Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Parkes' statement

As someone inclined to think the evidence we have suggests that Wallace murdered his wife, Parkes' statement is a challenge. As a reminder he says in the early hours following the murder, Parry arrives at Atkinson's garage and asks Parkes to clean his car inside and out. Parkes also states the car looked clean to him and it was on finding a blood covered leather mitt that Parry said if the police found that he could hang. Parry is also reported as saying he disposed of an iron bar down a drain outside a doctors in Priory Road. It was finding the mitt and hearing Parry's statement that led Parkes to suspect he was being asked to wash away evidence.

If Parkes' statement is accurate, then
1. we have to believe that after going to great lengths to plan and execute a burglary which led to murder, Parry makes a confession to someone not involved with the crime. While not impossible, I think we have to consider this improbable.
2. the only blood that was found in the car by Parkes is on a leather mitt, he describes the rest of the car as clean - is this what we would expect in the circumstances?
3. if the murderer wore gloves, would we not expect two mitts rather than one. Of course the other mitt could have disposed of, but then why leave one in the car? It would hardly be an oversight in the circumstances.
4. the disposal of the iron bar, as related by Parkes, was down a drain outside a doctor's surgery in Priory Road. This is very specific, pointing to the exact location of the murder weapon - is this too much detail in the circumstances

If Parkes is lying, then
1. why would he lie? There is no known reason. We can speculate motives (such as a grudge against Parry or for some reason wanting to protect Wallace) but there is no evidence to help us understand why Parkes might lie.

On balance, therefore, I struggle to accept Parkes statement as accurate. I heard Parkes on the Wilkes broadcast, and he sounded sincere and genuine, but even so I think he is either mistaken, lying or embellishing beyond reason. While the Atkinsons support that Parkes told them the story of the car wash (but were silent on the mitt and the drain disposal), their stories were second hand, relying on what Parkes told them. Unless there are good arguments/evidence otherwise, I think we should consider Parkes statement with great caution and probably dismiss it.

1. I think Gordon considered Parkes to be his friend and therefore a person he could trust. He'd often stay at the garage late playing snooker and chatting and stuff with the guys. He seems to have very little self awareness.

He spread rumours about Wallace's "stinking old wife and house" and is Pikachu-face shocked when William seems to then hate him when the rumours go round the office.

Almost all of his "friends" on Radio City seemed to dislike him.

2. I assume no on close inspection.

The attacker would be stained along the front of his clothing mostly. Probably in a panic, paying zero attention to where his body is making contact with the car.

I don't think there would be much on the seat because the staining is on the front.

I think there would be dots here and there.

3. This is really strange but I have legitimately seen in paper reports of the time burglars caught with one glove. They also had weird implements like rubber shoes. Like totally alien to our time.

OJ Simpson had one glove that was actually found didn't he?

I've hardly understood that. I figure taking off the first glove you are going glove-on-glove so there aren't prints. Then the other glove would be taken off barehanded. Or maybe a bare hand is better suited to picking up objects like coins and such.

I don't understand it. I think there ought to be two. There was definitely only one in there right? Like he saw the whole compartment under good lighting and saw it was empty but that one?

I could ask Wilkes specifically but I don't think they know.

4. It is highly indicative he did not give the report at the time. It's worse that the iron bar isn't the weapon. Possibly he gave the report and the drain was checked and he was then told he's wrong.

5. Because he's stuck with it if he had been one of the people spreading rumours around the time (almost all were certainly false) and now he has all radio people and such coming to interrogate him... More importantly I think he 10000% believes Gordon is guilty.

I think it's embellishment not a lie. An outright lie would be absolutely crazy, like "the worst person ever" type thing to do. He definitely sounds sincere. I think the car wash happened.

I heard reports Parkes is mentally handicapped. I think from a book. I know I have discussed it with people. And he's hearing all these rumours around town.

...

It could of course, be true. But the iron bar is not the one we expect.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Parkes' statement

As someone inclined to think the evidence we have suggests that Wallace murdered his wife, Parkes' statement is a challenge. As a reminder he says in the early hours following the murder, Parry arrives at Atkinson's garage and asks Parkes to clean his car inside and out. Parkes also states the car looked clean to him and it was on finding a blood covered leather mitt that Parry said if the police found that he could hang. Parry is also reported as saying he disposed of an iron bar down a drain outside a doctors in Priory Road. It was finding the mitt and hearing Parry's statement that led Parkes to suspect he was being asked to wash away evidence.

If Parkes' statement is accurate, then
1. we have to believe that after going to great lengths to plan and execute a burglary which led to murder, Parry makes a confession to someone not involved with the crime. While not impossible, I think we have to consider this improbable.
2. the only blood that was found in the car by Parkes is on a leather mitt, he describes the rest of the car as clean - is this what we would expect in the circumstances?
3. if the murderer wore gloves, would we not expect two mitts rather than one. Of course the other mitt could have disposed of, but then why leave one in the car? It would hardly be an oversight in the circumstances.
4. the disposal of the iron bar, as related by Parkes, was down a drain outside a doctor's surgery in Priory Road. This is very specific, pointing to the exact location of the murder weapon - is this too much detail in the circumstances

If Parkes is lying, then
1. why would he lie? There is no known reason. We can speculate motives (such as a grudge against Parry or for some reason wanting to protect Wallace) but there is no evidence to help us understand why Parkes might lie.

On balance, therefore, I struggle to accept Parkes statement as accurate. I heard Parkes on the Wilkes broadcast, and he sounded sincere and genuine, but even so I think he is either mistaken, lying or embellishing beyond reason. While the Atkinsons support that Parkes told them the story of the car wash (but were silent on the mitt and the drain disposal), their stories were second hand, relying on what Parkes told them. Unless there are good arguments/evidence otherwise, I think we should consider Parkes statement with great caution and probably dismiss it.

Parry recently had been caught by the Atkinson’s rummaging through a cupboard in a room where they kept cash.

