Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[moste]

Couple of things worthy of note I think. William may well have knocked reasonably loud on the front door and not been heard.Remember all of the terraced houses including the ones opposite , had the classic, front,’not used very often’,parlours.So people who were at home Were mostly occupying the middle kitchen/living room.Therefore, though William’s plan to be heard knocking may not have worked out quite as he intended, it was important to him to be seen exasperated by his failure to gain access ,but not vital, thus the double visits to the front and back of the house.What was vital , and actually handed him on a platter was the Johnstones leaving at just that moment, as I have mentioned before ,if necessary he would have summoned the Holmes people as witnesses of his plight.

The trip out to Allerton for Wallace, and his return journey. Having wasted so much time reassuring himself that he was on a fools errand, he apparently finds himself on Green Ave, now he tells us he becomes familiar with his surroundings and knocks on his supervisors door,
continuing on having had no reply, makes his way to what would have been a familiar route namely tram along Allerton rd. to Penny Lane transfer. One of the weaknesses for me with all this is , having numerous trips out to Allerton a couple of years back, for violin lessons at Crewe’s home, why did Wallace not call Crewe at the office during the day to explain his good fortune of what sounds like a lucrative insurance sale, and explain his dilemma of not knowing the area too well, as it happens Crewe would certainly have known of the Menlove Gardens, about 4 or 5 minutes walk away, and although Wallace would not know that ,would certainly have been adding to the feathers in his cap by showing initiative and how industrious he was, and so on. In fact the Prudential offices would certainly have had a map for anyone to consult,( addresses of customers being partly the name of the game) . Instead he wants us to believe, he wings it, on a hope and a prayer . Incidentally , notice he doesn’t leave a note at Crewe’s , to say he had called by etc.

[moste]

Nothing unusual with Parry for example scrutinizing the notice board I don’t think , there were other items of interest on the board beside the chess league fixtures, for other patrons of the club/cafe.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Couple of things worthy of note I think. William may well have knocked reasonably loud on the front door and not been heard.Remember all of the terraced houses including the ones opposite , had the classic, front,’not used very often’,parlours.So people who were at home Were mostly occupying the middle kitchen/living room.Therefore, though William’s plan to be heard knocking may not have worked out quite as he intended, it was important to him to be seen exasperated by his failure to gain access ,but not vital, thus the double visits to the front and back of the house.What was vital , and actually handed him on a platter was the Johnstones leaving at just that moment, as I have mentioned before ,if necessary he would have summoned the Holmes people as witnesses of his plight.

The trip out to Allerton for Wallace, and his return journey. Having wasted so much time reassuring himself that he was on a fools errand, he apparently finds himself on Green Ave, now he tells us he becomes familiar with his surroundings and knocks on his supervisors door,
continuing on having had no reply, makes his way to what would have been a familiar route namely tram along Allerton rd. to Penny Lane transfer. One of the weaknesses for me with all this is , having numerous trips out to Allerton a couple of years back, for violin lessons at Crewe’s home, why did Wallace not call Crewe at the office during the day to explain his good fortune of what sounds like a lucrative insurance sale, and explain his dilemma of not knowing the area too well, as it happens Crewe would certainly have known of the Menlove Gardens, about 4 or 5 minutes walk away, and although Wallace would not know that ,would certainly have been adding to the feathers in his cap by showing initiative and how industrious he was, and so on. In fact the Prudential offices would certainly have had a map for anyone to consult,( addresses of customers being partly the name of the game) . Instead he wants us to believe, he wings it, on a hope and a prayer . Incidentally , notice he doesn’t leave a note at Crewe’s , to say he had called by etc.

Yeah well exactly, is this what we're convicting a man based on, for being stupid? How many times have we ourselves probably done things very similar to this - it's just that we didn't come home to a dead wife to then have our stupidity made a big deal of.

So you're saying people can't hear knocking on the front door, so in that case they won't hear the unknown visitor come? I'm not sure. I do think they're as likely to hear the visitor as they are to hear Wallace's own knocks on the front door. Now admittedly I live in semi-terraced housing and basically never hear anyone knock on my neighbours door...

