Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[WallaceWackedHer]

What I think has happened is probably that at between 18:25 to 18:35 the Liverpool Echo is delivered. William goes out at 18:45, he HASN'T murdered her.

If he's guilty he's let the intended killer in as he goes out of the back door or arrives a bit after, perhaps then William needs to stay out because he has agreed on a set amount of time for the killer to do his thing and can't return until after then. If he's innocent well, then he hasn't of course.

Julia now goes into the kitchen, she reads the Echo which was that day's date with the pages opened on the kitchen table. As she's reading it there's a knock which she answers. In likelihood William has not read it because he said he wasn't sure if the newspaper had been delivered and secondly, I don't think he'd be casually reading the paper minutes before murdering his wife and trying to ensure everything is set up perfectly...

So she leaves the paper open on the kitchen table which is how it was found and answers the door. While on acid I got the sense it was a person she knew at the door. Logically it makes sense it would be a stranger though - but instinctively I feel otherwise. There is brief chatter on the doorstep and she lets him in and leads him into the parlour.

The kitchen is now unoccupied leaving it free for intruders to thieve from the box.

Julia lights the fire for the visitor - then ??? - then she hears a sound, probably from the kitchen because the kitchen is one room over from the parlour and there's signs of disturbance in there.

She is either down by the fire naturally and I don't know why, or she's been hit by something like a punch or pushed down and then hit with a deadly strike as she tries to get up. In the latter scenario I can imagine the attacker grabbing the nearest thing to hand to hit her with, or something he had brought with him, quickly drawing that out from his pocket or something of that nature.

Her stomach contents are as they are because she's been killed at a later time. The fact McFall EVER put the time of death at 19:50 (in his initial report) is dodgy because he thinks Julia's age is 55 which would mean he's calculated rigor as slower than it would be. Also judging by the trial he did not take into account that she was sickly and frail either, which also makes the calculation slower than it should be. I also do not think he accounted for the fire having been on which would put things the other way (slower onset right?) But the majority of things suggest a later time of death. Especially the stomach contents.

It would suggests the killer has arrived at the house later than you'd think. You'd think he would turn up barely after Wallace has left - or conversely that he spent some considerable time in there before she was bumped off... Which would align with the burning as the fireplace would be fully heated up.

I do not know the rest or the blanks.

Lily Hall testifies there is an accomplice, don't forget that. And Anne Parsons saw two people running from the scene at around the time oddly fast.

[moste]

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.”

All this back and forth discussion of the chess fixture chart. I had to muse over it a few moments until you made it clear. However in the pubs of 90 years ago in the north of England, and possibly elsewhere, for the purpose of arranging upcoming games of darts, dominoes, skittles, or chess. Might the typical chart have looked exactly like this one . Albeit, untidily and scribbly done. Nonetheless perfectly legible by all involved . Voila!

[Herlock Sholmes]

All this back and forth discussion of the chess fixture chart. I had to muse over it a few moments until you made it clear. However in the pubs of 90 years ago in the north of England, and possibly elsewhere, for the purpose of arranging upcoming games of darts, dominoes, skittles, or chess. Might the typical chart have looked exactly like this one . Albeit, untidily and scribbly done. Nonetheless perfectly legible by all involved . Voila!

You're right Moste. I’ll give up this point. Maybe it’s not as clear to all. But maybe it would have been clear to all at the time? We have no way of knowing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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...

I just don’t see how it’s an issue in the slightest? In the Rowland book,and I haven’t followed this up, he says that Hemmerde said that William had never seen his wear his mackintosh before under any circumstances. If she was in the habit of doing this you’d have thought he’d have seen it before. We also can’t ignore the very obvious fact that she hadn’t worn it to go outside. Or that MacFall was convinced that she’d worn it over her shoulders. So this is an unsatisfactory explanation for its presence in the Parlour let alone how it became tucked up beneath her body. So we look for a reason. We have Wallace as the killer or someone else. Would an unknown, spur-of-the-moment killer have used the mackintosh in away? It’s hard to see how. But if Wallace was the killer we know that he couldn’t have afforded to get covered in blood. So why is it so bizarre? I’d suggest that it’s the likeliest reason by far. And William said the exact same thing. Using the coat is no more incriminating for William than the use of a weapon taken from the room.

