Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[WallaceWackedHer]

There isn’t a single, solitary shred of evidence that Close was made to alter his time. This is used by those desperate to prove Wallace innocent. It’s wish-thinking pure and simple.

Is there anything to suggest that he wasn’t at the Holy Trinity Church when the clock said 6.25? > No there isn’t.

We have Elsie Wright who said that she saw him in Richmond Park at 6.40. > What reason do we have to place more value on her time that Close’s? None. In fact the other witnesses show her to be wrong.

We have three kids, who said that Close said that he’d seen Julia at 6.45. > Close however said that he’d told them that he’d seen Julia between 6.30 and 6.45 which, if he was at the HT Church, would have been literally true. Additionally, if the police were coaching him wouldn’t they have wanted no conflict? So why didn’t they tell him to say “well I did say 6.45 but it was only approximately but when I did the reconstruction it proved that it must have been earlier.” So it was only selective coaching.

We have James Allison Wildman saying that he saw Close on the Wallace’s doorstep at 6.37/38.

Then we have the very conveniently dismissed adults. Can any poster on this thread say, with hand on heart, that adults aren’t usually more trustworthy than children on matters of time? Of course they are. Adults live by the clock. >Florence Johnston said that the milk boy delivered at around 6.30!! This testimony alone should dismiss the 6.45 lie without a doubt.

Then we have the Holme’s on the other side. > They said they heard the knock at the Wallace’s door (which could only have been Close) at 6.30/6.35. But of course these get dismissed too.