Crewe wouldn't have known where the place was anyway. Check his questioning on trial. Not that William could have KNOWN he wouldn't but still... It's evidently not an area of common knowledge.

Cross-examined by Mr. Roland Oliver — Did you, as
a matter of fact, know whether there was a Menlove
Gardens East or not ? — Menlove Gardens are behind the
main road, and I would suggest very few people, only
those that reside in those Gardens, ever came through
them.

Just answer my question. Did you know whether there
was such a place or not ? — No.

People seem to have difficulty believing Wallace might be guilty but not have actually killed and/or called. Or that Parry is involved but did not actually kill Julia. I'm not sure why so many people have a hard time with those things. I could see Wallace being guilty but doing it all alone of course not... And I can certainly see Parry involved in some way even unwittingly - but committing the murder - of course not.

For me I have no problem coming to terms with those things.

I also have no problem coming to terms with the fact that he evidently cared about Julia at least until very recently before her death, suggesting that if he had killed her it had been a sudden event causing motive. I do not have issue in accepting this. I can see it by the diary entries, I'm not gonna do a Gannon and say that he rushed down to the police station worried sick about Julia and then realized that - because of her coming home late - it occurred to him he'd actually quite like for her to be dead.

It's "Slay J" anagram tier stuff there.

And people ALSO can't seem to understand that maybe a man who kills his wife might feel remorseful. Like apparently all the later diary entries are some con-job. Like it can't possibly be that even if he's guilty that he feels some remorse or has fond memories of the days before things turned bad?

Man.........

Obviously the best thing to do would be to stop trying to argue our point, but to actually work on figuring out some of the mysteries in the case. For example, the exact series of events leading up to her murder. What exactly is the point in arguing about lights when I LEGITIMATELY don't think it's valid (and another poster as well as my friend who used to post here don't see the significance in that) while another person apparently does. Like what's the point?

Wouldn't we be better off say - trying to piece together the crime scene?

As I have it, APPARENTLY the fire has to have been on for at least a little while in order for her skirt to be burned. If this is true, then for her to be down there AGAIN in that position to be hit, she had returned to regulate the gas after the room had warmed (perhaps for example she had put the fire on, left the room, then come back in after some time now it would be nice and toasty) or was simply regulating it in general... Or she's turning the fire out... Or she's been sent down there by some sort of act of aggression and the hit that we see killed her was done as she was attempting to get up.

There is SOME reason why she is back down there again. And there is SOME WAY that jacket got burned although I'm extremely wary that it might have been done on purpose to confuse me.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The point of the name is either to trick William into believing he's received a call from a real client, OR to frame Marsden. The odds it is just random are incredible. That's why it's worse because it's already narrowed down the suspect pool and nothing's even happened yet.

I’m sorry WWH but you are postulating a reason simply to knock it down. You simply state say the reason for the use of the name with any certainty. It might simply have been a name that William had seen (the shop) and it came to mind when he was looking for a memorable name. He wouldn’t have wanted to have said Johnson using a disguised voice only for Beattie to have heard it as Jameson.

Parry was a known thief which is proven, and potentially a rapist too.

But there’s a difference between trying to defraud the Pru and type of burglary being suggested. Potential rapist? I haven’t read the details for a while but the woman’s version was decidedly iffy.

Caird is a stranger to Menlove Gardens too. He doesn't have a clue where it is, they just all think it's off of Menlove Avenue. William knows roughly the best way to get to Menlove Avenue. He wants help getting to the Gardens.

On a tram that he’s used on numerous occasions.

The board is absolutely not simple to read, if I show 10 people and literally not one single person can make heads or tails of it (specifically when people had failed to attend - basically everyone says they think the Xs are non-attendance) then it's beginning to seem likely it's not simple. How many people should I ask before it's obvious it's practically illegible? 100? And you actually think anyone is going to take notice of a person looking at a board in a café that has 100 visitors per day lol. Please tell me how many people looked at the adverts last time you used the tube, and which people those were?

