Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Amy Wallace, was she involved?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
    We already sort of have semi-proof he wasn't working to beat the alibi clock by getting out "impossibly" soon after Alan left, and we know that because of the failure to mention the boy.
    I really think you are missing the point here, WWH, when you keep referring to this 'alibi clock'. All a guilty Wallace would have been thinking about was the latest time he could afford to leave the house, considering the bogus appointment time was 7.30 at an address he claimed not to know. He had to wait for Close to deliver the milk and then judge if there was still time to do the crime and leave the house at a reasonable time for that appointment. That's all. That's the only reason for Close to feature in the story. He was a potential obstacle, and not under Wallace's control. Had Wallace been unable to leave the house until gone seven, for instance, everyone would have been much more suspicious than they were. Wallace knew he had to abandon his plan or get cracking and get out of that house as soon as he could. So the fact that he did have enough time [always assuming he did the deed] means that the milk boy could not have provided him with an alibi, even if he had thought to mention him. It merely turned out to be a bonus that he'd had to rush things so much that doubt was thrown on whether it was possible. He didn't plan it that way. How could he?

    Think about it. If Wallace wanted to kill his wife and make it look like someone did it in his absence, he'd never have made that appointment time as early as 7.30 unless he felt confident that Close would be long gone by the time he had to leave the house himself. There is no way he would have risked Close knocking on the door just as he was about to kill his wife, or in the immediate aftermath, so he would have been expecting the milk early enough to avoid that possibility, and would have been most put out if Close did not come at his usual time.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Last edited by caz; 03-10-2020, 05:43 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • WallaceWackedHer
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    Cheers, OneRound, and good to see you back here.

    I suppose the main distinction I would make between Hanratty and Wallace, regardless of guilt or innocence, is that the latter was considerably better at fighting his own corner and was able to help his defence when it came to the appeal process. Hanratty seemed to do his level best at times to damage his credibility in the jury's eyes, not least by changing his alibi.

    And that makes me think that if Wallace really had taken a route on that Monday evening which did not go near the phone box, he would surely have made more of it, and urged his defence to double check with the tram staff, and track down any regular passengers too, in the expectation that someone would remember seeing him. The uncomfortable contrast between Monday's Invisible Man and Tuesday's Ubiquitous Qualtrough Hunter is stark.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Yes and you would also think he would make something of the fact SOMEONE other than him had indeed seen Julia alive (the milk boy) after something like 4.30 PM when first questioned by police - at least, if his alibi was what everyone suggests - the "impossible timeframe" thing.

    Modern forensic analysts seem to believe the idea of how the mackintosh was used does not match the physical evidence, and that they believe the jacket was on her in some way when she fell, as opposed to being used as a shield by the assailant.

    For William as the killer acting alone, if modern forensics rule out the idea of how the jacket was used, there is no ACTUAL evidence at all that he is guilty alone. The only evidence if modern forensics rule out that he could have worn that jacket and escaped blood-free, would be for a conspiracy to commit murder which is the evidence given by Lily Hall. This IS evidence because William flatly denied her eyewitness account.

    She, like Lily Pinches, seems to have become very confused when questioned and that is annoying since it's hard to see what she's saying exactly. I have put together some maps etc. and all of her statements I am aware of to show this:

    https://www.williamherbertwallace.co...alls-sighting/

    Their questioning of her was not remotely thorough or clear enough. All I get is where she got off the tram, and where she saw what she strongly believed to be William.

    Modern forensics say the thuds heard by the Johnstons could well be consistent with Julia's time of death. This is 20:25 to 20:30 when they hear these two thuds. Lily says she sees William at 20:35 talking to another man. Isn't this a stronger line to pursue?

    I do wish some things had been clarified better in court. Clearly both defence and prosecution were scared of what answers they might get about some things. I wish they had just flatly outright asked what he meant when he said he was a stranger in the district. He indicated to several people already that he's familiar with how to get to Menlove Avenue so can't have been planning to act like he had no idea where Menlove Avenue was, so I would have liked to have seen it clarified.
    Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 03-10-2020, 04:58 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by OneRound View Post

    Hi Caz - there's possibly an analogy here with the claims of our old friend Jim Hanratty to have taken a bus from Liverpool to Rhyl which, if proven true, would have provided a solid alibi. Neither defence nor prosecution counsel were prepared to pursue this at trial and seek confirmation or contradiction from the bus driver / conductor.

