Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I get this argument, WWH, and yes, a later appointment time might have made things easier for a guilty Wallace. But was he too much a creature of habit for that? Did he perhaps feel that evening business appointments in the depths of winter would not have been made for as late as 8pm or beyond? He couldn't be sure that Alan would be late again in any case, and whatever time the milk was delivered, Wallace would still have wanted to do the deed in haste and then make himself scarce as soon as possible, so he could get on with establishing his bogus alibi for the evening.

I would turn this argument round and consider a naive and innocent Wallace receiving that message the night before. What is he going to think? Obviously this Qualtrough fellow has heard good things about him as an insurance salesman - always flattering - and has gone the extra mile to contact the chess club, where he has been led to believe he can catch Wallace, and invite him round the very next evening, at 7.30, to discuss a potentially lucrative business opportunity. From Wallace's point of view, would it be a mistake not to go, considering how keen Qualtrough appeared to be to see him at short notice? If he doesn't show up, will Qualtrough spread the word that Wallace is not as reliable as he has been cracked up to be? So Wallace decides not to let this new customer down, but to live up to his expectations of a good and efficient service. And then what does Wallace do? Instead of checking out the address and how to get there, he leaves it until the evening of the appointment, trusting the tongue in his head to get him to MGE, but then fannies about indoors until well after tea time, and is still faffing around when the milk boy comes and goes, finally leaving the house with not much longer than 30 minutes to get to the Menlove Gardens area, locate the actual address and be there promptly for 7.30. Punctuality is the first rule when you are dealing with a new customer, and you need a damned good excuse for being even five minutes late. This would have been even more the case back in the stuffy 1930s and Wallace would have known this.

Something is not adding up for me here.

Love,

Caz
X

Good points Caz.

Should we also assume what Wallace would or wouldn’t have known? How much attention would he have paid to the milk deliveries? There weren’t many modern men in 1930’s. Wallace didn’t even know Sarah Drapers name.
Close said that he was late on the Tuesday due to his bike being off the road so might he not have turned up the day before nearer 6.15. Maybe the last 3 or 4 times that Wallace had been aware of Close’s arrival it was between 6.15 and 6.30 and so, on a set round, Wallace assumed that was the time that he arrived consistently?
And if Close hadn’t come forward to the police, which would have allowed them to say that Julia might have been killed at 6 or before, William could very easily have mentioned the visit to the police himself so where is the problem?

I really see no issues with Close unless we make assumptions about how much Wallace should have known.

[caz]

Can you be certain about that Caz?

No, but our ex neighbour is in Torbay now, so I feel relatively safe.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I discussed the forensics (but this was recent, I had Denison/Parry just before first forensic consult IIRC) and the time set for the murder if Alan has recently been "very very late" and comes from 6.10 to 7.00 pm, the time being set for 7.30 does not make sense. He plans all this and apparently just HOPES the milk boy comes on time, despite knowing he's been late often? He just has to abort the plan entirely if Alan came at say, 6.45, 6.50, 6.55, 7.00? Instead of just making the appointment later so he can follow through regardless of when Alan comes?

I get this argument, WWH, and yes, a later appointment time might have made things easier for a guilty Wallace. But was he too much a creature of habit for that? Did he perhaps feel that evening business appointments in the depths of winter would not have been made for as late as 8pm or beyond? He couldn't be sure that Alan would be late again in any case, and whatever time the milk was delivered, Wallace would still have wanted to do the deed in haste and then make himself scarce as soon as possible, so he could get on with establishing his bogus alibi for the evening.

