Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[WallaceWackedHer]

You need to learn that you don’t have a monopoly on being correct. You also need to learn not to throw petulant strops because you’re disagreed with. You’re not some genius whose always right. You accuse me of doing exactly what you always do I’m afraid.

Theres no point in discussing the case with someone that spits his dummy out when disagreed with.

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.

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.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

You won't accept anything don't BS. Even with scientific evidence you think your "rationalist society" membership makes your zero knowledge of scientific matters more valuable than actual doctors in forensic science and people who work on homicide for the police. You won't concede the milk boy came after 6.30. So no you won't concede anything. Ever. Ever. Ever. Ever. You never have and never will. If you do it just reverts after a while like some sort of sick game of wack-a-mole.

Ive never said that Close came at 6.30. I was arguing at the time against your unwarranted assertion that you’d somehow ‘proved’ the timings wrong. That it wasn’t possible for Close to had done it in 5 or 6 minutes. Because of course you ‘knew’ that he couldn’t have walked quicker. And you ‘knew’ that the three tasks that he had would have taken longer. And just to make your point you tried to imply that he was staggering under the weight of s dozen crates. You stare opinions as fact.

You don't get to have an "opinion" if it's disproven like idiot tier 6.30 comments. You're not allowed it. **** your safespace where you get pats on the back and participation awards for actually coming w nonsense like this pretending you're a century old fictional detective.

A childish, petulant rant. No response required.

...

The idiot-shield is one of varyious ideas I'd raze so the theory presented aligns with scientific opinion. Nobody cares about forensic opinion though because they have a D in Biology in their GCSEs so I'll go to physical evidence and you can potentially keep your idiot-shield... But I'd certainly not be foolish enough to stick by it when it's a unanimous verdict and considered not even remotely plausible.

I haven’t mentioned the shield idea for ages actually. Is it possible to strike blows whilst holding a knee length coat leaving only the face and right arm uncovered. Tried it, done it, so yes. Still not saying that’s what happened just that it’s possible. Don’t care what your experts say I’ve seen it with my own eyes. So....end of.

You can see where she was and is coming from in the room on the physical evidence. Gordon said in the parlour she reclined on the sofa (Empire News, 1933) when he visited, the cushions support it, the match box location supports it, the foot positioning supports it.

Cushions - from a not very house proud Julia could have been from the day before.

Matchbox - likewise could have been lying there since the day before.

Foot position - I thought she’d been moved?

Opinions stated as facts....again.

Gannon is correct about the radiants she hasn't just lit the fire. It's been set in advance then. Now he has to get her into the room right... So Alan comes at 6.37 or w.e. He says he's at the door for a minute or two, Wildman left w him still standing there and the door open. Julia's actually come from that sofa there before being killed, so after Alan left, William's sent her in there w expectations of a visitor. The jugs are handed to Alan etc. She just has to shut the front door, leave the porch and close that door, and go into the parlour and get comfy. William is I suppose doing something else rn simultaneously. Understand the woman isn't rushing to get in position to be slain so you get the timing here is insanely lucky tbh.

It's insane luck the milk boy's arrival time had numerous witnesses you couldn't count on like Elsie Wright too. Variable unreliable crap timestamp Alan. He reckons he can do all this in 5 to 10 minutes right? Journey time to MGE was something like 30 to 40 mins. It's meant to prove guilt he arrived so late and coincidence Alan was late that was the whole thing, but Alan had regularly been very late recent to the event so forget that.

You assume that William knew about the lateness. Did they say ‘very’ late?

Now you ask WHY has he asked Julia to set up the parlour early? Why does he need the fire to be on in there? Maybe she did it herself in advance to warm the room if told earlier to expect a visitor. Another possibility. If the latter the jacket may have been hung by the fireplace so it dries off if still damp, in anticipation the husband is going to wear it.