    Possibly the defence were fearful of a response along the lines of ''don't recall him at all'' whilst the prosecution were equally wary of an answer such as ''he could have been on it''. As pointed out by another on the A6 thread at the time, a trial is more about achieving a desired result than ascertaining the full truth.

    Anyway, in both cases and in your words, a crying shame.

    Best regards,
    OneRound
    Cheers, OneRound, and good to see you back here.

    I suppose the main distinction I would make between Hanratty and Wallace, regardless of guilt or innocence, is that the latter was considerably better at fighting his own corner and was able to help his defence when it came to the appeal process. Hanratty seemed to do his level best at times to damage his credibility in the jury's eyes, not least by changing his alibi.

    And that makes me think that if Wallace really had taken a route on that Monday evening which did not go near the phone box, he would surely have made more of it, and urged his defence to double check with the tram staff, and track down any regular passengers too, in the expectation that someone would remember seeing him. The uncomfortable contrast between Monday's Invisible Man and Tuesday's Ubiquitous Qualtrough Hunter is stark.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • WallaceWackedHer
    replied
    Ah hang on she was more specific about the digestion part:

    To address your points:

    1) I think it's very likely the first blow would have been the largest hit, the details of the subsequent blows are consistent with the blood and brain leaving the skull cavity on the rug. From the blood spatter, the most likely position of the attacker would be in front of the fireplace, I don't see any spatter on the right hand wall which would corroborate this. It's possible the weapon was quite long, which would explain the high force of the injury, and so they may have been further from the seat than one might initially consider.

    2) Between 8:25-8:30pm I would suggest is definitely within the range of possibility. As a general guideline undigested food would be seen in the first two hours and more liquid food would be seen between 2-6 hours. The postmortem suggests that there were bits of unmasticated food which could be indicative of the start of digestion and somewhere between these two stages. Also, the individual variation isn't fully known so it's very possible that the time of death was within this window.

    3) The movement of the body is less clear, as I'm sure you can see. It's possible the first blow was not immediately fatal leading to some movement by the victim. As you said, the final blows are with the head in the position seen, the body could have been moved to a more suitable position, or to avoid the fireplace. Sorry I can't help more on this point.

    4) Due to the amount of blood pooling under the body, if the mackintosh was worn while kneeling I would expect to see more staining on the lower section. I think it is more likely the two items burned at the same time, this could also explain some of the body placement if the task was to stop the fire before being noticed. I would suggest the mackintosh being on her person to be a more likely explanation, but of course there's a lot of variation that could have occurred on the day.

    5) I can't see an attack such as this not leaving spatter upon all the clothes, even if covered by the mackintosh. Especially on sleeves and collars that wouldn't be covered in that scenario. While the techniques of the day may not have picked up the minute spatter I would imagine at least some blood on the clothing. However, if the outfit Wallace was wearing was also worn on finding the body, it would likely be described away as transfer from touching the body. This seems unlikely as the neighbours saw Wallace at the time of body discovery.
    I asked specifically about 8.25 to 8.30 because of Florence's testimony.

    Leave a comment:


  • WallaceWackedHer
    replied
    More forensics:

    Thanks for the pictures. I've had another look at the new images and the ones you sent through previously. Unfortunately the sketch isn't as informative as I had hoped, but that is to be expected with this evidence I suppose!

    In my previous message by location of the blows I meant where Julia was positioned when the first blow occurred. The concentration of the blood spatter to the left of the fireplace, and the height of this, suggests the position of Julia's head would have been in this area when struck. Due to the angle of the photograph, I couldn't say how she was positioned for this to happen though. It was definitely lower than standing height, whether this be sat down, bent down, or kneeling is unclear. There is a couple of blood spots on the ceiling, suggesting cast-off from whatever was used to hit the victim. These indicate that at least one pull back of the weapon (after landing a blow) would have occurred in the left corner of the room, closer to the violin case.