I would turn this argument round and consider a naive and innocent Wallace receiving that message the night before. What is he going to think? Obviously this Qualtrough fellow has heard good things about him as an insurance salesman - always flattering - and has gone the extra mile to contact the chess club, where he has been led to believe he can catch Wallace, and invite him round the very next evening, at 7.30, to discuss a potentially lucrative business opportunity. From Wallace's point of view, would it be a mistake not to go, considering how keen Qualtrough appeared to be to see him at short notice? If he doesn't show up, will Qualtrough spread the word that Wallace is not as reliable as he has been cracked up to be? So Wallace decides not to let this new customer down, but to live up to his expectations of a good and efficient service. And then what does Wallace do? Instead of checking out the address and how to get there, he leaves it until the evening of the appointment, trusting the tongue in his head to get him to MGE, but then fannies about indoors until well after tea time, and is still faffing around when the milk boy comes and goes, finally leaving the house with not much longer than 30 minutes to get to the Menlove Gardens area, locate the actual address and be there promptly for 7.30. Punctuality is the first rule when you are dealing with a new customer, and you need a damned good excuse for being even five minutes late. This would have been even more the case back in the stuffy 1930s and Wallace would have known this.

Something is not adding up for me here.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

. He's a murderer.....
Monty - not our ex neighbour.

Can you be certain about that Caz?

[caz]

I wonder why Julia visited Southport? Has a reason been given anywhere? I don’t recall one.

Because she was off her rocker?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

How does the Butler and the Footman get in to Brown Towers then?

They have their own suite of rooms of course, Herlock!

Along with the housekeeper and the chef - me and Mr Brown.

Of course, we are all Monty the cat's staff. He used to live here before we moved in, and he moved back in 2017 when we adopted him from our neighbour who moved to Torbay.

He's a murderer - squirrels, rats, birds, mice, anything that moves really.

Monty - not our ex neighbour.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

On her wedding certificate she describes her father as a ‘Veterinary Surgeon’ when he was a Farmer then a Publican.

She describes her mother as Aimée and of French descent but she wasn’t.

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.

~~~

Its also worth noting that although William talks of a life with Julia of perfect contentment he apparent mentioned in his diaries about suffering from depression.

~~~

As I said in an earlier post: why did Julia go to Southport? Was she visiting someone? William doesn't say why she went.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As I’m waiting for a book to be delivered I thought I’d read a Wallace book so I’m re-reading Gannon for the first time in ages.

Its interesting to recall Nurse Wilson saying that when William was ill Julia slept on the sofa in the kitchen. So, as per the Slemen story, we would have to ask why she would have gone to the trouble of heating up the parlour to go for a lie down in there when she was in the habit of using the sofa in the kitchen?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. He plans all this and apparently just HOPES the milk boy comes on time, despite knowing he's been late often?

Why do you assume that he’d have known this? The milk boy would have been dealt with by Julia So there would be know real reason for him to have noticed if he’d turned up late. What if he’d been upstairs in his lab for example?

[WallaceWackedHer]

There is little upon which to base speculation of a motive for Wallace to kill his wife. On the surface they appear a loving couple. The potential motives I've come across are:
a) something related to the lie about Julia's age
b) an unhappy marriage hidden behind a facade of a loving couple
c) Wallace was gay and this somehow came to a head.

I think of the three, if it was Wallace, c would seem the strongest contender.



There are so many suspicious facets of Wallace's behaviour, it is difficult to know which, if any, are due to a crime - maybe he was just an unusual character. The behaviour on his trip to Menlove strikes me as most suspicious.

...



Quite possibly, and I favour some of your scenario, we just need a bit more evidence to pin it down.

...



You really should discuss the evidence you think talks against Wallace being the murderer - it's part of how we can draw some conclusions. People may disagree with you - and say why - it's not personal, it's just different points of view/interpretations of the evidence.

So, even though I think the evidence we have is suggestive of Wallace being the killer. I struggle with how it was done - change of clothes is not an unreasonable supposition.

I would need a full article. Because I'm not basing ideas on small bits of evidence but massive million mile long process of elimination and other stuff. And there is no point even to discuss points which did not convince ME. If I heard something before and still felt William murdered his wife? Why do I expect the same argument made by me will alter opinion? I need to stick to what switched me and I don't really remember all of it.

I discussed the forensics (but this was recent, I had Denison/Parry just before first forensic consult IIRC) and the time set for the murder if Alan has recently been "very very late" and comes from 6.10 to 7.00 pm, the time being set for 7.30 does not make sense. He plans all this and apparently just HOPES the milk boy comes on time, despite knowing he's been late often? He just has to abort the plan entirely if Alan came at say, 6.45, 6.50, 6.55, 7.00? Instead of just making the appointment later so he can follow through regardless of when Alan comes?