Isn’t it strange that two ideas, my idea of the mackintosh as a shield and Antony’s suggestion of a different weapon (with Wallace dumping the poker and bar before the murder to misdirect the police) are both pointed to in William’s John Bull articles. Along with the fact that he won’t name a suspect during the investigation (no doubt in fear of appearing to have a ready made killer lined up) and yet in the articles he’s become convinced of Parry’s guilty despite being in possession of no new evidence.

It’s also interesting that, according to one Police Officer, Wallace had told him that Julia had locked the back gate.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Yeah she would have locked the back gate. Only an obese or crippled person would have any problem hopping that wall. I would bet Ł500+ I could get over that wall without a mate even boosting me. Tbh even a fatty could get over it. Just not a cripple or really ill or old person.

No intelligent man would shield himself with his own jacket in a carefully preplanned attack. Maybe wearing it. Not as a shield - and especially not just leaving it there and saying only you ever wore it - that would be straight up dumb obviously as you know.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yeah she would have locked the back gate. Only an obese or crippled person would have any problem hopping that wall. I would bet Ł500+ I could get over that wall without a mate even boosting me. Tbh even a fatty could get over it. Just not a cripple or really ill or old person.

No intelligent man would shield himself with his own jacket in a carefully preplanned attack. Maybe wearing it. Not as a shield - and especially not just leaving it there and saying only you ever wore it - that would be straight up dumb obviously as you know.

Nothing dumb about it. In fact it’s the only explanation that works. There’s not a single point against it. Just because it was William’s is utterly irrelevant. The poker was William’s. The bar was William’s. Yet you believe that someone else used them so why would it have been unlikely that the police might have? You believe that the mackintosh’s presence has an innocent explanation so why might not the police have considered that. If he’d have used say a towel or an old curtain or a bed sheet it would have been even more out of place in the Parlour than a mackintosh that hung on a hook a few feet away.

The Mackintosh was there for a reason. All other reasons fail to convince. To prevent the killer getting covered in blood is a glaringly obvious solution. Nothing disproves it or weakens it. It doesn’t prove it of course. But it’s the likeliest by far.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Nothing dumb about it. In fact it’s the only explanation that works. There’s not a single point against it. Just because it was William’s is utterly irrelevant. The poker was William’s. The bar was William’s. Yet you believe that someone else used them so why would it have been unlikely that the police might have? You believe that the mackintosh’s presence has an innocent explanation so why might not the police have considered that. If he’d have used say a towel or an old curtain or a bed sheet it would have been even more out of place in the Parlour than a mackintosh that hung on a hook a few feet away.

The Mackintosh was there for a reason. All other reasons fail to convince. To prevent the killer getting covered in blood is a glaringly obvious solution. Nothing disproves it or weakens it. It doesn’t prove it of course. But it’s the likeliest by far.

I think its presence is innocent only because I spent a year researching the case before deciding the evidence shows that he's probably either innocent or someone else killed her for him. The police found its presence condemning the moment they arrived.

I said actually I'd find some items there like bath towels weird. But not, say, Julia's own jacket. And Gannon's "her mackintosh... and my mackintosh" point is STRONG. Like he was.expecting it to be hers then realized it's his. Compelling.

I think that might be his most convincing argument in fact.

I would still need to reconstruct the events forensically to understand it though. It doesn't make sense.

The logic you use is always unnatural thought processes for a killer. E.g. criminals not bolting the door because they think he's going to be out for a certain amount of time. That's completely unnatural thought patterns and nobody in the situation would think that way... And I mention this simply because the same is here in regards to the jacket... It's a completely unnatural thought process to, in any capacity, believe its a good idea to use your own jacket and shove it beneath your wife's body when there are obvious alternatives.

If it was worn it's a different matter, and you could argue others belonging to Julia wouldn't fit him. Albeit not getting rid of it is still very bizarre. Unless he tries to incinerate it on the fireplace on purpose. Dumb to not use the kitchen stove for the purpose, but that's something I could believe someone could overlook.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think its presence is innocent only because I spent a year researching the case before deciding the evidence shows that he's probably either innocent or someone else killed her for him. The police found its presence condemning the moment they arrived.

I said actually I'd find some items there like bath towels weird. But not, say, Julia's own jacket. And Gannon's "her mackintosh... and my mackintosh" point is STRONG. Like he was.expecting it to be hers then realized it's his. Compelling.

