Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Amy Wallace, was she involved?

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

  • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
    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.
    There is little chance the man in the hat is the murderer. I don't think a murderer would be loitering the crime scene and going up to witnesses asking for fake addresses, why would he try to implant himself in anyone's mind?

    The hat man was also not reportedly soaked in blood by this man or Lily Hall, yet for the killer it would have been inescapable. Even wearing a blood shield jacket. They may have been unobservant but a killer with blood on him isn't wandering around like that chatting to people.

    Evidently he was loitering the crime scene and spoke to at least one person if not also to Wallace. Maybe he is a lookout. It is a very strange thing... That he would go up to people asking for addresses that don't exist... Maybe he is another prank victim or it's coincidental, but very very odd... I don't think many criminals would strike up conversations near the crime scene.

    If he is a lookout I'd consider that he is loitering/staking out the route Wallace is likely to take home and the back streets, so then I wonder who exactly he is watching out for and why.

    I actually don't get this really. Maybe William has a hitman and has paid half up front, half after, and here some guy is waiting for the half after. William did not and could not have done it himself so an accomplice is the only possibility in a case of guilt.

    ...

    I have added all statements to my site. I think I only have a few more to add. It includes Wallace's Munro statements which are of a better quality than his police statements by far. But you need to view the pics in full size and zoom in. These aren't my own photos so I wasn't able to get better quality.

    ...

    The descriptions of the mackintosh are also important... In the statements given initially, the jacket is not "under the body" as I was led to believe on the trial. It is tucked up against and around it on the sideboard side. I think McFall found one bit under her shoulder but the body had been moved then. Or cops have its placement as pushed up around her head. No pictures exist of its original position.

    It is nonsense that you could not recognise it as a mackintosh, as you will see from Fred Williams' statement etc. Of course Williams, Breslin, and then Moore/Bailey or w.e. all noticed the jacket independently of each other and questioned Wallace about whose it was. Neither of the Johnstons claim to have seen it although Florence had been standing right by where the jacket was and stooped down feeling Julia's hand.

    Witnesses describe the burning differently. Moore says it's on the left and extends round to the back skirt. McFall says the burning is on the front right. They are altogether quite useless, as now it is not possible to determine where the burning was. Nor is the extent of the burning described with any measure of precision. It is also not clear whether by right it means from the perspective of the wearer or the viewer.

    The fact that it's pushed up against the body DOES seem like deliberate placement (as opposed to dumping the body on top of it). From what I know of true crime, the purpose might be to prevent blood from getting on the person's shoes. I know that has been done in other criminal cases, also ironically using jackets in one I am thinking of...

    Because there are no footprints, that would corroborate the idea, along with the fact the killer I am told is on Julia's right (the sideboard side, where the jacket is) when she's on the ground, delivering blows from around that area.

    It may also be to give the impression that Julia had let someone in when they'd actually come in the back (if you think the Johnstons did this, the fact Florence states it looked that way to her might show the motivation behind it).

    ...

    The confession given by Stan is a match for a lot of facts, including the weapon, but there is something wrong with it... It is actually easier that Florence came in the front with Julia while John came in the back (like what I proposed for Parry and Denison but with them instead) or something, WITHOUT the cat stuff. The story matches too many facts to come from nowhere but does not make sense in parts.

    Essentially something exactly like what the police officer's wife suggested would make more sense.

    For example, Julia did not walk down the entry with William in the raincoat, according to William. And how would they know she'd been looking for the cat? If the Johnstons had it, maybe Flo had told Julia she'd seen it and essentially sent Julia off looking - THEN they'd know that information... Perhaps this could happen in the yard just after they hear Wallace go out and before Julia herself gets back inside... We know they can hear the Wallace's back door because they hear him knocking gently on his return.

    I think I have said the physical evidence also matches, e.g. the cushion arrangement on the sofa. The match box being on the table by that sofa. The fact the fireplace would need to heat up for the burning to occur, and thus combined the likelihood she was lounging upon it as claimed. Unlike John Parkes' iron bar weapon claim, these ideas were not put forward on the trial and so did not come from there.