This board is simple. Are we saying that Parry could understand insurance and insurance policies but not cafe competition table? How can the x’s be non-attendance when every single player has one each?? What would be the chances of all players missing exactly one game each? Why would someone looking at it not get that chess requires 2 players and that 2 into 7 leaves a spare player? How many couldn’t suss that w=win, L=lost and d=drawn? I’m utterly staggered that anyone finds this board difficult. It tells an onlooker quite clearly that Wallace hadn’t played a match since playing Mr Lampitt on November 10th.

I accept the point about how many people looked at the board though. It wasn’t anything that I put any weight on but if someone at the café who knew Parry and just happened to have seen him looking at the board and who’d read about the possible significance of that board? Who know?

Julia's dead instantly, so what's the jacket doing in the fire if she's not wearing it? Are we meant to believe he's wearing it now? Or is he still shielding but waving it around the fire randomly now before pulling her out and away?

The problem is trying to micro-manage the crime scene. We can’t possibly recreate exactly what went on. Who stood exactly where? Who was facing what way? Why they were in that position? What they were intending to do etc? But by doing this we can eliminate absolutely anything. I could easily, and perfectly legitimately, say: why would Julia have thrown the coat over her shoulders against the cold inside the house when she didn’t do the same when she’d actually gone outside of the house? How does that work?

Julia might have been holding it when her killer struck and she fell with it onto the fire. There’s nothing impossible or even unlikely about this possible explanation. I’m not saying that it’s definitely correct but it’s possible. Maybe she was passing it to William when he struck the blow and she dropped it onto the fire?

I don't necessarily know that the people would run away instantly. I know quite a few cases where this was not done because of overconsciousness about leaving evidence. Well - allegedly a bar and poker are missing from the house (I'm not sure they really are), why? Are these people paranoid about fingerprints? Did the one person not have gloves?

Again, I’m not saying that they had to have left the second that the last blow was struck but, as there was no search or clean up combined with the sense of panic at how things had gone seriously pear-shaped, then immediately getting out of there would be the likeliest imo. Turning the lights off doesn’t achieve a single thing apart from waste time.

There is some evidence as I said that someone stayed in the room loitering for a short while - I guess to prospect her wounds and see if she's really dead or something I don't know. The only other way around that is to say the floor was already littered with matches.

But the matches could have come from any source. William stuck a match to light the room when he returned. The match probably went out so he struck another to light the gas. Often matches fizzle out straight away or you accidentally blow them out, so William alone might account for three matches. Julia wasn’t exactly OCD in her tidying up habits was she. A few matches dropped and not picked up aren’t really surprising.

Why is his own wife going to be suspicious of him following her around? But no he's not. So she goes in there and presumably then she's lit the fire by herself is that what's happened? Or is she going to be terrified of her husband following her into the living room to set the room up for music? The fire takes time to heat up I've been told that's what I'm going by now... So it's been on for at least a short while or her body left in flames for at least a short while. If the thing about the fire is true then that's definite.

Its been suggested in the past that William might have said to Julia “look, I’ve changed my mind about tonight. I’m not going. Shall we have a musical evening?” So naturally Julia lights the fire in the Parlour. It’s possible. As is the suggestion that she might have been intending on playing the piano when William was out. We just can’t know for certain when the fire was put on or why. We can only list possibilities. Anything that you or anyone else suggests is just as likely or unlikely as my own suggestions.

So it's been on. What's she doing back down there? Regulating the gas? Turning it off (it would still be hot directly after turning it out)? Has she been hit with a non-concussive blow with perhaps a fist or just a strike that's too light and been sent crashing to the floor, and then struggled to get up when the fatal blow is struck? Why is she down there?

Again WWH,we don’t know. It’s certainly frustrating but that’s life. I don’t think that she had to have been down there. She could have been struck when she was standing and she crumpled down onto against the fire? If we place to much emphasis on MacFall’s blood spatter scenario then we would have to ask, if she was kneeling near to the fire whilst regulating it when the killer struck why no blood spatter on the fire grate?