I think that might be his most convincing argument in fact.

I would still need to reconstruct the events forensically to understand it though. It doesn't make sense.

The logic you use is always unnatural thought processes for a killer. E.g. criminals not bolting the door because they think he's going to be out for a certain amount of time. That's completely unnatural thought patterns and nobody in the situation would think that way... And I mention this simply because the same is here in regards to the jacket... It's a completely unnatural thought process to, in any capacity, believe its a good idea to use your own jacket and shove it beneath your wife's body when there are obvious alternatives.

If it was worn it's a different matter, and you could argue others belonging to Julia wouldn't fit him. Albeit not getting rid of it is still very bizarre. Unless he tries to incinerate it on the fireplace on purpose. Dumb to not use the kitchen stove for the purpose, but that's something I could believe someone could overlook.

How is it unnatural to suggest that a burglar’s first instinct, after just completely losing it and viciously bludgeoning an old lady to death, would have been to get out of there pronto? It’s entirely natural and likely. If they were so sanguine about events why didn’t they spend a minute or two looking for some more cash? So everything is in favour of them not hanging around but making their escape via a dark alleyway. And so logically, if they were about to leave why waste time pointlessly turning down the lights. It makes zero sense. Just not in any way. So it’s entirely plausible and entirely logical to suggest this.

And then the bolt. The Qualtrough figure is let in by Julia and guided into the Parlour (therefore he couldn’t have bolted the door and Julia wouldn’t have bolted herself in with a stranger knowing that she’d have to unbolt it to either let him out or allow William to get back in.)

Then they are in the Parlour together whilst the second man enters via the back door and goes straight into the kitchen for the cash box but he makes some kind of noise which alerts Julia. She panics and the man in the Parlour kills her.

And so again, at this point what is overwhelmingly the likeliest thing that they would have done? No search for cash remember. Obviously that they’d get away from the scene. Logical surely? What earthly point would there have been for bolting the door? They would have been biggest part of the way to Richmond Park in 10 seconds or so. It would have been a completely irrelevant, random act.

Why do these things seem illogical to you? As you’ve showed the chess club table to others for their opinion I showed this scenario to two friends asking their honest opinion as to whether what I’ve said is logical or not (and we disagree regularly on various issues.) One of them is a former Lecturer and one is a manager in an Engineering business so their not idiots. Both have said that my point on this issue is entirely logical and neither can understand the issues that you have with them. Indeed one of them has borrowed my copy of Antony’s book after recently reading about the case online. Initially he said that he has doubts about Wallace’s guilt after reading online stuff so he’s not biased. There’s nothing unnatural about the thought process. Burglary unexpectedly becomes murder. Panic sets in. No evidence of hanging around. They immediately scarper. I don’t get the problem that you have with this. I genuinely don't.

Gannon’s book is good but....

I just find it difficult to take his opinions seriously because of his utterly preposterous solution. Honestly it’s almost a comedy. And then the point he makes about the mitten! As if the police wouldn’t have spotted a single mitten on the sideboard?! He did some commendable research but he’s hardly Sherlock Holmes.

[WallaceWackedHer]

How is it unnatural to suggest that a burglar’s first instinct, after just completely losing it and viciously bludgeoning an old lady to death, would have been to get out of there pronto? It’s entirely natural and likely. If they were so sanguine about events why didn’t they spend a minute or two looking for some more cash? So everything is in favour of them not hanging around but making their escape via a dark alleyway. And so logically, if they were about to leave why waste time pointlessly turning down the lights. It makes zero sense. Just not in any way. So it’s entirely plausible and entirely logical to suggest this.

And then the bolt. The Qualtrough figure is let in by Julia and guided into the Parlour (therefore he couldn’t have bolted the door and Julia wouldn’t have bolted herself in with a stranger knowing that she’d have to unbolt it to either let him out or allow William to get back in.)

Then they are in the Parlour together whilst the second man enters via the back door and goes straight into the kitchen for the cash box but he makes some kind of noise which alerts Julia. She panics and the man in the Parlour kills her.

