Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve skimmed through the forensics section on your website (which is an excellent resource by the way) I struggle with heavy reading on a phone so I’ll read it fully when I get my pad back. Although it won’t, and shouldn’t, bother you, I’m not convinced at all.

Interestingly the PHD student uses the word ‘likely.’ She also says “I wouldn’t rule out that the Mac could have been worn.” Later she says “Due to the blood pooling under the body, if the mackintosh was worn while kneeling I’d expect to see more staining on the lower section.” This seems strange as the only pooling was around Julia’s head where no one is suggesting that the killer might have knelt. Another interesting point is “While the technology of the day may not have picked up minute spatter I would imagine at least some blood on the clothing.

With the CSI Dr...

He says in the early part “Now if he was wearing a raincoat it could largely protect the underlying clothing.” He then makes rather a strange (to me at least) statement. He says that if a mackintosh was used it would have had to have been another one because he couldn’t see any blood on the one in the photo. But we know from testimony that the mackintosh was heavily bloodstained.
On the issue that the killer would have had blood spatter on his face I find this a little strange as it appears to imply that the blood would have gone directly to his face like iron filings to a magnet. Surely blood would also have gone slightly to the left and right of his head and slightly above too therefore we would expect to have found spatter over toward the window, probably on the carpet and yet all of the spatter is found front, left and right.

I see that he asks your opinion on Gannon’s mitten. I’m sure that even the Liverpool police might have noted the presence of an individual mitten? He also gets a little confused about the doors suggesting that the killer might have fled via the front door with William at the back. Not of it was locked as per William of course.

I can’t help getting the impression that he’s only heard or is considering the “Wallace must have been innocent” version of events?

Finally, I have to say, for someone concerned with real evidence he has no issue with ignoring Parry’s alibi.

Despite our disagreements, which I feel are set to continue, I do respect what you are doing and what you’ve achieved with your excellent website. Look, I certainly could be wrong, we all could. I still have William as pretty overwhelmingly the likeliest killer but not to certainty. As per your comments about treading old ground I fear that’s largely unavoidable but I’m not averse to looking and discussing new avenues (see next post) I certainly have some catching up to do.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As far as accomplices are concerned the case for William’s guilt would certainly be strengthened if a valid one was found. You already know my objections to Parry - I find it difficult to see William trusting and why would he later go on to accuse him?

Could William have been gay? It’s certainly possible. What about Edwin? Could something have gone on? A bit creepy seeing as William looked so much like Edwin’s dad. Might William and Edwin wanted Julia out of the way? Edwin makes the call and disposes of the weapon and any bloodied clothing?

objections? With an accomplice mightn’t we have expected a more convincing robbery scene?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve just spent around 20 minutes looking online at the subject of Blood Pattern Analysis and I have to say that I was really surprised at how much criticism it came in for from what appeared to be reputable sources.

Quotes like: “While Blood Pattern Analysis is heavily relied on in the Forensic Science Community, it’s validity is becoming questioned.”

and

”Human error is unavoidable. Because of this automated methods are becoming an experimental subject in the FS community.”

There are lots more like this with examples of errors. Papers written etc. One paper was titled:

”How An Unproven Forensic Science Spread Through The Criminal System.”

Whilst I’m certainly not suggesting that BPA is useless I think that Caz was quite correct to urge caution and not attribute the final word to this discipline.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I'm not quite as worried about their thoughts on who did it because their field of expertise is forensic science, not detective work.

I did also ask another woman (someone I knew as a kid) because she's a criminologist and forensic scientist now. She also dismissed the idea but I didn't include that conversation.

It's a highly implausible suggestion. There has never been disagreement on the matter.

I am in contact with Gillian Leak at present who specializes in blood spray. I talked to her on the phone and mentioned I am interested in impartiality which she assured me of. She is too busy at the moment with current cases. I will consider her report to be the most definitive answer on the topic.

I am almost certain the jacket idea will be rejected again but further from that I want details on positionings and movements, as far as is possible. The reason being that I think you can determine the likelihood of premed based on it.

...

I do think there's a good probability William was a gay man. You cannot see a man with a wife essentially old enough to be his mother and no kids, disowned sects of family on the woman's side who didn't attend the wedding, etc, and not see how gay it seems. I also notice that he refers to Julia as a friend, comrade, companion etc. and rarely in terms expected of sexual love.

Conceivably in the case of an affair with either man or woman there's shared motive.

I have already thought the scenario through carefully over a long period of time of course because I consider a lot of angles freely.