Why is William waiting for her to go down there and do all this? She's hit on the front side of the head. Why not the back of her head as soon as she's knelt down. Isn't he racing against time? Hitting someone on that location is kind of bizarre by the way - when it comes to premeditation... Look at all cases of premeditated murder like this, it's really peculiar... A shot to the front implies moreso a momentary action - because generally people feel more confident to strike when the person is not looking at them. And look at the angle too... From the angle on the morgue photos where the giant gaping hole is... Well I'm thinking she's been down at the fireplace - apparently NOT lighting it because it's already on - so regulating the gas or something of that nature since the room is now warm. It's then as she's turned her head to the left, that someone standing there over her has struck downwards and you see then how it happens... How the direction of force matches her going into the fire, and the spray.

Again I think we are in danger of over-thinking. If William was the killer (yes I know that you don’t) but before the murder he wouldn’t have been thinking “I’ll wait until she’s regulating the fire then I’ll speak so that she turns her head 100 degrees then I’ll strike with an arc of....” He intended to smash her over the head with something. Everything else are details that he’d have had little control over. More than a random killer of course (and that’s not for or against either) but not much.

It cannot make sense in the way presented otherwise.

Fair enough. There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing of course. All that I’d say WWH is that we can tie ourself up in knots trying to recreate exactly how the murder occurred but it’s unlikely in the extreme that we’re ever going to know. So basically someone hit Julia on the head more than once. Definitely in the Parlour. It’s likely that the body was moved (away from the fire) and that the burning of the mackintosh and the singeing of the skirt occurred in that room so there’s a high probability that they occurred pretty much simultaneously. Everything else is conjecture. Nothing wrong with conjecture of course.

I try even to ignore the burning - think maybe it's been done on purpose for the PURPOSE of making me focus on it like this. I can't see any way these events could have happened - I don't care who did it, it doesn't make sense with what McFall says. He must just be completely wrong. It's impossible she falls into the fire from the chair unless the chair has been moved. She's facing the total opposite way.

I think that MacFall was thinking of the blood spatter and nothing else. Why did the blood spatter on over the armchair have to have been from the first blow? Julia being killed whilst sitting in that armchair has never made sense to me. To be honest WWH it’s not something that I’ve though about much because I dismissed it (rightly or wrongly) early on. It doesn’t fit. I think that the first blow was struck in front of the fireplace somewhere. Standing, kneeling...who knows. Personally I go for...standing perhaps very slightly to the right of the fireplace. She turns to face the killer so she’s looking at the corner of the room that out of shot in the photo. Then a right-handed killer struck the left side of her head and she crumpled against the fire. The mackintosh is between her and the fire (perhaps she was holding it at the time?) In a couple of seconds the killer sees that the mackintosh is burning he pulls it away at puts out the smouldering then he sees smouldering coming from Julia’s skirt so he grabs Julia’s arm and pulls her into the position where she was found.

Perhaps we should arrange a seance? Any good with a Ouija board WWH?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

If Julia was returning to the already lit and up to heat fire to regulate it, which involves getting up close, could the coat have been in improptu heat shield?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another thought.

We know that in his John Bull articles William mentions the possibility that the killer used the mackintosh as a shield but he also mentions something else. He mentions that the killer might have used a spanner. Why?

The police (and everyone else) believed that the killer had used the bar or the poker. Indeed the fact the the police had checked Wallace’s route and not found either of them is a major point used in favour of Wallace’s innocence. So why does William present an alternative explanation which casts doubt one one of the major foundations of the claim of his innocence?

We know that many killers feel themselves superior; especially to the police. If Wallace was guilty he’d come up with a plan for being away from the house and a plan to avoid getting covered in blood and maybe to send the police looking for a non-existent weapon? Mightn’t this have made him feel superior? Especially after being exonerated.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Perhaps we should arrange a seance? Any good with a Ouija board WWH?