If it's a biz appointment she wouldn't be in there on the couch. It's William's client and therefore his appointment, nothing to do w her. He's said Amy/Edwin are coming. Must be something like that.

She was on the couch is an assumption.

He's killed her and changed clothes. Obviously. The jacket legit caught fire he's not wearing it then because his clothing is not singed. The jacket is literally on fire. Not just scorch marks but ******* ABLAZE. Or he changed clothes.

He could have changed his clothes but it made it harder when having to dispose of them.

Which is ironic really because it's up in flames just like the moronic shield idea, very fitting when you think about it.

Pathetic

But idiot-shield will never die. People married idiot-shield years ago. It's getting old, its lost its beauty, its decrepit and falling apart much like William's wife. But they're stuck in a stale marriage with it.

Exageration

It's about time someone send themselves to Menlove Gardens East so they can murder their idiot-shield wife.

You need to learn that you don’t have a monopoly on being correct. You also need to learn not to throw petulant strops because you’re disagreed with. You’re not some genius whose always right. You accuse me of doing exactly what you always do I’m afraid.

Theres no point in discussing the case with someone that spits his dummy out when disagreed with.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I

No what is a disgrace is you continually throwing your toys out of the prank like some steroidal toddler every time someone disagrees with you. It really is like having Rod back. You, like him, appear to think “well I’ve looked into this deeply...I’ve come to some conclusions....so they must be correct....and anyone that disagrees must be biased.” Autists and schizophrenics! Nice choices, which one am I supposed to be? Which Internet forum stereotype are you? The one that’s used to having people agree with you and sulks when they don’t.

No one forces you to post on here. Bloody Denison!! Why not Beattie or Sarah Draper? Denison is plucked out of thin air. Utterly baseless desperation to shoehorn in any fatuous theory which doesn’t include William.

Your points about Close and your refusal to accept simple possibilities show bias. Everything you say when discussing Wallace exhibits bias. You talk about conceding points! I’ll concede any point if it’s based on evidence and logic and have done in the past. You can’t even concede the mild point that a kid might have walked a bit quicker than normal! Or that Wallace might have genuinely believed that Close always came 6.15-6.30! Why.... because like Parry’s alibi, it’s inconvenient!


First Rod killed off the Wallace discussion because his refusal to accept other opinions led to a barrage of insults and now ditto. Here we are again.

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.

You won't accept anything don't BS. Even with scientific evidence you think your "rationalist society" membership makes your zero knowledge of scientific matters more valuable than actual doctors in forensic science and people who work on homicide for the police. You won't concede the milk boy came after 6.30. So no you won't concede anything. Ever. Ever. Ever. Ever. You never have and never will. If you do it just reverts after a while like some sort of sick game of wack-a-mole.

You don't get to have an "opinion" if it's disproven like idiot tier 6.30 comments. You're not allowed it. **** your safespace where you get pats on the back and participation awards for actually coming w nonsense like this pretending you're a century old fictional detective.

...

The idiot-shield is one of varyious ideas I'd raze so the theory presented aligns with scientific opinion. Nobody cares about forensic opinion though because they have a D in Biology in their GCSEs so I'll go to physical evidence and you can potentially keep your idiot-shield... But I'd certainly not be foolish enough to stick by it when it's a unanimous verdict and considered not even remotely plausible.

You can see where she was and is coming from in the room on the physical evidence. Gordon said in the parlour she reclined on the sofa (Empire News, 1933) when he visited, the cushions support it, the match box location supports it, the foot positioning supports it.

Gannon is correct about the radiants she hasn't just lit the fire. It's been set in advance then. Now he has to get her into the room right... So Alan comes at 6.37 or w.e. He says he's at the door for a minute or two, Wildman left w him still standing there and the door open. Julia's actually come from that sofa there before being killed, so after Alan left, William's sent her in there w expectations of a visitor. The jugs are handed to Alan etc. She just has to shut the front door, leave the porch and close that door, and go into the parlour and get comfy. William is I suppose doing something else rn simultaneously. Understand the woman isn't rushing to get in position to be slain so you get the timing here is insanely lucky tbh.