Did you know John Johnston went out and then came home on the murder night at 6.45, the exact time Wallace is apparently leaving his house? Based on using the back way and tram to get to Phyllis, this visit he mentioned would probably be the back way too as it's the same way where John says he went (Maiden Lane) just a little before Townsend Ave (Phyllis's house). He also went to Dr. Dunlop at Lower Breck Road by the back door.

I can strengthen the Wallace guilt idea, mostly people want to hear that. I do not like the ones presented thus far I think they're ignoring things like forensic input etc. and twisting logic in some weird ways in parts. It is best to say the man made a mistake in parts than to double down and argue it's smart like the appointment time if Alan is so late recently.

[etenguy]

Check true crimes committed by lovers having affairs. They generally rat each other out if caught, there seems to be very little loyalty there. They never stay together.

The motivation would be an affair. I think an affair of any kind is the best motive because of the suddenness of it. To suddenly want your wife dead when you were freaked about her safety a month earlier shows something recently happened probably.

Unfortunately I peg William as gay so then not Amy. You can't not at least be suspicious of the circumstances of his marriage, lack of kids, etc. then Parry (albeit a sociopath) calls him gay. I know for a fact Gannon received "William's gay" tip offs but he has not told me about them so far when I asked. Allegedly homosexuality was common in the Pru.

There is little upon which to base speculation of a motive for Wallace to kill his wife. On the surface they appear a loving couple. The potential motives I've come across are:
a) something related to the lie about Julia's age
b) an unhappy marriage hidden behind a facade of a loving couple
c) Wallace was gay and this somehow came to a head.

I think of the three, if it was Wallace, c would seem the strongest contender.

I'd disregard the bedroom disarray. Have you read the details of it? It is literally the bedsheets half off and two pillows on the floor. To call it disarray is ridiculous. I cannot believe it was described as such.

Looks to me like she was interrupted while changing the bed, like she was making it then went off to do something else. Maybe Amy knocked who knows... It was always kept made. They sometimes slept apart when one of them was poorly. I did not yet check this again but I think one doctor or nurse said when William was ill Julia slept on the downstairs sofa.

I feel the most sus elements against William are consistently overlooked or not mentioned. It's not the stranger remarks because there is arguable explanation there. In my view a few things stand out... Firstly the expectation of West when told East, the nerves when talking to Serjeant, also that he stayed alone at the house before many items were seized which isn't as sus as it is ridiculous. It is why being inspected that night was important info.

Now that fire they had in the front has a grill at the bottom. I think it can be removed. Clothing could be put into there.

There are so many suspicious facets of Wallace's behaviour, it is difficult to know which, if any, are due to a crime - maybe he was just an unusual character. The behaviour on his trip to Menlove strikes me as most suspicious.

...

If I were to tell you what I think happened ASSUMING William is SOLELY guilty, then what I would auggest is this. And first of all I have it in mind that he has very bad planning abilities, I can easily show many ways in which the plan sucks so I work from that base:

After December 15th the person William is having a secret affair with gets more serious, and they agree killing her off is a good idea so they can be together (this motive because of the lack of arguing which would be the first expected action in a discovered affair).

When he gets the message, there's been a screw up. It was supposed to be West so he automatically goes to write West when taking the message from Beattie due to pre-emptive knowledge of what it should be.

The alias is chosen to frame Marsden or Gordon, he doesn't have the foresight to consider alibis. We are accepting the plan is bad as can be shown and here then is one mistake.

Ater their meal William asks his wife to set up the parlour. I expect during this meal William is very short wifh her in conversation.

The parlour setup iitself is dodgy because the milk boy was at the atep with the door wide open to the home, we assume the parlour door blocks out light okay?

William doesn't even remember or know the milk boy is coming. He knows only about the newspaper. He doesn't know the milk boy came because he's too busy upstairs preparing clothes and such. That is why he mentions the paper boy and not Alan.