I do think a lover of William's might be likely to attack her ferociously. Especially a jilted lover.

I repeat however that I do not trust the neighbours at all. There are so many reasons, I could really go into it in depth. Police reports flagged them too - but curiously only for the bits of statement they altered that help William. They seemingly didn't notice the testimony altered in the opposite direction.

Based on Moore's report regarding John's original statement and Com Trial evidence (essentially how pissed he is about their apparent deceit and how he thinks they're being coerced by Munro), the penned amendments are after that trial. In that case it means John had failed to mention his spare key too, as that's also penned in. The significance of that should be noted.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What spare key is this? When Johnston mentioned trying his key he just meant the key to his own house to see if it worked on Wallace’s lock.

I haven’t read anything case-related for 5 months so I’m rusty on some details and I can’t recall anything about the Johnston’s statement that couldn’t be put down to the situation. What testimony was altered?

[WallaceWackedHer]

objections? With an accomplice mightn’t we have expected a more convincing robbery scene?

No, because William himself could have easily created a "more convincing" robbery scene. If you are convinced of staging that is. He also could have lied easily about the extent of what's missing.

I noticed it's often overlooked that if a burglar has been replacing things he's ransacked you don't actually know what he has checked, drawers he pulled out and shut etc.

I don't accept the contemporary idea that William has to stage a robbery after his wife is dead. There's a lot he can do before she's killed, and importantly he goes into every room of the house UNACCOMPANIED on his return where he could have easily done some staging. In fact even with the body and scene in the parlour.

I noted he said the outhouse was never used. I would have liked more information on that, whether he means they themselves, or even random visitors, because it dents the probability of a guest being shown out there.

...

The issue with Edwin would be the same as for Amy which is the distance that would need to be travelled by a bloodstained attacker. Especially if it's public transport. This is why a neighbour or someone with a car is a better option because they can get away easily without talking to a bunch of people or being exposed to the public...

The statement I mentioned from Mr. Greenless is important because it did come in at the time and corroborates that someone matching the sort of description Lily Hall gave was loitering the area. It can't be the killer, no killer would walk around talking to strangers on the street (I think this is why Gannon omitted it). But perhaps if he really did talk to William there is something else to it. I just don't get it.

[WallaceWackedHer]

What spare key is this? When Johnston mentioned trying his key he just meant the key to his own house to see if it worked on Wallace’s lock.

I haven’t read anything case-related for 5 months so I’m rusty on some details and I can’t recall anything about the Johnston’s statement that couldn’t be put down to the situation. What testimony was altered?

Both initially say Wallace asked them to wait. Wallace maintains that he asked them to wait throughout, there is even an annotation on the matter on Munro's statement that he thinks he did though they have deposed otherwise.

This claim (that he requested they wait) was altered in their Com Trial statement and Moore was pissed.

What he didn't seem to care about much was that, as one example, the series of events surrounding the discovery of the missing money is altered and, as another example, both initially claim William had rushed back round to his yard gate then on trial John is sitting there saying he was walking in the ordinary way.

If the Com Trial evidence differed then the penned amendments where it says THEY said they'd wait are AFTER the Com Trial and therefore it looks like John was forced to mention his key because Florence essentially melts down in her second statement and brings it up to Munro... Originally his statement about the conversation at the back door in both his first and second statement is very much different.

She also says when they first walk into the kitchen SHE (not John) asks "what have they taken?" without saying William had pointed out the wrenched off door yet. The terminology "what have they taken" as opposed to "is anything missing" being worthy of slight consideration. She also says she is the one who says "whatever have they used?" which prosecution accused William of saying and of being unnatural. Defence did not intervene in any of these cases.

Florence claims Wallace seemed to not care about the missing money. Defence failed to get this out on trial. The defence is incompetent (apart from Munro). I am also of the opinion Fred Williams is the only competent policeman who had been there that night, as he was concerned about preserving the scene unlike the others.

Flo' is also noteable in the fact that she says she was "very friendly" with the Wallaces and especially Julia. So was her daughter to some extent evidently as her daughter had spoken to Julia about the "late home" incident. We also know they were on postcard terms for some years and first name basis since Julia signs J. Wallace. You will notice John says he didn't know her name which is possible (his wife's the one who's friends with her) but again, a thing to consider.

Various neighbours' keys fit each other's doors. Including on the opposite side of the street.