It's insane luck the milk boy's arrival time had numerous witnesses you couldn't count on like Elsie Wright too. Variable unreliable crap timestamp Alan. He reckons he can do all this in 5 to 10 minutes right? Journey time to MGE was something like 30 to 40 mins. It's meant to prove guilt he arrived so late and coincidence Alan was late that was the whole thing, but Alan had regularly been very late recent to the event so forget that.

Now you ask WHY has he asked Julia to set up the parlour early? Why does he need the fire to be on in there? Maybe she did it herself in advance to warm the room if told earlier to expect a visitor. Another possibility. If the latter the jacket may have been hung by the fireplace so it dries off if still damp, in anticipation the husband is going to wear it.

If it's a biz appointment she wouldn't be in there on the couch. It's William's client and therefore his appointment, nothing to do w her. He's said Amy/Edwin are coming. Must be something like that.

He's killed her and changed clothes. Obviously. The jacket legit caught fire he's not wearing it then because his clothing is not singed. The jacket is literally on fire. Not just scorch marks but ******* ABLAZE. Or he changed clothes.

Which is ironic really because it's up in flames just like the moronic shield idea, very fitting when you think about it.

But idiot-shield will never die. People married idiot-shield years ago. It's getting old, its lost its beauty, its decrepit and falling apart much like William's wife. But they're stuck in a stale marriage with it.

It's about time someone send themselves to Menlove Gardens East so they can murder their idiot-shield wife.

[harry]

Was Wallace,because of the phone call,only confined to the Tuesday evening in which to make the trip to Menlove Gardens,or was the wording of the phone call also an invitation,of some other time,if Tuesday was unavailable?
If the arrival of the milk boy was part of a plan,and a late arrival on the tuesday evening made the plan inoperable,could Wallace have delayed untill later that week,and still used the phone call as an alibi.I believe he could,so the milk boy's testimony,providing it did not specify he (the milk boy) would be late every evening,is of no great hindrance.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

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.

Christ on a bike WWH, take a deep breath and walk away. There's not one contributer to these boards that doesn't recognise the knowledge and contribution you've made, they don't all agree, and for all I know may have ulterior motives for disagreeing with you. Maybe there all wrong and crazy and autistic. Be that as it may, you can only be judged by your own actions, which I must say, have been oftentimes admirable, I'd certainly say so myself, you've been open to interpretation, flexible in your conclusions and have always looked for the likely answer, regardless if your own opinion at the time. But these short tempered outbursts, accusing others of mental deficiency or illness, or plain stupidity, they're not promoting your cause. I totally get your frustration. I understand what you've invested, but you know what? That investment didn't come with a guarantee. If you think your right, or can prove it, you do so, as you have. Back up with facts. Evidence. If others disagree? What are you, a prophet? Out to convert the world that William is innocent? Mate, the world isn't there to agree with you.

Calm down. Put it into perspective. You've done more for this case in a year than many did in decades. Hats off, take your place. You'll never convince everyone. Or anyone. But it's there, on record. The previous falsehoods and bull that passed for facts are gone. You've made your mark, more than any other.

Focus on what you've achieved, not what you've not convinced others of. You never will. Was that ever the point?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ah, I see.

The Crewe statement does make you wonder just how well Wallace knew the area - certainly not a complete stranger to the area.

Nothing like a stranger. No wonder Wallace ‘forgot’ to mention his visit to Crewe’s house in his 4 statements.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I

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.

No what is a disgrace is you continually throwing your toys out of the prank like some steroidal toddler every time someone disagrees with you. It really is like having Rod back. You, like him, appear to think “well I’ve looked into this deeply...I’ve come to some conclusions....so they must be correct....and anyone that disagrees must be biased.” Autists and schizophrenics! Nice choices, which one am I supposed to be? Which Internet forum stereotype are you? The one that’s used to having people agree with you and sulks when they don’t.