His weapon is a spanner, not the crappy little Ikea ones, the heavier duty car mechanic-ish types which are adjustable at the end. The John Bull article mentioned it and it could cause the parallel tram lines. It was dismissed on the shield grounds but the weapon suggestion was exciting.

While he's still upstairs his wife reclines by the sofa with the fire.

When he comes down he goes in. He doesn't have the foresight to be wearing balaclavas. What he actually does is that his wife has it for some reason.

It may be said that he told her he was going to go out to meet the guy. And she's holding it to give to him. I have no idea why she has it but that is what matches more right? Or it was drying hung up there but I think the kitchen one would do that and I can show why.

So now he comes in the room, shirt and trousers, she gets off the sofa and walks to him and he hits her with the spanner. The radiants are hot enough to burn. The jacket and skirt burn. The woman is pulled out by her hair, blood pools in position one nearest the armchair while the jacket fire is extinguished.

Because he wasn't wearing it he don't even realize how dodgy it looks (he has bad foresight) so just leaves it with the body.

Yeah he is spattered with specks of blood. It's inevitable. Everything he is wearing he takes off and finds a means to dispose them by. He changes into fresh clothing.

He must be wearing gloves because the hair grab yet lack of fingernail blood.

He is not even really thinking of time much right now he's in a homicidal frenzy.

He goes out in his completely new outfit.

When he talks to conductors he says bizarre things because he is nervy and on edge. As per the night prior he explicitly says he knows how to get to Menlove Avenue and can inquire etc. He's acting OTT because he's a bit frazzled.

When he returns he doesn't do stupid door knocking to himself. If you've ever walked down a very quiet street you can hear into houses. Take it from me, my hairdresser lives in a terrace in a quiet side part of a small town. I can hear her talking or calling for her kid from outside.

Do not forget all windows are single glazed too.

John is calling to his wife saying they're going out. This is why he plays pantomime acts perhaps. Then the coincidental meeting is switched 180 because he himself is waiting to hear a gate open to round the corner and intercept them which he does.

When he enters he is ******* around with evidence surely? He has time to look in every room for any briefly. Mackintosh position perhaps contrived... To suggest entry of someone at the door, which I can support including with the body position (it is sort of weirdly on its side, unnatural position, might end up there if pushed up by her shoulder).

Quite possibly, and I favour some of your scenario, we just need a bit more evidence to pin it down.

...

I am leaving out the strong reasons why I don't think it's him because it will not matter to anyone. I would rather provide a more legitimate series of guilt.

The change of clothes is not forensically verified by myself. It just seems more obviois that the clothes are simply fresh rather than magical luck of spray avoidance and zero burning (the former considered) by pros extremely unlikely. I cannot really think of anyone who wouldn't be mega paranoid going out in the same outfit. It'd always be constant anxiety like maybe I didn't see anything in my shitty home gas lit rooms but maybe under this fluorescent street lamp... Maybe I missed something... Etc.

I have also ommited typical "sus" evidence you know... "He's going out on biz where's his briefcase!" stuff. That's my own thought but there are many.

You really should discuss the evidence you think talks against Wallace being the murderer - it's part of how we can draw some conclusions. People may disagree with you - and say why - it's not personal, it's just different points of view/interpretations of the evidence.

So, even though I think the evidence we have is suggestive of Wallace being the killer. I struggle with how it was done - change of clothes is not an unreasonable supposition.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I wonder why Julia visited Southport? Has a reason been given anywhere? I don’t recall one.

[etenguy]

Did people of that era have both indoor and outdoor shoes? If the photographer was competent perhaps we would know. No shot of the porch or hall.

The photographer should be sacked.

They certainly sold slippers in the 1930s - that's not to say Julia had a pair, but I would think she would.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just because someone isn’t good at one particular thing, like planning, for example doesn’t mean that they’re stupid. I don’t drive...I don’t think it makes me an idiot. I’m not good at technical stuff......I don’t think it makes me an idiot.

Wallace wasn’t much of a chess player and not a great crime planner so this makes him an idiot.

How?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Because William is stupid,

A distortion.