[etenguy]

I told you exactly why with a true Parkes' story it basically has to be one of Brine's relatives. I explained it very clearly and easily in like one sentence because Gordon's car is v. likely there for it to get all bloodied up etc and he's not getting an alibi unless they have personal interest. Today any idiot can drive but back then no, hence car borrowing less likely than otherwise.

Parkes' statement

As someone inclined to think the evidence we have suggests that Wallace murdered his wife, Parkes' statement is a challenge. As a reminder he says in the early hours following the murder, Parry arrives at Atkinson's garage and asks Parkes to clean his car inside and out. Parkes also states the car looked clean to him and it was on finding a blood covered leather mitt that Parry said if the police found that he could hang. Parry is also reported as saying he disposed of an iron bar down a drain outside a doctors in Priory Road. It was finding the mitt and hearing Parry's statement that led Parkes to suspect he was being asked to wash away evidence.

If Parkes' statement is accurate, then
1. we have to believe that after going to great lengths to plan and execute a burglary which led to murder, Parry makes a confession to someone not involved with the crime. While not impossible, I think we have to consider this improbable.
2. the only blood that was found in the car by Parkes is on a leather mitt, he describes the rest of the car as clean - is this what we would expect in the circumstances?
3. if the murderer wore gloves, would we not expect two mitts rather than one. Of course the other mitt could have disposed of, but then why leave one in the car? It would hardly be an oversight in the circumstances.
4. the disposal of the iron bar, as related by Parkes, was down a drain outside a doctor's surgery in Priory Road. This is very specific, pointing to the exact location of the murder weapon - is this too much detail in the circumstances

If Parkes is lying, then
1. why would he lie? There is no known reason. We can speculate motives (such as a grudge against Parry or for some reason wanting to protect Wallace) but there is no evidence to help us understand why Parkes might lie.

On balance, therefore, I struggle to accept Parkes statement as accurate. I heard Parkes on the Wilkes broadcast, and he sounded sincere and genuine, but even so I think he is either mistaken, lying or embellishing beyond reason. While the Atkinsons support that Parkes told them the story of the car wash (but were silent on the mitt and the drain disposal), their stories were second hand, relying on what Parkes told them. Unless there are good arguments/evidence otherwise, I think we should consider Parkes statement with great caution and probably dismiss it.

[caz]

He could have done that but this is just a massive risk if any tram conductors or witnesses had come forward. There is very little reason, if he knew the boy could be this late, to set the appointment for the time he did. He must have been quite aware that Alan had been late, how could you not be keeping a careful eye on this? The journey to MGE you're looking at 30 to 40 mins. The boy comes at 6.30, say you're leaving 10 minutes to wack her in your plan (you could leave 5 but you'd need monumental confidence in yourself lol), then he's only turning up 5 minutes earlier than he did do. I think you are suggesting that to look for a fake address he'd want to turn up at what time? 8.00?

But in any case this is a large failpoint and another issue with the use of a fake address which is eliminated with a real one, because I think with a real one you could beeline for the Post Office and a map and I'm getting my timestamp there.

I don't think he's a frequent visitor to the area just to Calderstone's Park a couple of times a year - something of that nature, and he had a number of visits to Crewe mostly over a year prior, the Allerton Rd tram is more convenient for this and you can check this definitely by distances. You will notice that he told Caird he knew how to get to Menlove Avenue, he asked Beattie if Menlove Gardens was Menlove Avenue. He is showing knowledge of the road Menlove Avenue, but implying non-knowledge of the Menlove Gardens roads. So I think based on the chess convos that is the impression he is trying to give, that he definitely knows of the place, but doesn't know it very well... On trial he said he knew there was a Menlove Avenue quite well... So that is the impression I believe is trying to be given.

Hi WWH,

Fair points, but the beauty of this particular fake address, if Wallace made it up, is that he could have been looking for it until midnight and would still not have found it. So whatever time he left the house, as long as he was somewhere in the Menlove area, drawing attention to himself by asking for MGE, and wondering why he couldn't find it, it wouldn't matter if the time was before or after 7.30. It didn't exist! He could have been confident, right up until a couple of minutes before the appointment time, that he would soon find it, and gone on looking, without asking a single person for help, until 7.45 or even your magic 8 pm. He'd still be provably on a mission to make that appointment with Qualtrough, with the ready made excuse that MGE was turning out to be harder to find than tits on a bull - because it was the truth.

Nobody came forward as a witness to his journey to the chess club on the Monday evening, despite the fact that his accusers had him making the phone call, so if he'd had to leave any later on the Tuesday evening, he could have kept his head well down until reaching the Menlove Avenue area, and it wouldn't have mattered what the time was by then - anything up to 8 pm would have worked. Even if he'd been unlucky this time, and a reliable witness could identify him boarding the first tram, suspiciously late for a 7.30 appointment in the MA/MG area, it still proved nothing, as he still had the same amount of time after the milk boy left to do the deed. I'm sure he'd have had an excuse ready for leaving it so late. "My wife was quite poorly with her bad cold so I was hesitant about going/I underestimated how long it would take me". He could also have claimed to be unsure of the time he finally left home, in case any witnesses could dispute it. The fact that he was very happy to tell first the Johnstons, and then the police, exactly what time he remembered leaving the house, could suggest that everything went nicely to plan, and the milk being a bit late turned out to be a bonus rather than a hindrance. Although he was cutting it a bit fine, it was not too late to make his presence felt throughout the journey and make the most of the opportunity.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

It is clearly a case of considerable doubt and difficulty. Here we are presented with a man who looks so guilty even a 3 year old could "crack" the case but the pieces don't quite fit. Parts aren't right, the puzzle just doesn't come together properly unless you start to distort the picture. Sometimes you have to get quite ******* liberal with it.

If you ever considered any possibility anyone other than William could have done it, you would understand why it is then hard to come to a conclusion.

William is the simple answer a child would easily get and its obviousness is difficult to escape and leaves you then with problems when you find it seriously doesn't work in certain areas.