    In relation to the mackintosh, obviously a lot of the blood patterning is obscured by the pooling blood from being under the body. I wouldn't rule out that the mac could have been worn, but I would envision a greater spatter on the fabric if so. The burn to Julia's skirt and the mac would suggest these had both caught in the same way, so the more likely scenario would be the mac was on or close to her and fell under during the attack. This is more speculation though as there is little usable forensic evidence on here. Some of the blows were done in a position similar to that which the body was found in, which McFall is correct on due to the brain leaching. I would expect quite a bit of spatter on the suspect's leg at around ankle height. As there is no mention of bloody footprints leaving the room, or indeed anywhere, it's possible this was wiped off with something in the room; as there are no other items mentioned with lots of blood on it would stand to reason that the mac was used. Again, this is a hypothetical but worth mentioning.

    Clearly, the competence of the photography of the jacket isn't ideal. I can't really say more about the spatter on here from this. Also it was disturbed, and looks to have been laid in the blood pooling, so further transfer likely occurred.

    The stomach contents is a point I forgot to mention on the last message, my apologies. The postmortem states the food in the stomach still had an 'unmasticated' appearance. This suggests that the time of death was between 0 and 2 hours after consumption. This has some individual variability, but does give an indication.
    We are continuing the work. I think she is not very keen on the idea of the jacket being used.

    I think she is suggesting the first strike to the front of the head, then all the followup shots with Julia's body positioned roughly in the position in which it was discovered.

    Wallace got home at 6.05 PM, and then ate - sadly he never gave an actual time for this event, but I think it puts the time of death bracket at around 6.10 to 8.10 which doesn't seem to aid us much lol.

    I have inquired though about the Johnstons hearing thuds at a claimed 8.25 to 8.30 PM. It seems to stretch the time boundary but it is the only audio cue we do have. I say this only because the Holmes sounds are impossible if as they said the door closed on Alan after they heard a body fall. It'd mean Wallace in drag or something? What do you think.

    I think she finds the 11 blows suggestion weak. If it's a lower number of strikes it could potentially match that sound. Wallace then was apparently sighted by Lily Hall only a little after this. 5 minutes in fact.

    Leave a comment:


  • WallaceWackedHer
    replied
    This just sent to me by Josh who was searching for something else:

    Today, the ECHO spoke to the 93-year-old's devastated daughter, who described how the gang first forced a back kitchen door before locking and bolting the front door, and turning off the electricity.
    So they instantly bolted the front door and cut the lights lol. Just thought that was funny.

    They battered her for no reason sadly. She was in bed so they didn't really need to hurt her. Some people are just ****ed up.

    Leave a comment:


  • WallaceWackedHer
    replied
    Forensic update:

    Okay, so I've had a thorough look through both forensic pathologist and the analysts testimonies. It's very clear that the pathologist hold too much weight to the methods they use, as was common at the time. As no temperatures were taken, and there aren't even notes on the rigor method they did use, I would suggest disregarding their estimations for time of death, and keep it broad as stated by the witnesses. There's no indication of the heat of the room which would also change rigor mortis onset. Even between themselves they seem to disagree on this method

    The blood pattern analysis is, as expected, rudimentary and regarded too highly. Obviously, the photographs don't show these patterns in great detail due to the technology of the day. However, the overall location of the blows seems to be consistent with what McFall states. More information could be concluded if the full bloodstains could be seen. The postmortem information seems to suggest blunt force trauma to the head, the number of blows estimate is tenuous by McFall but I'd be happy to say that it was multiple blows.

    This type of injury would likely cause a lot of blowback blood spatter, meaning the perpetrator would be covered in blood, from the testimonies it doesn't seem consistent that the MacKintosh was being worn during this (although if there is an image of this I might be able to be more conclusive). Also I would disregard the blood on the toilet pan as transfer, as it is inconsistent with the rest of the evidence.

    I'm sure there's more I can help with here, if there's anything else you want based on the testimony you would like to clarify/know just ask the question.