I also wonder if anyone is aware that Metcalfe states Julia left the door key in the lock on numerous occasions and that he took it and gave it back to her, getting a sixpence reward each time. It happened more than once. Considering dupe keys were used in the area that might be significant because it could have been cloned... I don't really think, personally, that is has bearing. But others might feel differently. Especially when #17 Wolverton was robbed via dupe key a month earlier.

...

If you trust the Press John told them William came to him (not that they coincidentally were going out), and that William forced the door.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the issue of Julia’s family this might say more about Julia herself than it does about William. As you know she’s been described variously as peculiar, untidy, dirty etc. She looked almost Victorian, wore home made clothes, strangely had money sown into her skirt and wore something that resembled a nappy. Her family have nothing to do with her. And to top it all she lops a staggering 16 years of her true age! We also have some evidence that this wasn’t a happy marriage. She also appears to have been regularly ill. Maybe a bit of a snob? I wonder how many women in Wolverton Street had a char lady? I would be surprised if it wasn’t none.

She pretty much seems the model of the kind of wife that a man who probably didn’t have a long life expectancy might want rid of.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Both initially say Wallace asked them to wait. Wallace maintains that he asked them to wait throughout, there is even an annotation on the matter on Munro's statement that he thinks he did though they have deposed otherwise.

This claim (that he requested they wait) was altered in their Com Trial statement and Moore was pissed.

What he didn't seem to care about much was that, as one example, the series of events surrounding the discovery of the missing money is altered and, as another example, both initially claim William had rushed back round to his yard gate then on trial John is sitting there saying he was walking in the ordinary way.

If the Com Trial evidence differed then the penned amendments where it says THEY said they'd wait are AFTER the Com Trial and therefore it looks like John was forced to mention his key because Florence essentially melts down in her second statement and brings it up to Munro...

She also says when they first walk into the kitchen SHE (not John) asks "what have they taken?" without saying William had pointed out the wrenched off door yet. The terminology "what have they taken" as opposed to "is anything missing" being worthy of slight consideration. She also says she is the one who says "whatever have they used?" which prosecution accused William of saying and of being unnatural. Defence did not intervene in any of these cases.

Various neighbours' keys fit each other's doors. Including on the opposite side of the street.

I also wonder if anyone is aware that Metcalfe states Julia left the door key in the lock on numerous occasions and that he took it and gave it back to her, getting a sixpence reward each time. It happened more than once. Considering dupe keys were used in the area that might be significant because it could have been cloned... I don't really think, personally, that is has bearing. But others might feel differently. Especially when #17 Wolverton was robbed via dupe key a month earlier.

On the front door. Don’t you think it at least a little strange that although the Holme’s heard Close knock they didn’t hear anyone knock something like 45 mins later? Especially when we consider that the caller and Julia would have had a conversation on the doorstep. Possibly for only 30 seconds or so of course but still... Neighbours opposite plus the Johnston’s too.

I also wonder about if a Mr X killed Julia and it was unplanned then something would have triggered it. Then he finds a weapon and picks it up and advances on Julia without her screaming out?

[WallaceWackedHer]

On the front door. Don’t you think it at least a little strange that although the Holme’s heard Close knock they didn’t hear anyone knock something like 45 mins later? Especially when we consider that the caller and Julia would have had a conversation on the doorstep. Possibly for only 30 seconds or so of course but still... Neighbours opposite plus the Johnston’s too.

I also wonder about if a Mr X killed Julia and it was unplanned then something would have triggered it. Then he finds a weapon and picks it up and advances on Julia without her screaming out?

I think the weapon came from outside the home. As per forensics the tram track type injuries are difficult to overlook and wouldn't be made by the missing items described.

Initially (you'll see I haven't yet changed the write up on my website AFAIK) I thought the first part of the assault was a shove. Then the iron bar was the first thing to hand. But the weapon isn't the bar.

I find it hard to believe that the Johnstons did not hear an assault of any kind REGARDLESS of the attacker and ESPECIALLY in light of Arthur Mills' position in the home.

I do not necessarily think a person was admitted in by Julia. If William has a helper which seems the most probable in light of various points of evidence (including forensics) I think the man would be let in by William through the back to minimize the odds of the person being seen.

I consider Stan's statement too and the match to the forensic data (which I wouldn't expect through chance, it's not like Parkes potentially using common belief like the iron bar and also the grid rumour Ada Cook also heard).

Although there are parts wrong in the statement given, those old style jemmy/pry bars are a match and Julia's position as being on the sofa is supported quite well by evidence. Further, that she seems to have been struck while coming from that side. He has also got the cat's name correct as verified on the postcards included by Goodman in his book.