Obv if Parkes' story is true then Gordon with Denison is the best fit because Gordon has to be involved. The weapon would've been disposed of soon after the murder not waiting about hours with it, nobody can really drive back then it's not like today where literally ******* anyone can drive and hence just borrow a car, so it's likely he's at the scene... Which renders the alibi false, which means a Brine relative. And implicating himself according to Parkes directly in murder so yeah.

I truly wish the pros and such just said yeah the jacket's a ******* shield so I could say he did it and everyone can jerk off in their little cuck sheds or w.e. they do.

I WANT this **** to be guilty so I don't have to spend time on forums. Don't be under the illusion that I get any enjoyment at all from posting on forums or for having to fight 1 vs 10000 in some ****ed up WWE cage match where everyone's circlejerking and won't concede even the most obvious points. Internet communities always make me furious and they are more like a bad drug addiction than anything that brings me any semblance of enjoyment. I've NEVER got on well with autists and yes they gather in these places I KNOW you can think of at least one example. And now there's a schizophrenic or w.e. in the mix too. Wonderful. Truly. It's always the same stereotypes who tend to gather on forums.

I guarantee I could **** off for 30 years, come back, and people will still be discussing this PATHETIC jacket shield which is forensically discredited (but their D in high school Biology makes them more credible than numerous experts obviously), instead of, you know, actually realizing that the man might change ******* clothes. What a disgrace. What an absolute ******* disgrace.

You know, WWH, this is pretty much how I view the 'case' for Michael Barrett having hoaxed a certain diary, and it's a lonely place sometimes, punching holes in that case with actual evidence, only to find they are filled again with false assumption, idle speculation or just plain old tripe. So I do appreciate how you feel, which would be beyond anyone with genuine autism.

Keep going at it with passion and enthusiasm, but I do wish you'd quit with the 'circlejerking' stuff and personal insults, because it's just childish and takes away from your otherwise well argued points.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm not levelling accusations of extreme bias on everyone who thinks William did it or disagrees, that specific accusation is against you only. Most people present good arguments, new thoughts, ideas, considering multiple angles even when disagreeing. You consider only one angle ever.

I’ll consider any angle but I’m >**Ą%* sick to the back teeth of people bending over backwards to dismiss William even as a possible suspect . What angles won’t I consider? Prank? Dismissed as too unlikely as to be worth considering. Parry at Wolverton Street - dismissed. Random suspects like Caird- no I won’t.

They're saying it won't work to shield him from the inevitable spray and that the markings - accounting for the blood pool even - described in reports and on trial are not consistent with what would be expected from the prosecution's jacket shield idea.

All the spray that’s only evident to the front, left and right of where he’d have been kneeling?

Wearing it also is considered very unlikely to have effectively allowed the man to perform what is suggested and again the blood upon it does not match what is expected which you can't assess. The fact it caught fire doesn't support that it's on the clothes he goes out in after the fact.

Again, blood that is only visible to the front, left and right and not a drop in the direction of the killers body. Working photos where you can barely see the blood on the walls and based on descriptions by a man widely considered as incompetent. But these magicians’ can recreate the scene to perfection. No wonder there’s no such thing as an unsolved crime.

A forum randomer with zero education putting expert in quotations when discussing multiple professionals with experience investigating and testifying in over 500+ cases of murder trials and suspicious deaths is quite odd.

More pointless insults.
...

I distorted nothing. If our boy Will can fake his voice why choose to ONLY fake it as best as he can to one person instead of throughout from the moment he picks up the receiver? You do not see the SAFEST option is to use your most heavily faked voice beginning to end. For what reason do you forego the safest option in this heavily preplanned event?

The idea that William might have faked his voice and then when it hit him that he was at the point of talking to someone who actually knew him he exaggerated it more is perfectly sound.

I suggest moreso that the man did this crime with dual motive to have created such a narrow suspect pool, and the dual motive is to take down Gordon for the murder of his wife. Hence it is so narrow to make it point directly at one person (and fits the behaviour post-acquittal). Which obviously backfires when that person is cleared. It is less reasonable that he of his own volition designed something that makes it easy for even the most one-dimensional randomer to conclude "if they didn't do it then who?"

Anyone who Parry or Marsden might have told about the Wallace’s. Could have been dozens.

Isn't that more obvious given all you know about how hard he gunned for Gordon and seemingly set up a crime that Gordon basically had to be involved in, and then chased him still despite earning his freedom?

I don’t understand your point
...



It is likely my friend who you know will do a better job of convincing anyone of things as he takes this account. He's better at presenting arguments. I'm better at going batty. Ironically he's more likely to get the account banned but idgaf.

It looks like the Wallace case is now your exclusive property and I’m tired of spending time down the rabbit-hole. I tried before but it always ends up the same. You have to be correct or it’s a torrent of insults and foot-stamping. It’s now sadly a waste of time.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I'm not levelling accusations of extreme bias on everyone who thinks William did it or disagrees, that specific accusation is against you only. Most people present good arguments, new thoughts, ideas, considering multiple angles even when disagreeing. You consider only one angle ever.

I don’t need an expert to tell me how a coat can or can’t be held. If they say it can’t be done then they’re wrong because I’ve done it. I didn’t imagine it so I know it can be done. I never thought I’d see the day when someone would tell me that an ‘expert’ claims that a coat can’t be held up in front of you! What next? Scientists telling you that it’s impossible to comb your hair.

They're saying it won't work to shield him from the inevitable spray and that the markings - accounting for the blood pool even - described in reports and on trial are not consistent with what would be expected from the prosecution's jacket shield idea.

Wearing it also is considered very unlikely to have effectively allowed the man to perform what is suggested and again the blood upon it does not match what is expected which you can't assess. The fact it caught fire doesn't support that it's on the clothes he goes out in after the fact.

A forum randomer with zero education putting expert in quotations when discussing multiple professionals with experience investigating and testifying in over 500+ cases of murder trials and suspicious deaths is quite odd.