    The cat is too specific that if Stan really mentioned it, he got it from somewhere. I don't know where. I really need his exact words. A proposition without using it is easier but you really can't omit it when it's that specific and the details of the murder are a match, despite contradicting prior beliefs on the case RE: Julia's positioning etc.

    I do think the telephone call is a prank call if the caller really fiddled a couple of pennies and spoke in his normal voice to operators. He does not sound at all nervous, which is unexpected for someone plotting to kill a person with a plan hinging on this phone call. And even more unexpected in fact that he would kick up a fuss and implant himself and his ordinary voice in the mind's of these people who would obviously be called for by detectives. Abnormal behaviour.
    Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 08-24-2020, 12:18 AM.

    Comment


    • Why was Julia found dead in the front room?I can think of no reason she would have gone there in company of,or promting by, any one but Wallace,and that would have been before Wallace departed.
      Suppose she did have a caller.Custom would have dictated that she would show the caller,if that caller was admitted,into the warmth of the kitchen/living room.Remember it was the middle of winter.She was suffering a bad cold,and that alone would have made the front room an unwelcome place to linger.It was her house,a caller could hardly choose in which part a conversation would take place.So I rule a caller out,unless it can be shown the front room to have some advantage the kitchen/living room lacked.

      Comment


      • The statements change too much. Everyone's. I will have to make an extensive list, particularly regarding the raincoat's position. It is very imprecise the descriptions on this matter... The lack of precision and contradiction of statements on all matters is very poor by practically all witnesses.

        The Johnstons change the most, and Crewe is being deceitful or imprecise about how often Wallace visited his home. These are the two actively flagged by the police (Moore). Fred Williams appears to be a good officer.

        The kitchen photo is useless. Wallace was left alone in the house there before that was taken I think. I think it was the night of the 21st or 22nd that he was allowed to go home. That photo is taken on the 23rd.

        Rendering it obviously disturbed by regular living activity and completely worthless.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by harry View Post
          Why was Julia found dead in the front room?I can think of no reason she would have gone there in company of,or promting by, any one but Wallace,and that would have been before Wallace departed.
          Suppose she did have a caller.Custom would have dictated that she would show the caller,if that caller was admitted,into the warmth of the kitchen/living room.Remember it was the middle of winter.She was suffering a bad cold,and that alone would have made the front room an unwelcome place to linger.It was her house,a caller could hardly choose in which part a conversation would take place.So I rule a caller out,unless it can be shown the front room to have some advantage the kitchen/living room lacked.
          No that was not the custom at all. The parlour was always used to receive people unless they were close. That was normal for the time period. Julia had admitted people into that room for brief visits on various occasions, including Florence. She had admitted someone related to the Prudential in there to write a note previously... That was the room visitors were received in.

          Wallace may have prompted her to go in there.

          He did not kill her. It is not possible and I can prove it as a matter of science. It isn't even a matter of opinion, it can be proven.

          I am not sure anyone called at the front door. She had been reclining on the sofa it would seem when she then got up and was attacked.

          She hadn't finished her housewife duties yet (e.g. washing up the tea things, fixing supper for Wallace) and that would be the only place to lie down without changing into her bedclothes and retiring to bed. I think one of the attending nurses or doctors said one of the two had slept there while the other was ill one time. It is difficult to remember everything. But the cushion placement and location of her match box suggests that is what happened.
          Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 08-24-2020, 02:36 AM.

          Comment


          • Am I right in saying Julia's skirt was basically a cylinder of fabric and that it was twisted on her person? That would go some ways towards explaining why no one can agree on the burns. Poor forensics.

            The Mac. You've been asked a few times why there were no footprints, but the police mention stepping in blood themselves. The scrunched Mac sorts that. Again, poor forensics, the police moved it. Might be worth asking your CSI buddies about post mortem blood loss from such a major head wound.

            But would the Mac have been saturated with blood if it was used this way? Or did it contribute to it flowing under Julia?
            Thems the Vagaries.....

            Comment


            • Well it was the custom in the 1930's,in the part of England I grew up in.I lived through those years.No way would my parents entertain a visitor in an ice cold front room,in the middle of winter.An expected guest yes,but then the room would have been heated beforehand.There was no expected visitor to the Wallace home that evening,as far as is known,and Wallace would have commented on the room being heated if there had been reasons for doing so.Had any visitor claiming to be a prospective customer shown up,and shown a willingness to wait,I have no doubt at all that Julia would have insisted the kitchen/living room would have been the best and most comfortable,(Why light another fire)and add to that it was the room where Wallace seems to have kept his business documents.Anyone is entitled to an alternative opinion,but be rational about it.

