investigator Superintendent Hugh Moore) as early as the 22nd of January. Lmao.


                            Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 08-23-2020, 01:57 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Here is a letter from a member of the police force and his wife (his wife wrote in first).

                              I enjoyed this because they're going in on the neighbours.





                              And then her husband wrote in:

                              Comment


                              • More interesting pieces Wallace.

                                The stocky man is certainly interesting. How odd, that the night Wallace is out looking for a non existent address, a strange man is seen near his house doing the same? The killer? A burglar? Asking for directions? It's not likely. It could be a totally unrelated coincidence, but what a strange one.

                                The Wife's letter is worth a read. It's worth noting that suspicion fell on the Johnson's at the time but was not followed up. Her observations about their behaviour ring true.

                                Here's one to muse over. If Wallace had attended a bona fide client that night, would he ever have been in the frame? Did the Menlove mystery cause the police to go down the wrong track, and once on it, stick with it? Who would they have looked at, in what circumstances, if Wallace had a cast iron alibi that didn't raise questions?

                                But a man looking for a non existent address, at that time and place? Bizarre.

                                Keep adding things as you can.
                                Thems the Vagaries.....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X