The reason I don't think she's standing is because of the morgue photo, it looks like it's come VERY much down. Wallace is a lot taller than Julia, but it looks a lot more like someone has hit her while she was actually bending or kneeling down. If McFall is wrong then if we could prove which parts he's wrong about it would be incredibly important. There is a reason forensics are so important in police work - it's not just for DNA etc, they use threads from blood marks to the victim's wounds to figure out precisely where and when they were hit yadda yadda... The more things you can figure out about how a crime occurred, the closer you can get to understanding precisely what took place.

You might find that board simple, but the fact I and many, many other people don't, means that we can't say like... Oh yeah whoever glanced at it would easily see he hadn't attended for 4 prior sessions... Either way it's a coincidence they place the call on that exact night - although we don't know if they had attempted it before but not seen him leave... Although I think not, I think it's probably coincidental because there are so many opportunities for crime that relying on this very single one robbery - despite the likelihood of a pretty large taking - seems a bit overkill...

I also think if myself and a number of other people honestly can't see why it's incriminating the lights were out, then it's not something we can rely on as some sort of fact just like the idea someone glances at that board for a moment and goes "oh he's not been in 4 weeks!" can't be stated as any sort of fact. And by my own questioning it actually seems unlikely people would get it... You've had time to either think and figure it out, or have heard it explained during a court trial, which is a bit of an unfair advantage... I also read the trial but STILL didn't get it until you told me.

It's not about the tram he used it's about the fact that it's a long road and he wants to take one that stops directly outside (or very close to) Menlove Gardens - I think if trams then worked like buses now, then it would actually be natural to inquire. Because if we look at buses, if we just got on any bus that went a certain way from a certain stop, many times they skip or take turnings and take us away from where we want to go. I remember once one of the buses I sometimes took had a route change, and where it should have stopped at a stop about a metre ahead of this roundabout that's just seconds from my home, it turned right at the roundabout and went right up to this supermarket and I walked like 15+ minutes back. Very annoying.

Nowadays of course we have noticeboards showing the stops each number bus takes - and also you just step on a bus and say "take me to ___ please" and they'll either be like "okay" or "uh this bus doesn't stop there, you want a ___".

Parry didn't just try to defraud the Pru he attempted to commit two carjackings and numerous other thefts in properties like going through the drawers and jacket pockets at Atkinson's garage.

I don't know why Julia would wear the coat. I just can't understand how else it comes to be in the fire as it was...

An important thing about the matches being in the folds of the jacket is that Julia was on TOP of the jacket originally - before she was moved for the misleading police photos. If there are matches in the folds of the jacket they weren't from William on his return home. She might not be a tidy woman - I believe Amy had visited that day though allegedly went into the kitchen so wouldn't know about the state of the parlour.

I also wasn't saying he's purposefully getting her to turn her head, I'm saying if he's trying to beat a clock and she's got down at the fireplace and is fiddling with the gas, I'm not sure what he's waiting for. He can strike her then before she turns. I don't know exactly what happened though... And that's why I want it pieced together. It's important to do so, it might be hard but there are at least some things we have managed to resolve.

[WallaceWackedHer]

If Julia was returning to the already lit and up to heat fire to regulate it, which involves getting up close, could the coat have been in improptu heat shield?

I really doubt it, I have a fireplace, that seems like a really weird thing to do... What I do know though, is that the fire has to - apparently - have been very hot at the time she was hit implying it had warmed up - and if she's down there that leaves us VERY few options for what's happened making it much easier to discern.

[moste]

There is more than meets the eye for a guilty Wallace calling at Crewes home in Allerton. Is it likely, or even possible, that Wallace knew of Mr. and Mrs Crewe’s plan to be going out for the evening. I would say almost certainly not).I have often contemplated Joseph being the stool pigeon, for this alibi.
If the answer is,’no’ Wallace wasn’t aware of Crewes movements that night, then he couldn’t be lying about knocking on his supervisors door, since Crewe may have answered . This gives us two thoughts, (a) It couldn’t have been Joseph at the front door ,and (b) Wallace would almost certainly have been invited in , and since Wallace’s fears for Julia’s safety had not peaked as yet, We can be reasonably sure of a cuppa tea,and a good chat about the neighbourhood , including Crewes knowledge or lack of Menlove gardens. Possibly a map scan or (‘ Let me talk to Bill next door, he’s lived around here all his life’) Or whatever. All this means Wallace was indifferent to whether he arrived home at 8 30 - 9 30 or even later. For what that’s worth. One thing for sure Joseph wasn’t involved, in the round trip to Allerton.