Hence why I keep trying to contact Tom Slemen to see which words and parts are from Stan and what he himself added to write a story.

Despite the fact there are parts wrong with it, the bizarre matching aspects do make me consider an entrance in through the back by key. I don't think Julia would retire to bed unless she came over quite ill indeed, she'd often wait up for William to make supper and also she had not washed up the tea things. But if she did want to lie down that easy chair is the only option apart from changing for bed. That would be how I might see her having gone in there of her own accord.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Can we be certain though that the iron bar was entirely smooth? Might it not have had a couple of slightly raised parts which would account for the marks? For eg if the bar was simply something that William found somewhere which they then used for the grate. It might have had a previous use. It might have previously have been a part of some kind of machine. I hope I’ve explained what I mean properly here?

On the subject of no sounds being heard doesn’t that strike you as more a sign of a planned, surprise attack rather than an unplanned one triggered by something?

I need to re-read Slemen but I recall having big issues with the story. I have to admit that I can’t recall Ada Cooke though. Is she a more recent discovery of yours?

If your looking for a reason why Julia might have gone into the parlour night she not just have decided to play the piano for a while for something to do. She might have looked forward to some peaceful playing without William screeching away on the violin?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Can we be certain though that the iron bar was entirely smooth? Might it not have had a couple of slightly raised parts which would account for the marks? For eg if the bar was simply something that William found somewhere which they then used for the grate. It might have had a previous use. It might have previously have been a part of some kind of machine. I hope I’ve explained what I mean properly here?

On the subject of no sounds being heard doesn’t that strike you as more a sign of a planned, surprise attack rather than an unplanned one triggered by something?

I need to re-read Slemen but I recall having big issues with the story. I have to admit that I can’t recall Ada Cooke though. Is she a more recent discovery of yours?

If your looking for a reason why Julia might have gone into the parlour night she not just have decided to play the piano for a while for something to do. She might have looked forward to some peaceful playing without William screeching away on the violin?

It is probably gone into in detail on the trial and by Draper but I am now on my mobile.

I think Goodman is correct and the bar was found down a crevice and prized up by the next homeowners' workmen who were swapping the gas fire to electric. And I think the other rod on the fender there is consistent with the fireplace poker (a knob on the end, dimensions seem accurate).

(On the topic of Goodman his claim about the magazine lawsuit, contrary to the chess website (whatever it's called) is not a lie. Obviously they are looking at a reprint copy, because I have a copy of the lawsuit and details. The case was taken up by Munro. The reader WAS in fact invited to gaze at his long fingers and said something strange about how you can tell a lot about someone from their fingers. It's actually worse and more libellous than Goodman even states lol.)

Draper claimed Julia helped her to clean. So I think house duties have fallen solely on Julia during Draper's leave from work and the poker has been used as a replacement since the iron bar has rolled down the back. Draper, by the way, was looked for because police apparently received a tip William was having an affair with her. She was recently widowed about two weeks earlier hence her being absent from work; I would like to see the circumstances behind her husband's death lmao.

Regarding Draper, the claim she made about the front door lock not being faulty made me wonder if she had her own key but this was never asked or explored.

Anyway that is my idea about the matter of the iron bar...

...

I don't think Julia playing piano is consistent on the grounds that it looks by the cushions that she has lied down upon the easy chair (AKA the sofa/lounger by the window). It is possible she was lying down and planned to play in a few minutes or something I don't know. I looked carefully for evidence of officers etc. having sat on it, but McFall says he just sat on the arm, and this is what Moore also said about McFall.

Given her box of matches is over there (in fact I think I can seecthe box), I think she has lit the lamp, lit the fire, put the box down on the side table and then reclined on the easy chair.

When she is assaulted I think she has got up from the couch. Then maybe been pushed (and been burned in that moment) and then hit while downed. Her head then in the position proposed by McFall and my own forensics, her feet on the window side. The attacker then is also in the position proposed by McFall and my forensics (who had not seen McFall's sketch where he marks where he thinks the attacker was).

Or she is just hit on the left of her head (left from her perspective) and sent by the force in that direction and pulled out by her hair.

She has been moved round I think. You can see on the plans the blood pooling moves round from there counter-clockwise (from the perspective of the photos)... The attacker ends up on the armchair side for part of the assault. That is the side the jacket is on.