No one forces you to post on here. Bloody Denison!! Why not Beattie or Sarah Draper? Denison is plucked out of thin air. Utterly baseless desperation to shoehorn in any fatuous theory which doesn’t include William.

Your points about Close and your refusal to accept simple possibilities show bias. Everything you say when discussing Wallace exhibits bias. You talk about conceding points! I’ll concede any point if it’s based on evidence and logic and have done in the past. You can’t even concede the mild point that a kid might have walked a bit quicker than normal! Or that Wallace might have genuinely believed that Close always came 6.15-6.30! Why.... because like Parry’s alibi, it’s inconvenient!


First Rod killed off the Wallace discussion because his refusal to accept other opinions led to a barrage of insults and now ditto. Here we are again.

[etenguy]

I’m not making a point Eten I’m just coming across stuff whist re-reading Gannon that I’d either forgotten about or missed? Although I can’t think of a reason why Julia would have been in William’s lab.

Also, in a statement on 5th of Feb Crewe said that William had been to his house more times than just the 5 for violin lessons.

Ah, I see.

The Crewe statement does make you wonder just how well Wallace knew the area - certainly not a complete stranger to the area.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wouldn't that have been just after Amy left Julia?

I'm not sure there is anything we can take from this, there are a host of reasons Julia may have been in the room.

I’m not making a point Eten I’m just coming across stuff whist re-reading Gannon that I’d either forgotten about or missed? Although I can’t think of a reason why Julia would have been in William’s lab.

Also, in a statement on 5th of Feb Crewe said that William had been to his house more times than just the 5 for violin lessons.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Insults again. Fine. You’re a paragon of virtue but anyone that disagrees with you is biased.

I realise that I’m talking to a brick wall on this issue but I will repeat it.

Why is it so impossible, improbable or unlikely that William was genuinely of the belief that Close always turned up between 6.15 and 6.30??

You cant be misunderstanding this. There is absolutely nothing unbelievable about the above statement.

Your ur comment about the jogging milk boy is yet another example of you strangely looking at something or hearing some suggestion that anyone else would find totally normal at yet you find them miraculously strange.

You could be right though. I mean.... fancy me making the outrageous, far fetched suggestion that a young lad, working straight after school, might have wanted to get his work over quicker so that he could meet his mates( at a time when kids had to be in early) I really should stick to reality like kidnapped cats, suspects being in two places at one time and completely random ‘suspects’ like Caird, Denison etc.

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.

[etenguy]

A Curiosity.

When Emily Hoer arrived to clean the windows (approx 5.00?) she saw a light in the middle kitchen (where Julia would have spent most of her time) and one in the back bedroom. Why was there a light on in Wallace’s lab when he wasn’t in?

Wouldn't that have been just after Amy left Julia?

I'm not sure there is anything we can take from this, there are a host of reasons Julia may have been in the room.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A Curiosity.

When Emily Hoer arrived to clean the windows (approx 5.00?) she saw a light in the middle kitchen (where Julia would have spent most of her time) and one in the back bedroom. Why was there a light on in Wallace’s lab when he wasn’t in?

[etenguy]

Nothing new here but I could have titled it: There’s Something Not Right About Julia Wallace.

At the age of 40 she gave her age as 30

In the 1911 census Julia calls herself Jane - she takes 18 years off her age! - and she said that she was born in Hexham, Sussex when she was born in North Yorkshire.

At the wedding, despite her having 2 sisters, her bridesmaid is Williams sister Jessie

Its interesting that the reclusive Julia had once upped sticks and moved, on her own, from Yorkshire to London to work as an Assistant Governess. This was no mean step for a young woman on her own. Does this show that Julia went from a feisty, confident younger woman to a reclusive older one described variously as dirty and disinclined to keep the house clean? A woman who wore homemade clothes?