So we are being asked to favour three kids on what they thought that they heard Close say the day after the event over witnesses that were actually there. EVERYONE OF WHOM SAY WELL BEFORE 6.45.

~~~

As for the reconstruction or the “all coppers are b*****ds” defence. We see a bit of blatant misinformation here (to use Rod’s favourite word.) You say that he was carrying crates!! Obviously he wasn’t carrying crates or anything that was too heavy for him to walk at a reasonable speed. You also say that he was comically throwing things into yards in place of deliveries. No, I’m actually simply repeating what Close said that he’d actually done on his rounds.1. He collected his milk from his dad’s shop which he stated was on the counter waiting for him when he got there. So this would have taken a matter of seconds. 2. He delivered to one house in Letchworth Street where he stated that he simply knocked on the door then handed over the milk. This would have taken a matter of seconds. 3. He put two bottles into a garden in Richmond Park (again, seconds) then walked on to the Wallace’s. Yes if you want to insinuate that Close was walking and acting like Buzz Aldrin on the moon then you can make it appear difficult. But it wasn’t.

So there’s zero evidence for any manipulation except for conspiracy thinking. So what do we do? Do we ignore/dismiss the facts simply to manufacture a reduced window of time for William to have killed Julia. Do we claim that the interpretation of a conversation held the day before by three kids somehow carries more weight than the testimony of Florence Johnston who actually opened the door to Close and took milk from him at around 6.30 (backed up by the neighbours on the other side.) Then a paperboy who puts Close there slightly later but still nowhere near 6.45.

Paranoid fantasy or facts? This has long been a narrative set by those who simply have to try and exonerate our kindly silver haired old insurance agent by assuming that the corrupt cops got at Close despite there being zero evidence for it. It’s like the mythical hoardes all saying that the Wallace’s were deliriously happy. We need to stick to the facts. To the likelihoods and probabilities that make up the case and not get involved in a crusade. The fact are in black and white. All that you have is the words of three kids interpreting a conversation and a none-existant police conspiracy. I have the word of Close. A police reconstruction. Two reliable adult witness and James Wildman. All of who prove beyond doubt that the 6.45 time is an invention.

It's fiction. Pure and simple. Idc if he killed her, idc if he's guilty, idc if they're happy. I care about this complete falsehood of a time being propogated.

Tell us again how the timing is accurate because he was running so as to go out to play with his friends. Read the appeal trial because Roland Oliver worked out the speeds people were walking and some of the officers were jogging in their tests.

You're going on about 6.45 because you know damn well I say earlier than that and it's easy to break down 6.45. Just like it's easier than 6.30.

I feel spergy arguing over a matter of minutes (minutes which IMO don't even matter) but it's false fact and I'm not going to allow it. It's false. I can prove it's false. And yet it's repeated because everyone here has their nose stuck so deep up the ass of the police that they'd crown anyone able to pull it out King Arthur.

It wasn't an "interpretation" of a conversation. He told everyone it was 18.45 he NEVER said 18.30. Not even ONE person but himself said he ever had said that. NOT ONE. The police wouldn't accept Alan's stated 6.45 time, before they even had evidence it was earlier. Metcalfe said so on Wilkes' show.

Buzz Aldrin on the moon lol. Seconds to make deliveries etc. when even without deliveries it's a FAST walking pace to make the distance and generally adults walk a tiny bit faster than kids. It's pure delusion I'm not accepting false facts leaking in out of people's desire to lick police ass.

Every single other worker who had seen him testified it was later. The goddamn bells chimed and where was Alan? Not at Wolverton Street. I don't EVER want to see 6.30 again. It's proven wrong and no reasonable person would believe it. It's Hemmerde crossdressing theory tier.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi Herlock,

I’ve tried to explain to WWH why I see the milk boy as a bit of a red herring. His only role as far as Wallace was concerned was to deliver the milk as usual. If Wallace was innocent, it apparently didn’t dawn on him that the boy’s timing might help save his bacon, which is why I strongly doubt Close could have seen Julia either at, or just a minute or so before "a quarter to seven", which was the precise time Wallace gave the Johnstons for his own departure, supposedly witnessed by his wife. Why would he not have told the police about this crucial, totally exonerating sighting by the milk boy? If guilty, however, Wallace couldn’t do the deed until Close had buggered off, for very obvious reasons. But equally obviously, if Close buggered off some ten minutes before Wallace did, then the boy’s sighting of Julia alive would not have provided a solid alibi, even if Wallace had thought to try it on.

More later...

Love,

Caz
X

Yes it's very evident he didn't care about the milk boy's arrival time.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Some thoughts after reading the latest posts...

If Dorothy L. Sayers was correct about it being “a well-known trick of burglars to lure away householders with bogus telephone messages”, Wallace could have been using the same trick to lure himself away, to make it look as though burglars did it so they could get access to his cash box.

And that seems more likely than the fact that maybe it was actually a bogus message trick? I've seen no evidence what she stated is true.

We KNOW the man acted bizarre.

[WallaceWackedHer]

For those who think the Wallace relationship was a normal and happy one, just because some people at the time were given no reason to think otherwise...

From this week's Radio Times:

Murder 24/7, a new BBC documentary:

‘In Southend, officers examine the flat where a violent assault took place. A heart-shaped cushion sits on a bloodstained sofa. Essex police’s prime suspect is Ian Slater, but he’s gone missing. In an almost comic interlude a neighbour insists Slater is “the sweetest geezer going”, just as officers searching Slater’s flat find a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire....’

If Wallace planned to murder his wife, he'd have been beyond stupid to advertise the fact that he wasn't a kind and cuddly husband to her.

If Wallace planned to murder his wife, he'd have been beyond stupid to hide the bloody murder weapon in his little chemistry lab for instance - or indeed to use poison instead, with the risk that any suspicious circumstances would automatically lead the police to look for a connection between her death and that same chemistry lab.