The final resting position of her body looks to me like she was rolled round. She's lying on her own right arm kinda like she's in bed on her side, odd position, and her exposed left hand is across her breast not quite touching the floor. Her body is moved before the photographs so she's flat on her stomach.

It's noteworthy McFall finds her hands bloodstained because both Florence and William felt her hand.

...

Ada Cook is from Radio City. She's the one who said Parry's parents begged her parents to get Gordon out of the country.

She says she heard a rumour the weapon was dropped down a grid outside the cinema where Lily worked (this is NOT the cinema near Priory Road, Goodman gives its address as something like, uhm... Boaler Street did he say???? Still Clubmoor).

But I think perhaps Parkes is certain Gordon is a murderer because he came to get a powerclean of his car, and is then using known beliefs about the case from the trial (e.g. iron bar) and local rumour (disposal down the grid). I am surprised Dolly did not corroborate and specifically mention having heard about the bar and mitten.

The confession forwarded by Stan is not very likely in parts but also weirdly matches in others in an unexpected way. So I take it quite seriously. I think Slemen is adding bits to the information provided to create a full theory of the events and thus it has become weird in parts.

The idea that she had gone out looking for the cat given the milk delivery had just occurred is a good suggestion. If she did do this and searched the block and then came back in the front door the yard gate would be off bolt and the back kitchen door accessible via spare key.

Then he says John found her on the sofa. This is never suggested by anyone on the trial etc but seems to fit forensic and physical evidence which is strange. And the parallel markings would be possible with the type of implement described as the weapon.

The missing cat detail is so obscure that there is no chance he made it up on the spot. It is contemporary chatter or he knows something. If he himself gave the name "Puss" that is even moreso a detail he shouldn't be aware of if he's just making up stories... According to Slemen the man was seriously ill at the time he got in contact.

As I did say though, """Stan"""" is a person I know nothing about. His surname is not given. For all I know it's a fake name, or he knows what happened but John isn't the one who told him/did it. I know Wallace mentioned a "Stan Young" as a (former, was it?) Pru worker his wife would admit.

...

I also ought to add Munro wrote a letter to someone years after about the story of Wallace asking loads of people where to find "K boots" to which the person with him remarked something like "hadn't he had enough of asking strangers on the street for directions". That's another thing in Goodman's book I can therefore confirm.

[harry]

I agree that the phone call is connected to the murder,the idea being to have William out of the house on the tuesday evening.In consequence only William was in a position to be sure that requirement was met.The police were not in error on that account.William was setting up an alibi,and only William had the means to follow it through.William's problem however was threfold.One was to show cause of why Julia was killed,one to show it was done while he was absent from the house,and the other create a situation where time to commit the crime would be in doubtSo a staged robbery,where he was the only witness that something had been stolen,a phone call that that could not be directly attributed to him,and commit the crime before leaving at a quarter to seven. I would presume he knew the risks,that he would come under suspicion,and it is obvious he had the answer,which was to say little,and steadfastly deny all knowledge of murder.
Now that short summary may offer little in the way of proving Wallace did kill Julia,but that crime does remind me of a much simpler planned murder,which did not kill the victim,as intended,but left him crippled for life.It was a domestic situation,the wife having left for another man.The husband decided to kill this other man,and planned a hit run accident using someone else's car,a friends.This person also knew the risks,knew if murder was suspected he would be prime suspect,but that didn't deter him.
The victim didn't die,but later this was to give the perpetrator greater satisfaction,for as he told me,to see his ex wife pushing the victim around in a wheelchair,made him smile.
Now take all the hearsay,assumptions and ridiculous explanations away from the Wallace crime,and you have a situation that fooled very few,notably the police,prosecution,and the jury.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
I think Goodman is correct and the bar was found down a crevice and prized up by the next homeowners' workmen who were swapping the gas fire to electric. And I think the other rod on the fender there is consistent with the fireplace poker (a knob on the end, dimensions seem accurate).

But I seem to recall that the police took the fire grate out? I seem to recall discussing this with Antony. How could they have missed it when it was in an area where someone else was able to find it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't think Julia playing piano is consistent on the grounds that it looks by the cushions that she has lied down upon the easy chair (AKA the sofa/lounger by the window). It is possible she was lying down and planned to play in a few minutes or something I don't know. I looked carefully for evidence of officers etc. having sat on it, but McFall says he just sat on the arm, and this is what Moore also said about McFall.

Are you saying that the suggestion was the Julia had been on the seat by the window? I’d always taken it that the theory was that she’d been on the chair to the left of the fireplace as you look at the room from the doorway?