...

I distorted nothing. If our boy Will can fake his voice why choose to ONLY fake it as best as he can to one person instead of throughout from the moment he picks up the receiver? You do not see the SAFEST option is to use your most heavily faked voice beginning to end. For what reason do you forego the safest option in this heavily preplanned event?

I suggest moreso that the man did this crime with dual motive to have created such a narrow suspect pool, and the dual motive is to take down Gordon for the murder of his wife. Hence it is so narrow to make it point directly at one person (and fits the behaviour post-acquittal). Which obviously backfires when that person is cleared. It is less reasonable that he of his own volition designed something that makes it easy for even the most one-dimensional randomer to conclude "if they didn't do it then who?"

Isn't that more obvious given all you know about how hard he gunned for Gordon and seemingly set up a crime that Gordon basically had to be involved in, and then chased him still despite earning his freedom?

...

It is likely my friend who you know will do a better job of convincing anyone of things as he takes this account. He's better at presenting arguments. I'm better at going batty. Ironically he's more likely to get the account banned but idgaf.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The difference between a prank call is that the probability of that is based on something you "feel" is unlikely or w.e. and not on actual evidence which is the grounds upon which the shield and 6.30 milk boy ideas are dismissed upon as incredibly unlikely. Not just because of gut "feelings". I of course didn't jump right on joke call it's a process of elimination game.

Its nothing to do with gut feeling. This was probably the first Tuesday night that William was out alone all year or longer. And he was only out because of a mysterious phone call. And on that very day someone gets into the house and bludgeons his wife to death. You must be the only person alive that can’t see this as astronomically unlikely to have been a prank.

If the evidence had been given the other way round it would be embraced. Period. People are married to their single idea and it goes on for decades no matter what ever comes up. If you hate improbability so much then why are you tethered at the hip to this "man kneeling in his jacket shield" idea, which is considered a joke in probability (holding it more than wearing it, though both bad, holding it is considered legit absurd tier) based on actual evidence and not just feelings.

I’m not tied to the shield idea as you keep wrongly suggesting. I’ve talked more lately about him wearing it.

Rubbish idea. Nobody could know that though until people with expertise weigh in because obviously laymen aren't going to understand how to interptet the data.

I don’t need an expert to tell me how a coat can or can’t be held. If they say it can’t be done then they’re wrong because I’ve done it. I didn’t imagine it so I know it can be done. I never thought I’d see the day when someone would tell me that an ‘expert’ claims that a coat can’t be held up in front of you! What next? Scientists telling you that it’s impossible to comb your hair.

And really that is why they ought not to. I can't even really sit here saying about changing clothes but I think actual physical evidence in combo with the outright claimed absurdity of holding the jacket up makes it one of the better choices because of the lack of burn marks despite an obvious actual fire setting the thing ablaze... But all to try to make it so the man is able to outpace reality.

Were in a world where black is white here. It’s tiring arguing against a dearth of logic.

Realistically that's what a time alibi is. It's doing something so fast that it seems impossible you could have done it. I really don't think this was what was attempted or there would be timestamping earlier not at 7.45. Rather I favour rushing to make the APPOINTMENT time not to beat the clock so it looks impossible he did it in the time alotted after Alan.

I favour one side and I’m biased. You favour the other and it’s fine. I guessed those were the rules.

If it is forensically extremely improbable and the timing of the boy universally understood as being after 6.30, often to a considerable degree (i.e. 6.37 or 6.38). So it is just where you choose to place your "luck". You're placing it all on the jacket shield working. I'm placing it on something that seems improbable by feeling but by process of elimination leaves very little else.

Your obsessed with the shield idea. Just like this 6.30 when I’ve previously agreed 6.37/8

I could go minutae by minutae from absolute beginning to absolute end and every single tiny detail to show why a conclusion is reached but I don't think it would matter or be accepted. There is a distortion for almost every fact but the weight of evidence at a certain point reaches a tipping point.

Again it’s ego, ego, ego here. You could explain to the rest of us idiots but we (or I) am just too biased to accept your wisdom. Listen to yourself man.

I am very sure of a few things... I am very sure the plan is bad or just not a plan. I am very sure the milk boy did not arrive at 6.30. I am very sure all jacket shield suggestions are highly implausible unless professionally stated otherwise. I am very sure that if a call scam was legitimately attempted that this is unexpected behaviour for a killer.

It doesn’t matter if the plan wasn’t great unless you keep making an issue of it which you do. It’s this idiot or genius thing. You can’t seem to accept that people are fallible. Otherwise intelligent people make errors of judgment. Especially certain types who think their cleverer than others (and William might have been that type)

And again the 6.30! It’s like the trouser legs all over again. I didn’t say Close arrived at 6.30 but you keep repeating it to make points. Why is that?

I am quite sure it is strange to have an ability to fake a voice and choose not to use the most heavily faked one you can muster when talking to potential witnesses like even just Gladys Harley. To go on with a real voice knowing you will be suspected to operators which I understand is the suggestion is also off. It is unexpected. I am quite sure it is strange to by your own choosing create a scenario that points so easily at yourself by design choices that are easily avoidable (without a dual motive to frame someone specific) and intuitively obvious enough to not be very feasible to make by accident.

More distorted thinking. You believe it unbelievable that Wallace might have used the most exaggerated false voice when talking to the person that new him best. Harley wouldn’t have known his voice from anyone else’s.

I am slightly of the opinion that the doors were legitimately locked when he got home.

And as you accuse me of being unbending, biased and stupid I’ll show I’ll accept evidence I feel persuasive. On the bolted front door. I have read Gannon for ages he appears to give a plausible explanation for why Mrs Johnston couldn’t open the front door so it seems less likely that William was lying about it being bolted.

I am mostly of the opinion that the woman was killed by a neighbour. I am mostly of the opinion that had William killed Julia he explicitly wanted to go after Gordon (whose Empire News article suggests he suspected an affair) hence the terrible staging and narrowing of the suspect pool because he is legit trying to frame Gordon not just get away with murder... This btw is incredible luck where Gordon ****ed one of his alibis up because if both were legitimate he'd be cleared of involvement...