              Comment


              • I appreciate what you say here, Harry. Personal experience of time and place counts for a lot in my book.

                However, there must be an explanation for Julia being in the parlour when her killer struck. Assuming she was not expecting any callers, she could have lit the fire in there earlier for her own use, because it was the best room downstairs to get a little rest while waiting for her husband's return. Could she have dozed off and then been awakened by a knock at the front door? Is that why she grabbed the mackintosh in the hall to put round her shoulders before opening the door? As the parlour was now warm, it might have made sense to see the visitor into that room. But what happened next is anyone's guess!

                I still suspect that the murder was planned, and not committed in a moment of panic by someone with only burglary in mind. The idea that the phone call to the chess club the night before was an unrelated harmless prank, simply to make a fool of the victim's husband, is a coincidence too far for me. It's the only reason Julia was left home alone on a Tuesday night, and her killer must have been expecting her husband to be out of the way.

                Love,

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


                Comment


                • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
                  Am I right in saying Julia's skirt was basically a cylinder of fabric and that it was twisted on her person? That would go some ways towards explaining why no one can agree on the burns. Poor forensics.

                  The Mac. You've been asked a few times why there were no footprints, but the police mention stepping in blood themselves. The scrunched Mac sorts that. Again, poor forensics, the police moved it. Might be worth asking your CSI buddies about post mortem blood loss from such a major head wound.

                  But would the Mac have been saturated with blood if it was used this way? Or did it contribute to it flowing under Julia?
                  Moore says her clothes didn't seem twisted. Though I'd say her cardigan looks to be.

                  I think the forensic expert is most interested in having higher resolution images. There are a few things I would like to ask anyway but he seems less interested except when I contact people requesting high-res images. I think I will email him anyway. He comments on it without cost now as he found it personally interesting.

                  Walsh said to Wilkes' interviewers about police stepping in it. That might have been long after it has clotted.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by harry View Post
                    Well it was the custom in the 1930's,in the part of England I grew up in.I lived through those years.No way would my parents entertain a visitor in an ice cold front room,in the middle of winter.An expected guest yes,but then the room would have been heated beforehand.There was no expected visitor to the Wallace home that evening,as far as is known,and Wallace would have commented on the room being heated if there had been reasons for doing so.Had any visitor claiming to be a prospective customer shown up,and shown a willingness to wait,I have no doubt at all that Julia would have insisted the kitchen/living room would have been the best and most comfortable,(Why light another fire)and add to that it was the room where Wallace seems to have kept his business documents.Anyone is entitled to an alternative opinion,but be rational about it.
                    It's not an opinion. It's fact. I asked for expert analysis on this point, with scientific matters like that I don't get to have an opinion. There has been no disagreement on the point and the conclusion drawn very quickly and easily, though I have asked several people with complete impartiality.

                    Unless the blood specialist woman says otherwise - and if she also says it was not done or possible - then I consider it entirely proven and William as the killer 100% ruled out unless Alan made up his sighting. Total brick wall shutdown, no way around it type thing. You just cannot argue with any matter of scientific fact.

                    Then it could only possibly be a "hit" at best.

                    It's said throughout many witness statements that Julia received unexpected visitors in the parlour when they called. Prosecution even says during the trial it is natural she would take a caller in there, there is no dispute. That was their practice. It is not surprising considering the living kitchen is a mess and full of valuables. I have relatives who lived through the period too.

                    There is some other man loitering the murder scene requesting directions to a fake address. What is that? He's not the killer obviously, but matches Lily Hall's description.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by caz View Post
                      I appreciate what you say here, Harry. Personal experience of time and place counts for a lot in my book.

                      However, there must be an explanation for Julia being in the parlour when her killer struck. Assuming she was not expecting any callers, she could have lit the fire in there earlier for her own use, because it was the best room downstairs to get a little rest while waiting for her husband's return. Could she have dozed off and then been awakened by a knock at the front door? Is that why she grabbed the mackintosh in the hall to put round her shoulders before opening the door? As the parlour was now warm, it might have made sense to see the visitor into that room. But what happened next is anyone's guess!