It’s easy to read too much of course but Julia gives the impression of a woman with something to hide.

Herlock - are you suggesting you have solved two crimes in one hit?

Julia moves to London as a young woman in the 1880s, commits at least five murders in Whitechapel in 1888, high tails it to Liverpool changing her age to make it seem impossible she could have been the Whitechapel murderer but is found out by one of the victim's relatives who travels to Liverpool and sets up a dastardly plan and kills her for revenge. She would likely have had chalk as a governess (I wonder if she looked after Alice Crooks' children). Maybe she met a certain Mr Maybrick when she moved to Liverpool and kept a diary for him. I think you have all bases covered.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It isn't the first time the back door failed btw it did so on a number of occasions. The house cleaner had to have Julia let her in.

Nice try. It had never failed for William before. Others might have struggled with it but William hadn’t.

Only on that night.

When he’d been out following a phone message.

With his wife lying dead in the parlour.

Not suspicious at all really.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your arrogant and prideful response shows that it is you who is "Rod like" Not me. Unlike you and Caz (and Rod), and almost anyone else who has opined on this case I don't have an agenda. I want the right answer, not one that suits my sensibilities or gives personal glory or some misplaced sense of personal accomplishment.

One can still think Wallace guilty but concede minor points. There was a time when Rod wouldn't even concede the plainest of points about a simple quote that was staring him in his face, due to his own need to be right. Here in this case the milk boy's irregularity and lateness is a definite mark in favor of Wallace's innocence. You want to argue it isn't the be all end all and doesn't prove anything, fine. But don't twist it to be some mark AGAINST him and pat each other on the back LOL. I concede how guilty Wallace can look at times but believe the actual evidence outweighs that. We get nowhere when we deny reality or try to distort pieces of evidence.

Think of it like this: there are 3 options.

1. Wallace is guilty and he is factoring in Close's arrival. In this case it is absolutely insane for such a highly detailed planned crime to leave it up to total chance and HOPE Close comes at this or that time, when he could simply make the appointment for 8 PM anyway. It is you and Caz etc who have argued Close isn't meant to be a time stamp anyway (when it was pointed out Wallace could not rely on an arrival time, that Closes bike broke down etc). You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

2. Wallace is guilty and he clean forgot Close in the equation. Besides seeming insanely unlikely, even if we entertain this, then THIS is the extreme luck in the equation, Wallace forgets completely Close is coming and he is cutting it close with time for his departure (I keep hearing this as an argument against him), so he EASILY could have acted a few minutes earlier. A guilty Wallace is EXTREMELY lucky here he didn't kill Julia before Close came or even worse was in the act of whacking her as the boy arrived (no doubt jogging with the milk jugs so be could play an Imaginary game of soccer with local lads in the Liverpool dark)

3. Wallace is innocent so all of this is moot and Close came when he did, Wallace left a few minutes later and was in MG vicinity 10 minutes to.

Which seems more reasonable?

It is not a hard one.

Insults again. Fine. You’re a paragon of virtue but anyone that disagrees with you is biased.

I realise that I’m talking to a brick wall on this issue but I will repeat it.

Why is it so impossible, improbable or unlikely that William was genuinely of the belief that Close always turned up between 6.15 and 6.30??

You cant be misunderstanding this. There is absolutely nothing unbelievable about the above statement.

Your ur comment about the jogging milk boy is yet another example of you strangely looking at something or hearing some suggestion that anyone else would find totally normal at yet you find them miraculously strange.

You could be right though. I mean.... fancy me making the outrageous, far fetched suggestion that a young lad, working straight after school, might have wanted to get his work over quicker so that he could meet his mates( at a time when kids had to be in early) I really should stick to reality like kidnapped cats, suspects being in two places at one time and completely random ‘suspects’ like Caird, Denison etc.