I see no evidence for a neighbour.

The fact he went all in on Gordon to me would suggest in total combination that the motive was not just to kill his wife but to pin it on Gordon. He even had people visit him in his cell who went to school with Gordon telling them Gordon did it arrest him etc. Went after him after acquittal. Unexpected behaviour. I expect a guilty man who got away with murder to shut his mouth up rather than carrying on trying to pin it on someone specific unless they are doing so for a reason.

Gordon's Empire News article is quite illuminating. It is interesting that he tries to shift the article away from being authored by himself when it is clearly him. He says about the man "detained and questioned" who "proved his innocence" then claiming he is ANOTHER and different man.

5th November 1933. I have the transcript by Gannon. His book I think says it's ghostwritten but emailing me he said it is his opinion. He doesn't actually know it is. That is here:

Interesting to read about the stocks because I was wondering today why William had the Financial Times delivered?

My account will probably be donated away. Forums make me very very very angry and are therefore bad for my health.

If being disagreed with makes you angry then Forums are a bad place.

[WallaceWackedHer]

The difference between a prank call is that the probability of that is based on something you "feel" is unlikely or w.e. and not on actual evidence which is the grounds upon which the shield and 6.30 milk boy ideas are dismissed upon as incredibly unlikely. Not just because of gut "feelings". I of course didn't jump right on joke call it's a process of elimination game.

If the evidence had been given the other way round it would be embraced. Period. People are married to their single idea and it goes on for decades no matter what ever comes up. If you hate improbability so much then why are you tethered at the hip to this "man kneeling in his jacket shield" idea, which is considered a joke in probability (holding it more than wearing it, though both bad, holding it is considered legit absurd tier) based on actual evidence and not just feelings.

Rubbish idea. Nobody could know that though until people with expertise weigh in because obviously laymen aren't going to understand how to interptet the data. And really that is why they ought not to. I can't even really sit here saying about changing clothes but I think actual physical evidence in combo with the outright claimed absurdity of holding the jacket up makes it one of the better choices because of the lack of burn marks despite an obvious actual fire setting the thing ablaze... But all to try to make it so the man is able to outpace reality.

Realistically that's what a time alibi is. It's doing something so fast that it seems impossible you could have done it. I really don't think this was what was attempted or there would be timestamping earlier not at 7.45. Rather I favour rushing to make the APPOINTMENT time not to beat the clock so it looks impossible he did it in the time alotted after Alan.

If it is forensically extremely improbable and the timing of the boy universally understood as being after 6.30, often to a considerable degree (i.e. 6.37 or 6.38). So it is just where you choose to place your "luck". You're placing it all on the jacket shield working. I'm placing it on something that seems improbable by feeling but by process of elimination leaves very little else.

I could go minutae by minutae from absolute beginning to absolute end and every single tiny detail to show why a conclusion is reached but I don't think it would matter or be accepted. There is a distortion for almost every fact but the weight of evidence at a certain point reaches a tipping point.

I am very sure of a few things... I am very sure the plan is bad or just not a plan. I am very sure the milk boy did not arrive at 6.30. I am very sure all jacket shield suggestions are highly implausible unless professionally stated otherwise. I am very sure that if a call scam was legitimately attempted that this is unexpected behaviour for a killer.

I am quite sure it is strange to have an ability to fake a voice and choose not to use the most heavily faked one you can muster when talking to potential witnesses like even just Gladys Harley. To go on with a real voice knowing you will be suspected to operators which I understand is the suggestion is also off. It is unexpected. I am quite sure it is strange to by your own choosing create a scenario that points so easily at yourself by design choices that are easily avoidable (without a dual motive to frame someone specific) and intuitively obvious enough to not be very feasible to make by accident.

I am slightly of the opinion that the doors were legitimately locked when he got home. I am mostly of the opinion that the woman was killed by a neighbour. I am mostly of the opinion that had William killed Julia he explicitly wanted to go after Gordon (whose Empire News article suggests he suspected an affair) hence the terrible staging and narrowing of the suspect pool because he is legit trying to frame Gordon not just get away with murder... This btw is incredible luck where Gordon ****ed one of his alibis up because if both were legitimate he'd be cleared of involvement...

The fact he went all in on Gordon to me would suggest in total combination that the motive was not just to kill his wife but to pin it on Gordon. He even had people visit him in his cell who went to school with Gordon telling them Gordon did it arrest him etc. Went after him after acquittal. Unexpected behaviour. I expect a guilty man who got away with murder to shut his mouth up rather than carrying on trying to pin it on someone specific unless they are doing so for a reason.

Gordon's Empire News article is quite illuminating. It is interesting that he tries to shift the article away from being authored by himself when it is clearly him. He says about the man "detained and questioned" who "proved his innocence" then claiming he is ANOTHER and different man.

5th November 1933. I have the transcript by Gannon. His book I think says it's ghostwritten but emailing me he said it is his opinion. He doesn't actually know it is. That is here:

"Empire News Article – 5 November, 1933.
WALLACE ACCUSED ME!
Unsolved Murder Case Disclosures.
“Now let me say this, I know the murderer ... He must realise I suspect him ... I fear I let him see clearly what I thought ... Although I am convinced ------ killed her, yet it is difficult to get proof”. Extracts from the Diary and last writings of William Herbert Wallace.
These terrible disclosures appear in the new book, “Trial of William Herbert Wallace,” just published by Victor Gollance Limited. Wallace had the unique experience of being condemned to death at Liverpool Assizes for the murder of his wife and then of being acquitted by the Court of Appeal. It is described as “one of the most baffling murders in human history,” and here is what a man suspected and accused by Wallace has to say about it.
NARRATED TO PAUL TRENCH.
Am I the man suspected and accused by Wallace? Not if we are to accept all the statements in his last writings. For instance, in one passage he makes the entry: Today a report reaches me that his appearance suggests mental disturbance and deterioration. That description of the suspect does not fit me at all. But I do know that I was suspected and accused by Wallace, and what I am writing is the true story of my association with him.
THREE GRIEVANCES.
Wallace, in his business capacity, his social life and his personal pleasures was a fine man. I am, perhaps, the only one who really knew him as he was and now that his last writings state plainly – “I know the murderer” – it is plainly my duty to place before the pubic certain facts concerned with the private and intimate life of Wallace.
Wallace always suspected me of the murder of his wife. I am not the man who was detained by the police and questioned. That man proved his absolute innocence, and he will not enter this narrative. I am the man Wallace suspected, and even accused. And I feel it is up to me to come forward with my version.
Wallace had three grievances against me. He was worried about his physical condition. I, and only I, knew that he had consulted there specialists and had been given certain serious advice. I knew this because as his friend I had recommended the specialists from time to time. That was one of the grievances Wallace had against me. I knew too much about him.
The next grievance was concerned with a quite innocent visit I made to his house, thinking to do him a good turn. I was, and still am, interested in certain investments. I told Wallace on a certain occasion that I would let him know when certain stocks would be a profitable investment and called around to his house to give him some useful information. He was not at home, and it took a bit of time, and much persuasion, to bring his wife to the door. Eventually, I was admitted to the house, and the first thing that struck me was an unpleasant smell. I stood and could not help sniffing, and Mrs Wallace explained that it was “the drains”.
FIRST SUSPICIONS.
However, after I had explained that I was a friend of her husband and one also interested in insurance, I got as far as the parlour. Here I took a seat, and here I discovered that the smell I had got at the door was more pronounced. I said nothing, but used my eyes. The result was that I knew immediately that the smell was not altogether connected with the drains. The woman herself was, to my mind, untidy. The house was without doubt neglected. Piles of dishes lay all over the room – unwashed. I chatted for about a quarter of an hour and was about to take my leave when the front door opened and Wallace walked in. I stood up as he entered the room; the wife was reclining on the couch. There was a look of sneering discovery in the eyes of the man and my reply was a glance at the untidy figure on the couch. I spoke of the business I had called to discuss and after a while he covered up his temper and we talked of the matter in hand.
Later I left the house – relieved to do so. The woman had not moved from the couch, and there was not the slightest indication of a meal. Wallace came to me the next day in Dale Street, Liverpool, and invited me to lunch. We chatted over our mutual business. Incidentally, he tried to find out what I thought of the house and his wife, but I said nothing committal. However, Wallace knew I knew – and his hatred grew against me.
FOOLISH GOSSIP.
I was, at that time, in the insurance business, but with a company not antagonistic to Wallace, but certainly out to get as much business as I legitimately could. In addition to the matter of insurance I did – as I still do – quite a little business on “chance”. Wallace discovered I was a lucky punter and had asked me to give him some tips. I had called at his house to give him the best tip I had, and found the condition of things as I have briefly described. But unfortunately, in a spirit of sympathetic friendship I mentioned – gossip to gentlemen, as I thought – what I had seen, and within a few days gossip spread all over the office. Wallace heard this and blamed me. I tried to undo what my tongue had started, quite innocently, but the story grew, and Wallace’s anger and hatred grew with the story.
Wallace hated me because I was successful in business where he failed. I gave him tip after tip, but he was at that time obsessed with chess, and too late he would try to engineer certain business which I had already worked with success. My success added fuel to the fire of his hatred, and he never tried to hide this from me.
Mrs Wallace was a good and pure woman who had suffered disappointment. Wallace, poor fellow, was not to blame. But his wife appeared to lose heart as the years went by. I, perhaps, of all their acquaintances knew the circumstances.
Gradually, Wallace began to look on me as an enemy. Not only as an enemy but as a persistent danger to his home life. He could not see the utter absurdity of his conclusions in this respect, for of all the women I have ever met, his wife, at the time I knew her, was to me the least attractive.
Soon after the tragedy that sent the Liverpool police to the top of their efforts. I met this man. He looked at me and grew red and then pale. His jaws set in a terrible struggle with the unspoken words, but all his efforts could not hold him dumb, for as we passed he turned his head and said, “They’ll get you – you devil.” I stood and looked after him. I was not perturbed, for I knew he must be distraught. I shrugged my shoulders and went about my business, but his words kept coming back to me, and I felt uneasy to say the least of it. “They’ll get you – you devil.” It was only after his trial and exoneration that I came to realise just what Wallace had meant by the bitter words.
MURDER FEARS.
After he came back to Liverpool, I managed to see him. He smiled grimly as I stopped him, and a look of utter hatred came over his face. He was working, and, as far as I could see, going on well. His workmates had stuck to him, and as he paused to exchange a few words with me I asked him where he was then living. Me query was casual, and I only meant to convey the impression that I was genuinely interested in his welfare. But he went livid, and turning down an ally beckoned me to follow. When we were alone, he turned upon me saying: “Do you want to add another to the crime you have committed? Try – try, you cur! I have taken all precautions against you. I know you want me out of the way and that you will do your best to get me. I have told the police, and if I am found murdered as was my poor dear wife they (the police) will know who to pace in the dock.” He turned and left me. I was too astounded to say or do anything, but on the advice of my lawyer I told the police. It was about that time that he put in all the gadgets at his house. Switches that illuminated the outside and the interior. He was, I do believe, in mortal dread of being murdered – and that he regarded me as the only possible assassin.
I tried over and over again to get into touch with him to try to convince him of my good will, but he died believing that I was the murderer of his wife, and that I had deadly designs upon himself.
“I KNOW ------”
Was it to me he referred when he wrote: “What strange creatures we human beings are! Before I was the quarry of detectives myself I had practically no interest no interest in this sort of literature. Rather I despised it. And now, I obtain endless fascination by following the detectives of these fictitious investigations of crime and their blunderings before they alight on the right man. At the end I put down the book ... but I am still searching for a murder mystery more extraordinary than the one that has broken my life to pieces. Let me say this: I know the murderer.”
And again: “In the porch of the front door of this lonely home of mine I have fitted an electric switch and lamp ... These things have been placed there to safeguard my life. Each night when I return home from business, I am on the alert for attack ... every recess where an assailant may be lurking in lit up. The figure which one day I fully expect to see crouching and ready to strike will be that of the man who murdered my wife.”
These are the pitiful, moving words of a man I always tried to help, but it seems that his words reach out from the grave to hurt one who never hurt him or his."