                      I still suspect that the murder was planned, and not committed in a moment of panic by someone with only burglary in mind. The idea that the phone call to the chess club the night before was an unrelated harmless prank, simply to make a fool of the victim's husband, is a coincidence too far for me. It's the only reason Julia was left home alone on a Tuesday night, and her killer must have been expecting her husband to be out of the way.

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X
                      It's not that much of a coincidence.

                      According to Antony, William gave out his address at the chess club (to get advice on directions) and discussed the trip etc, so then the people there knew his home address, line of work, and details of his appointment. Insurance men were common targets for criminals because people knew they kept large sums of money in the house.

                      Amy Wallace claims to have been told about the trip too.

                      How many people heard about this trip? Everyone present at the chess club as well as Amy Wallace at the least. Anyone else we don't know of?

                      Julia did in fact chat with her neighbours from time to time, they were quite friendly in fact says Florence, and evidently she has loose lips when it comes to William. She just volunteered to Albert Wood about the night Wallace was so upset and worried when she came home late. Volunteered it to Amy Johnston too (yes that is the Johnston's daughter, not Florence). The neighbours knew quite well about her recent illness and knew the winter months were hard on the pair healthwise. The neighbours were on postcard terms.

                      Caird says William would attend the club once a week but usually on the Mondays. Sometimes Thursday.

                      ...

                      The call makes no sense as a plan for anyone. Even less for murder if the person called using his real voice, pestering the operators, implanting himself in their mind just to scam two pennies. Any killer doing this would want to expose their voice as little as possible not have any extended interaction.

                      The operators were sought out almost immediately.

                      Nobody in their right mind would plot a murder and care about saving two pennies to set it up. Literally who would do that? Who would be able to allegedly fake up a voice yet talk extensively in their ordinary one to witnesses (people who will certainly be requested to come forward by the police)? Who would care about a couple of pennies in that situation?

                      If there is no fake appointment and it was a real one he attended, then who does suspicion fall on? Nobody is investigating the killing because they can't stop thinking about the telephone message.

                      Investigate the actual crime and see what turns up.

                      P. D. James has it that William killed her after a joke call but the idea that he did it with his own hand (given Alan's sighting) is apparently not scientifically possible so it can't be that...

                      William had worn his lighter fabric jacket on that evening since his 3.15 rounds until he got home (some witnesses at Menlove Gardens said it was fawn so it seems to be accurate, Rothwell also says it was fawn), the other jacket was thicker and warmer. Apparently the weather had turned out better in the evening which was not contested so I presume it to be accurate. It may be of some importance.

                      ...

                      The Johnstons are definitely lying, at least on some points, Moore called it out in a written document. Their statement changes a fair bit in places. Why? To protect William? Did they hear arguments and just pretend they'd never heard a single one? Did Wallace know John robbed #17 the prior month and blackmail him? Is that why they're conveniently there at the right time to discover the body?

                      Where did Florence's "thuds" vanish to? How could Arthur Mills, unless deaf, be living and sleeping in the parlour and not have heard something in that room - even William doing the wacking, how could he not hear this through a thin party wall? Her head is being smashed into the ground with a heavy blunt implement as well as fires seemingly stamped out etc. She's gone into the fire it looks like and that's right up against their wall. He wouldn't be asleep at 6.45.

                      Based on Moore's written report the penned amendments on their statement were made after the Committal Court, because he says they made claims in court that contradict their statement; namely he says, both saying they told Wallace they'd wait on trial whereas their statement (and Wallace in all statements btw) said he asked them... That means John did not mention his spare key in the first statement either, and had to because Florence mentioned it in her long rambling report to Munro.
                      Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 08-24-2020, 05:02 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Hi all, hope everyone’s well?