And so again, at this point what is overwhelmingly the likeliest thing that they would have done? No search for cash remember. Obviously that they’d get away from the scene. Logical surely? What earthly point would there have been for bolting the door? They would have been biggest part of the way to Richmond Park in 10 seconds or so. It would have been a completely irrelevant, random act.

Why do these things seem illogical to you? As you’ve showed the chess club table to others for their opinion I showed this scenario to two friends asking their honest opinion as to whether what I’ve said is logical or not (and we disagree regularly on various issues.) One of them is a former Lecturer and one is a manager in an Engineering business so their not idiots. Both have said that my point on this issue is entirely logical and neither can understand the issues that you have with them. Indeed one of them has borrowed my copy of Antony’s book after recently reading about the case online. Initially he said that he has doubts about Wallace’s guilt after reading online stuff so he’s not biased. There’s nothing unnatural about the thought process. Burglary unexpectedly becomes murder. Panic sets in. No evidence of hanging around. They immediately scarper. I don’t get the problem that you have with this. I genuinely don't.

Gannon’s book is good but....

I just find it difficult to take his opinions seriously because of his utterly preposterous solution. Honestly it’s almost a comedy. And then the point he makes about the mitten! As if the police wouldn’t have spotted a single mitten on the sideboard?! He did some commendable research but he’s hardly Sherlock Holmes.

I said the door would be naturally bolted IF they stayed in the home for a little bit, of which there is at least some evidence for having happened - such as the matches in the jacket folds which I said might have been to survey the wounds, see if she's dead, I don't know. And also the claim an intruder was still inside the home, which might be given credence by the sound of the "thuds" the Johnstons heard, which came only shortly before William's alleged arrival home. I already said there's evidence of a consciousness of possible fingerprints based on the possible removal of an object from the scene (if it was removed)... There are also mutiple people, so there will be a delay between the attack and everyone finding out what has happened.

You explained the chess club table to your friends, you didn't just show them the table and say "tell me what days people didn't turn up" and see if they get it - which is what I did. Several people in this thread never understood the table until it was explained. Some of it is like frickin' Chinese as well:





Looks like I'm at a Chinese takeaway. I think bottom right in the second picture looks like a 2, but the person labelled "2" has an X on that day. Just lol at this chart. Without telling people what it means, and without researching it myself or really trying to understand what it means, like most anyone at a glance I assumed the X's were non-attendees and the numbers I assumed were points or something.

I didn't look at the Xs and sit there trying to figure out "oh look - there's an odd number of people", stop trying to make out it's so obvious to everyone what it means because it's not.

That actual reality is, that if you were just glancing at the chart trying to see what days he's going to be there, you're going to see his name W. H. Wallace, then look up the top at the dates. That's IT.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I said the door would be naturally bolted IF they stayed in the home for a little bit, of which there is at least some evidence for having happened - such as the matches in the jacket folds which I said might have been to survey the wounds, see if she's dead, I don't know. And also the claim an intruder was still inside the home, which might be given credence by the sound of the "thuds" the Johnstons heard, which came only shortly before William's alleged arrival home. I already said there's evidence of a consciousness of possible fingerprints based on the possible removal of an object from the scene (if it was removed)... There are also mutiple people, so there will be a delay between the attack and everyone finding out what has happened.

You explained the chess club table to your friends, you didn't just show them the table and say "tell me what days people didn't turn up" and see if they get it - which is what I did. Several people in this thread never understood the table until it was explained. Some of it is like frickin' Chinese as well:





Looks like I'm at a Chinese takeaway. I think bottom right in the second picture looks like a 2, but the person labelled "2" has an X on that day. Just lol at this chart. Without telling people what it means, and without researching it myself or really trying to understand what it means, like most anyone at a glance I assumed the X's were non-attendees and the numbers I assumed were points or something.

I didn't look at the Xs and sit there trying to figure out "oh look - there's an odd number of people", stop trying to make out it's so obvious to everyone what it means because it's not.

That actual reality is, that if you were just glancing at the chart trying to see what days he's going to be there, you're going to see his name W. H. Wallace, then look up the top at the dates. That's IT.

I’m just on my way out when I saw your post.

You’ve misunderstood me WWH. I haven’t showed my friends the table. In fact I said to Moste earlier that, in the light of what you’ve said, I’m letting the point go.