My account will probably be donated away. Forums make me very very very angry and are therefore bad for my health.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You're technically allowed to disagree, just you will get ******* owned consistently if you try to come w 'tard **** about 6.30s and jacket shields. Simple. You can deal with the incoming bitchslap if it's attempted.

Ego

I only don't want to hear it because the arguments are ****. Srs. They're consistently utter dogshit or repetitions of something heard elsewhere, pretty sure you used my own blood on door handles thing which I said would be less likely a concern for a killer in gloves. A good member of the rationalist society I should think would admit the 6.30 time is highly improbable (it's legit like me saying "yeah bro the boy came at 6.45") and that the tard-shield idea is also highly improbable based on the evidence.

a) I haven’t said that Close came at 6.30. The point I was making at the time was that it had not been disproven that Close re-enacted 2 rounds in 5 and 6 minutes. You disbelieved it but you hadn’t proved it. But obviously because you disbelieved it then it must be false.

b) You called the shield suggestion highly improbable which isn’t the same as impossible. And it’s certainly not as improbable as the prank idea.

c) Now your saying I’ve nicked one of your ideas? Please provide evidence of that.

I can tell you rn there are points against Wallace that are sus, wtf is your issue in admitting these things are BS?

Ill admit when anything is suss but I’ll also point out if there’s an alternative explanation as there are with many things in this case. Again, just because you think something is wrong it’s not a given that this is the case.

I provided a better way easily and it fits the evidence better. Is it literally just because you aren't able to make the idea better in any capacity so just HAVE to have these things be true?

Nope. The change of clothes is a possibility of course. The only difficulty being the disposal of the clothes. It doesn’t eliminate other explanations though.

I didn't recall that he had always been able to affect entry prior. I am inclined as stated twice either side of that musing, to think someone was still in there, I think if the neighbours are innocent they may have come out in fact for that reason (the thumps around the time). Seems Kato Kaelin tier when OJ hopped the wall.

William apparently also thought there was someone inside but this innocent man tried to deny this at the trial.

On Close,

Lets say that William planned the Qualtrough meeting for 8.

Right (I’m not saying Close actually arrived at 6.30) but let’s say that he did and was gone by 6.35. When does William leave for his meeting? The actual trip took 30 minutes leaving 10 minutes search time.

So with an 8pm meeting this has Wallace leaving the house at 7.20 (inc. 10 mins search) and from the polices point of view a massive 45 minutes for him to have killed Julia before leaving.

Obviously we couldn’t have Wallace leaving at 6.50 because he’d have arrived 40 minutes early.

As I said earlier, there are two sides. Wallace was trying to balance between allowing himself enough time to kill Julia (by whatever method and with a rough idea of time required in his head) but making it look like he probable didn’t gave enough time (because the police would have assumed a hefty clean up time.

Wallace wasn’t a genius or an idiot. He was a fallible human being. Although, and you’ve suggested some kind of mental issue, he might have been the kind of person who just thought that he was cleverer than other people. He might have been convinced that Close arrived at a consistent time but if he gives himself to much time he gives the police more reason to convict him.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Constantly claiming opinion as fact will get you nowhere. I should learn to take what you say with a pinch of salt because you jump from baseless theory to baseless theory almost on a weekly basis. It’s not flexibility either it’s forming the opinion that you’re correct to quickly and then assuming that you can’t be wrong. It’s a weakness for conspiracy theory thinking. It’s saying things like Wallace looks so guilty that he couldn’t be.

I suggest that that you buy yourself a mirror. You’re very quick to character judgments on others but perhaps you mind find that a good look at yourself
would prove illuminating.

As a place for discussing the case this thread is now pretty much dead thanks to the ruling “don’t dare to disagree with WWH or you’ll get labelled mentally ill (and apparently he doesn’t like the mentally ill)

You're technically allowed to disagree, just you will get ******* owned consistently if you try to come w 'tard **** about 6.30s and jacket shields. Simple. You can deal with the incoming bitchslap if it's attempted.

I only don't want to hear it because the arguments are ****. Srs. They're consistently utter dogshit or repetitions of something heard elsewhere, pretty sure you used my own blood on door handles thing which I said would be less likely a concern for a killer in gloves. A good member of the rationalist society I should think would admit the 6.30 time is highly improbable (it's legit like me saying "yeah bro the boy came at 6.45") and that the tard-shield idea is also highly improbable based on the evidence.

I can tell you rn there are points against Wallace that are sus, wtf is your issue in admitting these things are BS?

I provided a better way easily and it fits the evidence better. Is it literally just because you aren't able to make the idea better in any capacity so just HAVE to have these things be true?

I didn't recall that he had always been able to affect entry prior. I am inclined as stated twice either side of that musing, to think someone was still in there, I think if the neighbours are innocent they may have come out in fact for that reason (the thumps around the time). Seems Kato Kaelin tier when OJ hopped the wall.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi Herlock,

I'm not sure why WWH insists that the 7.30 appointment time was stupidly early, because the milk boy could have arrived too late for Wallace to commit the murder. Even if, for argument's sake, Wallace had been unable to get away until after 7, he could still have made his way to the Menlove Gardens area, but not drawn any attention to himself until much nearer to 7.30. He knew the address didn't exist, but he knew where he was going. So instead of lying about being a stranger to the area he could have said when questioned later that he thought he knew where to find MGE, but by 7.25 he was no nearer to finding it [obviously] so that's when he began asking people where it was. It was his plan after all, and he only had to work out his own moves, so he could have been flexible. Who would have known precisely what time he had left the house, and whether Wallace would have known he had not left himself enough time?