                        From what I’ve read I can’t see anything like a solid basis for exonerating Wallace. True crime is replete with examples of experts who turned out to be wrong and how many times have we seen experts disagree with each other? What are we working from here? Two photographs where the blood spatter is barely visible. A mackintosh that wasn’t photographed. Some ‘blood spatter’ which might have come from the weapon. A Dr who has been roundly criticised as incompetent and whose sketches of the blood spatter were, according to Goodman, so rough as to have been almost useless. We can’t be sure of the length or weight of the weapon or the exact positioun he was in. It’s hardly a rock solid basis is it ?

                        Then there’s the position of Julia’s when she was struck. It’s assumed that the singeing of her skirt and the burning of the mackintosh occurred simultaneously but was that the case? It’s interesting to note that the singeing burnt a hole in her skirt but there wasn’t a single mark on her underskirt. Not even a light mark. Could that have happened? Surely it at least introduces the possibility that the singeing occurred at an earlier time and if that’s possible then Julia might have fallen where she was found.

                        I still find it bizarre that people still say that William couldn’t have protected himself from blood. How many times do we have to hear people say “his legs would have been exposed?” Put on a knee length coat and kneel down. You’ll find that the cost reaches the floor. It’s no mystery but we still hear the same thing repeated. What would have been left? His right hand - err...a glove (more believable than Parkes’ mitten ) His head - perhaps he tied a piece of cloth round his face which he later wrapped the weapon in? This would have left 3 inches or so of head. Are we still trying to say that blood would have flown to every inch of a 360 degree circle? It’s also the case that people have extraordinary strokes of luck every day so why are we so resistant to the idea that William might have had some? After all he wasn’t relying on luck because he could easily have washed blood off in the sink without incriminating himself.

                        We still appear to be bending over backwards to exonerate William and yet
                        Parry gets the opposite treatment. How many cases do we know where a ‘suspect’ is alibi’d by at least 6 people at 3 different locations for the available time frame and yet we still gleefully claim that he’s a better suspect than William. Not on this planet I’m afraid.

                        A final point as I hate typing on a phone. Only 4 people knew the location of the cash box. William, Julia, Parry and Marsden. Surely Parry would have told his partner that he HAD to make it look like a real robbery and not like someone with insider knowledge had just homes in on the cash? This ‘robbery’ screams of insider knowledge. Would Parry really have pretty much signed his name to it?

                        Unless it wasn’t a robbery of course....
                        Regards

                        Herlock




                        “ Herlock is the cleverest man that I’ve ever met.” - Stephen Hawking.
                        “ I wish that I could have achieved half as much as Herlock.”- Neil Armstrong.
                        “ What a voice Herlock has.” - Luciano Pavarotti.
                        “ I wish that I could dump Harry for Herlock.” - Meghan Markle.
                        “ I know that it’s not good to be jealous but I just can’t help it.” - John Holmes.

                        Comment


                        • Straight back at it with the shaky blue heads! It's like you've never been away.

                          Great to have you back on the boards. Wallace has put up alot of interesting bits over the last few months, including the stuff from Monro's archive in Liverpool, so lots to catch up with.
                          Thems the Vagaries.....

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
                            Straight back at it with the shaky blue heads! It's like you've never been away.

                            Great to have you back on the boards. Wallace has put up alot of interesting bits over the last few months, including the stuff from Monro's archive in Liverpool, so lots to catch up with.
                            He has Al, I’ve glanced through but I’ll have a fuller read over the next day or so.
                            Regards

                            Herlock




                            “ Herlock is the cleverest man that I’ve ever met.” - Stephen Hawking.
                            “ I wish that I could have achieved half as much as Herlock.”- Neil Armstrong.
                            “ What a voice Herlock has.” - Luciano Pavarotti.
                            “ I wish that I could dump Harry for Herlock.” - Meghan Markle.
                            “ I know that it’s not good to be jealous but I just can’t help it.” - John Holmes.

                            Comment


                            • A question - why was William surprised/worried when he couldn’t initially get in via the back door? He always returned via the front door at night. Julia knew this. So she was in the house alone, after dark and with The Anfield Housebreaker still at large and not expecting any visitors via the backdoor. He didn’t knock the back door to get Julia’s attention he expected it not to have been locked/bolted. Why?
                              Regards

                              Herlock




                              “ Herlock is the cleverest man that I’ve ever met.” - Stephen Hawking.
                              “ I wish that I could have achieved half as much as Herlock.”- Neil Armstrong.
                              “ What a voice Herlock has.” - Luciano Pavarotti.
                              “ I wish that I could dump Harry for Herlock.” - Meghan Markle.
                              “ I know that it’s not good to be jealous but I just can’t help it.” - John Holmes.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                                Hi all, hope everyone’s well?