I showed my friends the debate on the turning off of the lights and the bolting of the door and neither can understand why you find my points illogical. Both think that they are particularly obvious and likely. And that they can see no evidence for or reason for the killers hanging around. Both felt that from the moment Julia was dead the house was overwhelmingly likely to have been empty within a minute.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I’m just on my way out when I saw your post.

You’ve misunderstood me WWH. I haven’t showed my friends the table. In fact I said to Moste earlier that, in the light of what you’ve said, I’m letting the point go.

I showed my friends the debate on the turning off of the lights and the bolting of the door and neither can understand why you find my points illogical. Both think that they are particularly obvious and likely. And that they can see no evidence for or reason for the killers hanging around. Both felt that from the moment Julia was dead the house was overwhelmingly likely to have been empty within a minute.

Oh that's fair. I agree, of course it is strange the killer would hang around instead of just running away.

With that said there is evidence that was the case - that someone loitered. If we look at two or three of the things we know have been done, well, this wouldn't take very long at all but they have likely put out a fire and moved the body (potentially moved it quite substantially) and maybe turned out the fireplace.

Also in the matches which are underneath the body, it proves that they were there before the body was moved on top of the jacket. We don't know when they got there or where they were first dropped, but we can prove that they were in/on the jacket before the body was put on top. Well actually they could also be on top of Julia and her body rolled over

Given the matches and the suggestion they were used by Wallace or another party to inspect the wounds after her murder... Then I think maybe what has happened is person 1 has hit her and then is checking her wounds and believes she's dead. He's gone and got person 2 and told him what's happened. Person 2 has gone in to see for himself if the woman is dead. Gannon said from the initial body position (NOT the crime scene photos) there is evidence she was rolled over. That would agree with a person checking the wounding on the front and back of her head.

But if a weapon was really taken away and it WAS something from the house, then that also proves a definite fear of fingerprints. To risk carrying the thing away - because it is a huge risk for anyone - proves there is something the person believes is highly incriminating about it to make that risk worthwhile.

And therefore I think maybe a person did not have gloves on and was afraid of fingerprint identification.

Remember TWO items are reportedly missing, a bar and an iron poker. The wounds are also very different making it seem like two objects were used. I say this because the entirety of the front of her skull is caved in and literally opened up... Yet on the back of her head it's almost like incision type marks as opposed to fractures.

If they were truly removed and there are truly two objects used and truly both are the ones which were missing... I think maybe person 2 has gone in, checked, and decided it wisest to make sure she's certainly dead.

In whatever case, if any object was taken from the house then clearly there is something about it that is very incriminating in order to make that risk worth it.

I don't know - it's such a complicated thing. Even if it's William you understand, the burning etc. It's so hard to comprehend. We need proper forensics or we'll be spinning odd makeshift events like this ad nauseam.

I can prove doors were bolted during the commissioning of robberies and my idea is substantially that there isn't just one person in the house. Another possibility is that person 2 has bolted it to stop anyone coming in while this is all going on before the killing... Risky given Julia is one room over so I doubt this. I think it's been done after her death.

I'm not going to understand with clarity until forensics are cleared up.

[moste]

QUOTE:Looks like I'm at a Chinese takeaway. I think bottom right in the second picture looks like a 2 That actual reality is, that if you were just glancing at the chart trying to see what days he's going to be there, you're going to see his name W. H. Wallace, then look up the top at the dates. That's IT.

May I draw your attention to post number 47.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Isn’t it irritating that the trial transcript isn’t a full one. We need a full one.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Isn’t it irritating that the trial transcript isn’t a full one. We need a full one.

The one on my site is the full and complete version, I think. What's annoying though is that it's all on image, negating the "CTRL + F" benefits of the Wyndham-Brown Archive.org transcript.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The one on my site is the full and complete version, I think. What's annoying though is that it's all on image, negating the "CTRL + F" benefits of the Wyndham-Brown Archive.org transcript.

There are things missing though. I’ve just started going through it again a couple of witnesses at a time and I noticed this when I looked at the phone operators. Annie Robertson said that she put the call through from William err...I mean the callerat 7.20. Oliver tells Wright that the first call was at 7.15. He tells the Judge that it’s in Louisa Alfred’s testimony but when you look at Alfred’s testimony there’s no mention of it.

Perhaps slightly concerning for us if we consider what the transcriber felt was worth recording?