Love,

Caz
X

He could have done that but this is just a massive risk if any tram conductors or witnesses had come forward. There is very little reason, if he knew the boy could be this late, to set the appointment for the time he did. He must have been quite aware that Alan had been late, how could you not be keeping a careful eye on this? The journey to MGE you're looking at 30 to 40 mins. The boy comes at 6.30, say you're leaving 10 minutes to wack her in your plan (you could leave 5 but you'd need monumental confidence in yourself lol), then he's only turning up 5 minutes earlier than he did do. I think you are suggesting that to look for a fake address he'd want to turn up at what time? 8.00?

But in any case this is a large failpoint and another issue with the use of a fake address which is eliminated with a real one, because I think with a real one you could beeline for the Post Office and a map and I'm getting my timestamp there.

I don't think he's a frequent visitor to the area just to Calderstone's Park a couple of times a year - something of that nature, and he had a number of visits to Crewe mostly over a year prior, the Allerton Rd tram is more convenient for this and you can check this definitely by distances. You will notice that he told Caird he knew how to get to Menlove Avenue, he asked Beattie if Menlove Gardens was Menlove Avenue. He is showing knowledge of the road Menlove Avenue, but implying non-knowledge of the Menlove Gardens roads. So I think based on the chess convos that is the impression he is trying to give, that he definitely knows of the place, but doesn't know it very well... On trial he said he knew there was a Menlove Avenue quite well... So that is the impression I believe is trying to be given.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There are other intelligent people like etenguy and Josh who have come with smart replies which fit to facts better. I don't award participation trophies and pats on the back gold star stickers.

No you don’t and nor should you but what do is sulk and insult when you’re disagreed with.

Idiot-shield is almost certainly wrong. Holding the jacket is even worse than wearing it bloodwise, wearing it is far superior. Arguing it's what happened will earn a swift bitchslap every time.
Tough ****. It's very probably wrong and I don't want to hear it or 6.30 Alan suggested as likely EVER again. Very improbable facts scientifically as well as on physical evidence and witness testimony.

It’s staggering arrogance to come on here like a schoolteacher saying “I don’t want to hear.....” Perhaps you should consider going back to school yourself to learn the difference between opinion and fact; or possible and probable.

What I don’t want to hear is the dishonest ignoring of evidence by suggesting that Parry might have been at Wolverton Street on the Tuesday night.

Or the dismissal of an entirely reasonable suggestion like Wallace might have been convinced in his own mind the Close always came between 6.15 and 6.30 and that he was unaware that he’d been late whilst at the same time proposing the ludicrous zillion to one worst prank ever.

Or that Wallace’s body magnetically attracted blood.

Or that fleeing killers would have wasted time going around turning down gas jets.

Or that Wallace really was ‘a complete stranger’ who happened to forget mentioning Crewe to the police.

Or you twisting things to avoid the truth that Wallace himself had NEVER been unable to get in by the backdoor before. ONLY on that night.

Couch is supported by the weight of evidence. If she's not on it she's that side still. Supported as the probable position yes.

No it’s not. It’s a possibility at best.

Constantly claiming opinion as fact will get you nowhere. I should learn to take what you say with a pinch of salt because you jump from baseless theory to baseless theory almost on a weekly basis. It’s not flexibility either it’s forming the opinion that you’re correct to quickly and then assuming that you can’t be wrong. It’s a weakness for conspiracy theory thinking. It’s saying things like Wallace looks so guilty that he couldn’t be.

I suggest that that you buy yourself a mirror. You’re very quick to character judgments on others but perhaps you mind find that a good look at yourself
would prove illuminating.

As a place for discussing the case this thread is now pretty much dead thanks to the ruling “don’t dare to disagree with WWH or you’ll get labelled mentally ill (and apparently he doesn’t like the mentally ill)

[caz]

Why do you assume that Wallace would have known that the milk boy might a been late however occasionally? Why is it such a stretch of the imagination that William (who would normally have paid zero attention to the milk deliveries) might have believed that he always came between 6 and 6.30? Perhaps every time he’d seen or heard him that was the time he’d arrived? Perhaps he’d asked Julia under some pretext and that’s what she’d told him? On a kids milk round, pretty much doing the same houses every day it’s surely not over optimistic to think that he wouldn’t vary it times much.

Why did William leave himself only 10 mins to find the unknown MGE. Why isn’t that suspicious?

Why did he arrive at chess on the stroke of the deadline. Why isn’t that suspicious?

Hi Herlock,

I'm not sure why WWH insists that the 7.30 appointment time was stupidly early, because the milk boy could have arrived too late for Wallace to commit the murder. Even if, for argument's sake, Wallace had been unable to get away until after 7, he could still have made his way to the Menlove Gardens area, but not drawn any attention to himself until much nearer to 7.30. He knew the address didn't exist, but he knew where he was going. So instead of lying about being a stranger to the area he could have said when questioned later that he thought he knew where to find MGE, but by 7.25 he was no nearer to finding it [obviously] so that's when he began asking people where it was. It was his plan after all, and he only had to work out his own moves, so he could have been flexible. Who would have known precisely what time he had left the house, and whether Wallace would have known he had not left himself enough time?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

If he forgot about Alan entirely THAT'S the insane luck that he didn't wack her earlier when he forgot this boy is even due to turn up.

Conversely, if the milk was not an issue, because Wallace was innocently preparing for his 7.30 appointment, he should have been called Unlucky Alf, for still being there, faffing about and leaving it fine, when Alan finally turned up. If he'd left the house in good time to find MGE, he'd have missed Alan entirely and put himself in the clear. I bet he said "Oh bugger" when the jury convicted him for the crime of unpunctuality.

Love,

Caz
X