    From reading the testimonies I think the following items could be extremely helpful for further analysis:

    -Exhibit 56 -> sketch of body position and blood clot location
    -Images of the MacKintosh
    -Postmortem sketch by McFall
    -Colourised version of the postmortem photo

    I understand these may not be available, but if there's anything that can help me further your information that would be great.

    Leave a comment:


  • WallaceWackedHer
    replied
    It's odd in Gannon's book he says McFall said in his first report Julia was on the double seated sofa with her head to the right. By the trial he has her in the single seater armchair on the opposite side of the room with her head to the left.

    Along with a random change from 19.50 to 18.00 as the ToD and overall incompetence in gaining important information, if he had her on the total opposite side of the room that is inexcusable and his entire opinion and credit as an expert should be entirely discarded.

    Leave a comment:


  • WallaceWackedHer
    replied
    Originally posted by moste View Post

    So, since a blood group comparison may NOT have helped.It may also have entirely exonerated Wallace! If not by association, certainly as the physical murderer.
    True if it wasn't the type of his wife or himself it would be strong.

    Though one wouldn't expect the killer to have been bleeding. Usually that happens in stabbings (almost always, actually), because the person's hand slips down onto the blade and they accidentally cut themselves if there's no hand guard.

    Here it is blunt force trauma. The test should have been done but it was more than likely from Julia. Same for the smear on the note. If that stain was on just one note I think that's important as among the missing cash box money was one pound note... I seem to recall the stain extended across the top of the notes or something?

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
    It wasn't checked otherwise I'd have thought it would have been used in court. Barely and proper tests were conducted.
    So, since a blood group comparison may NOT have helped.It may also have entirely exonerated Wallace! If not by association, certainly as the physical murderer.
    Last edited by moste; 03-08-2020, 06:53 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • WallaceWackedHer
    replied
    It wasn't checked otherwise I'd have thought it would have been used in court. Barely and proper tests were conducted.

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    The ABO blood types were discovered by Karl Landsteiner in 1901, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1930.so says Google.

    Question , does anyone know if Wallace’s blood type was compared with the spot on the toilet pan, and smears on the bank notes . I should think a forensic expert would want to look into this. I don’t recall any discussion on the subject, maybe I missed it.

    Leave a comment:


  • WallaceWackedHer
    replied
    So in modern forensics rigor is considered accurate to only 8 hours of the time of death. In other words the test is almost completely useless.

    If McFall says 6 that means 2 PM until 10 by today's standards lol. If he says 7.50 like he did originally then well, you get the picture.

    Liver temperature is a better test.

    But she thinks the congealing of blood could be useful. Maybe that clot on the toilet pan will end up being helpful. We shall see how things progress.

    I have also sent morgue photos and the trial etc., will keep you updated.

    Leave a comment:


  • WallaceWackedHer
    replied
    Originally posted by moste View Post

    That’s interesting. Being in touch with a person of this calibre.

    However, I dont see the moving of furniture, or the position of the body, or the absence of the murder weapon, being of much help in determining whether Wallace was guilty or not. Julia’s true age are you making reference here to Rigor Mortis , which McFall solely relied on, and which can make a difference ?
    It's crucial in the same way as it is for every other homicide case. Knowing what happened and how is a lot more helpful than you think.

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
    Update: I have got in contact with a forensic expert who is willing to work this case. She has worked for the police force on actual homicide cases. Given the terrible crime scene photos (things were moved from their original place) and McFall's fallibility, I hope she will be able to make some suggestions.

    This is an important step to take, since a major part of the case is going to come down to the events that took place in the parlour and this is a matter of forensics. 12 blows or 3? Better time of death estimate? The position of Julia and her attacker? These are things we need answers to. It might be educated guesses because McFall did such a bad job at reporting on it... But we can at least give her Julia's true age and perhaps get a better time of death estimate based on that alone - and probably also the stomach contents and when they had apparently eaten that meal.
    That’s interesting. Being in touch with a person of this calibre.

    However, I dont see the moving of furniture, or the position of the body, or the absence of the murder weapon, being of much help in determining whether Wallace was guilty or not. Julia’s true age are you making reference here to Rigor Mortis , which McFall solely relied on, and which can make a difference ?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X