                                From what I’ve read I can’t see anything like a solid basis for exonerating Wallace. True crime is replete with examples of experts who turned out to be wrong and how many times have we seen experts disagree with each other? What are we working from here? Two photographs where the blood spatter is barely visible. A mackintosh that wasn’t photographed. Some ‘blood spatter’ which might have come from the weapon. A Dr who has been roundly criticised as incompetent and whose sketches of the blood spatter were, according to Goodman, so rough as to have been almost useless. We can’t be sure of the length or weight of the weapon or the exact positioun he was in. It’s hardly a rock solid basis is it ?

                                Then there’s the position of Julia’s when she was struck. It’s assumed that the singeing of her skirt and the burning of the mackintosh occurred simultaneously but was that the case? It’s interesting to note that the singeing burnt a hole in her skirt but there wasn’t a single mark on her underskirt. Not even a light mark. Could that have happened? Surely it at least introduces the possibility that the singeing occurred at an earlier time and if that’s possible then Julia might have fallen where she was found.

                                I still find it bizarre that people still say that William couldn’t have protected himself from blood. How many times do we have to hear people say “his legs would have been exposed?” Put on a knee length coat and kneel down. You’ll find that the cost reaches the floor. It’s no mystery but we still hear the same thing repeated. What would have been left? His right hand - err...a glove (more believable than Parkes’ mitten ) His head - perhaps he tied a piece of cloth round his face which he later wrapped the weapon in? This would have left 3 inches or so of head. Are we still trying to say that blood would have flown to every inch of a 360 degree circle? It’s also the case that people have extraordinary strokes of luck every day so why are we so resistant to the idea that William might have had some? After all he wasn’t relying on luck because he could easily have washed blood off in the sink without incriminating himself.

                                We still appear to be bending over backwards to exonerate William and yet
                                Parry gets the opposite treatment. How many cases do we know where a ‘suspect’ is alibi’d by at least 6 people at 3 different locations for the available time frame and yet we still gleefully claim that he’s a better suspect than William. Not on this planet I’m afraid.

                                A final point as I hate typing on a phone. Only 4 people knew the location of the cash box. William, Julia, Parry and Marsden. Surely Parry would have told his partner that he HAD to make it look like a real robbery and not like someone with insider knowledge had just homes in on the cash? This ‘robbery’ screams of insider knowledge. Would Parry really have pretty much signed his name to it?

                                Unless it wasn’t a robbery of course....
                                The idea that William did this alone is the only avenue that is scientifically discredited at present. It is not bizarre to think he couldn't escape blood spatter considering no professional forensic expert thinks it is possible. Nobody then and nobody now. I have questioned the idea using the many variations of it. I asked specifically about the assailant kneeling down in it, that was rejected. All variations were rejected; the consensus is that the jacket was on Julia in some way. I think the blood pattern specialist will be able to give a more definitive write-up on that, and also on several other points I am interested in.

                                The skirt was burned on the night, as was the mackintosh, the Analyst claims this is proveable based on the friability of the material. Nobody seems to have seen Julia come to the door with a burnt skirt. It was done on the night. I do not necessarily think the skirt was twisted round, that is an opinion based only on a detective's idea about women's fashion which is not credible.

                                The weapon is not the iron bar. It's something with a distinct pattern or prong.

                                ...

                                I do not find random people's input on blood spatter or matters of forensics to be credible. Several authors have attempted to give opinions on these things and have been wrong which is then very misleading.

                                Professional opinion is that he couldn't have done it in the manner described, nor in the manner suggested by any book or forum post. Specifically the jacket was not used as a shield in any way shape or form. They aren't bending over backwards to make the suggestion, that is the honest opinion of people who actually know what they're talking about.

                                I will get the answer to exactly what happened on that night and IDGAF who ends up being the murderer (though it's looking quite certain it's not William unassisted). I want the particulars, I want it written out as it happened.
                                Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 08-24-2020, 10:18 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X