[moste]

But was Joseph the killer colluding with his brother?

Anyone know why he was back in England? It’s established I think that his disembarking is uncertain!

Did someone mention ,’he wasn’t at the funeral? Why?

When did he leave England for the East?

I think we need to get to the bottom of this R.P Mc Murphy guy. Sorry. Joseph guy. LOL

[Herlock Sholmes]

You've had time to either think and figure it out, or have heard it explained during a court trial, which is a bit of an unfair advantage

You may not believe me but I understood the board the very first time that I saw it. It still looks so obvious to me as to be unmistakable. What else could it mean when you have squares with win, lose or draw in them and some without, other than that there was no result and as you can’t have a no result they it could only mean that the game hadn’t been played yet. But if you said that you didn’t understand it then no problem. Sometimes something doesn’t ‘click’ until it’s explained. We’ve all experienced someone explaining something which causes you to think “oh yeah, it’s obvious now you’ve explained it.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

. I don't know why Julia would wear the coat. I just can't understand how else it comes to be in the fire as it was...

But you won’t countenance the idea of it being used as William himself suggested. I don’t understand why this isn’t considered a possibility? A man planning to kill and who can’t afford to get covered in blood uses a coat to prevent this. Would your opinion differ on the possibility of William using a shield if the item found was a large bath towel or a bed sheet?

[Herlock Sholmes]

An important thing about the matches being in the folds of the jacket is that Julia was on TOP of the jacket originally - before she was moved for the misleading police photos. If there are matches in the folds of the jacket they weren't from William on his return home. She might not be a tidy woman - I believe Amy had visited that day though allegedly went into the kitchen so wouldn't know about the state of the parlour.

What if the matches were in one of the pockets and they slid out when the mackintosh was bunched up? Maybe William had lit a cigarette or two somewhere there was no ash tray so he put them in his pocket until he went outside but he forgot to chuck them?

[Herlock Sholmes]

it might be hard but there are at least some things we have managed to resolve.

Like who killed her

[WallaceWackedHer]

But you won’t countenance the idea of it being used as William himself suggested. I don’t understand why this isn’t considered a possibility? A man planning to kill and who can’t afford to get covered in blood uses a coat to prevent this. Would your opinion differ on the possibility of William using a shield if the item found was a large bath towel or a bed sheet?

Yes it would increase my opinion on the odds of himself being the killer if the item was that - well actually to be fair I'd think it's very bizarre such items were in the room. If it was HER coat or some item of clothing belonging to HER, then it would never even occur to me though, and probably not to anybody, that it wasn't she herself who'd used it.

My God can you imagine how different we'd all think about the series of events if it was her jacket, we'd probably be thinking she'd just went to put it on to nip out to the post or something. Like man, imagine how dramatically different it would all seem.

Using your own jacket as a SHIELD and worse, not even getting rid of it, it's certainly not something someone would do in a very carefully premeditated act. Using ANYTHING else would be so, so obvious as to be essentially impossible to overlook.

Something that COULD be overlooked but is still "duh" tier on a premeditated killer's part is to chuck the damn covering ONTO HER HEAD... Like, you want to avoid being sprayed with blood and you're using a blunt instrument? There you go tada. How ridiculously easy is that? I'd probably do that then get some blood onto a rod or something and flick it all around the walls if I wasn't aware of forensic techniques.

I just assume McFall wouldn't actually be stupid enough to fall for such a trick.

Talk about simple... Imagine overlooking something that glaringly blatant that eliminates 100% of the risk.

Lighters (the flick up kind you use for cigarettes) were invented and used since the early 1800s. I'm not sure people were lighting cigarettes with matches. I don't know...