Make it look like Mister and Missus could have won the Mr. and Mrs. tv game show, and the Missus was murdered by Bertie Burglar in the Parlour with the Lead Piping, which he took away with him, and with a dollop of luck and a smidgen of reasonable doubt you can get away with your foul play.

Love,

Caz
X

There WAS no reason to suspect foul play at the death of a known sickly woman and a husband with no known motive. The entire story is as makebelieve as Aladdin.

You actually think that's riskier than relying on perfect timing, perfect framing, the most bizarre murder plot in recorded history, and the sheer luck of a jacket protecting himself entirely from staining then dumping it there.

That's less risky?

It's delusional.

Isn't it uhhh, more likely she came.to give him his coat and he wacked her and CHANGED CLOTHES burning the old ones Borden style rather than shielding himself then going out in the exact same.clothes and hoping for the best?

The idea of setting himself an alibi then oh no his wife is dead is hardly unbelievable, it's everything in between and the specific way it was set up in such an obscure way.

All because he played chess of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I’ve tried to explain to WWH why I see the milk boy as a bit of a red herring. His only role as far as Wallace was concerned was to deliver the milk as usual. If Wallace was innocent, it apparently didn’t dawn on him that the boy’s timing might help save his bacon, which is why I strongly doubt Close could have seen Julia either at, or just a minute or so before "a quarter to seven", which was the precise time Wallace gave the Johnstons for his own departure, supposedly witnessed by his wife. Why would he not have told the police about this crucial, totally exonerating sighting by the milk boy? If guilty, however, Wallace couldn’t do the deed until Close had buggered off, for very obvious reasons. But equally obviously, if Close buggered off some ten minutes before Wallace did, then the boy’s sighting of Julia alive would not have provided a solid alibi, even if Wallace had thought to try it on.

More later...

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Yes it certainly wasn’t a case of Close being factored into any kind of plan but he was certainly a problem that had be overcome. How could an innocent Wallace have failed to have mentioned it if the milk boy had been and gone a minute or two before he’d left for MGE? It’s also impossible to believe that Wallace hadn’t heard him knock the door or heard Julia taking in the milk or heard Julia speaking to Close on the doorstep. So why did he not mention this other than for the obvious reason that it was proof that he’d had much longer to kill Julia than the defence was attempting to show? This is a huge point against Wallace’s innocence and, from memory, I can’t recall if any of the authors on the subject have mentioned this (apologies to any if I’ve misremembered.)

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi Caz,

Yes it certainly wasn’t a case of Close being factored into any kind of plan but he was certainly a problem that had be overcome. How could an innocent Wallace have failed to have mentioned it if the milk boy had been and gone a minute or two before he’d left for MGE? It’s also impossible to believe that Wallace hadn’t heard him knock the door or heard Julia taking in the milk or heard Julia speaking to Close on the doorstep. So why did he not mention this other than for the obvious reason that it was proof that he’d had much longer to kill Julia than the defence was attempting to show? This is a huge point against Wallace’s innocence and, from memory, I can’t recall if any of the authors on the subject have mentioned this (apologies to any if I’ve misremembered.)

Omg........ Lmao. Just wow.

Even the most exonerating facts are "huge points against his innocence!". It apparently wasn't a huge point FOR his innocence when I initially mentioned this and it was overlooked and bizarre ideas invented to explain it.

The defence wasn't trying to prove anything. He didn't even have a lawyer when he neglected to mention the milk boy.

Just. Wow. Unbelievable. What sort of forum have I even wandered into here.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Some thoughts after reading the latest posts...

If Dorothy L. Sayers was correct about it being “a well-known trick of burglars to lure away householders with bogus telephone messages”, Wallace could have been using the same trick to lure himself away, to make it look as though burglars did it so they could get access to his cash box.

Absolutely. This doesn’t need any Moriarty-like genius. It’s a simple plan.

WWH made the reasonable observation that it would have been unusual in a genuine burglary to lure away the householder, knowing that his wife would still be in the house. Most burglars would prefer an empty house for obvious reasons, and that would apply even more so if they were known to any of the occupants personally. WWH got round this by referring to the claim that when Wallace and his wife both went out, leaving the house empty, they would take all the cash and insurance moneys with them. So the idea is that the burglary HAD to take place while Julia was at home, or there would have been no takings to pinch. But how would a potential burglar have KNOWN this was Wallace’s policy [no pun intended], unless he or his wife had freely advertised the fact? Why would they do that, and risk being mugged every time they left the house together? It makes no sense.

And it’s not something that you would have expected the cautious William to have told someone like Parry.

I had to agree with Herlock that Wallace’s reaction to the telephone message, both immediately and after the murder, seems most peculiar and out of character. He had ample opportunity before the Tuesday evening to enquire about the name Qualtrough and the exact whereabouts of 25 Menlove Gardens East. He’d supposedly never heard of the name or the address [the latter didn’t exist, so how could he?] and had no idea how or why he had been singled out for special attention and tracked down to the chess club. If ANYONE else made that call, it had to be someone who was considerably better informed about Wallace and his movements than Wallace was about Qualtrough – which was not at all. For starters, someone must have seen the notice board and informed Qualtrough that Wallace was due to play that evening.

Exactly, this was 1931, so why wasn’t Wallace suspicious when some random bloke from a different area specifically wants him over simply contacting the Pru. A man who so determined to put work Wallace's way that he researches his background a finds out, not only that he was a member of the chess club, but when he was next due to attend.

I also liked moste’s observation that Wallace’s best bet under the circumstances would have been to drop Qualtrough a line, suggesting he call at Wallace’s house the next day, either at lunch time or in the evening. He could have explained that he was not familiar with the Menlove Gardens area, and it would have saved him all that effort, using the tongue in his head, to ask for directions to MGE. It does seem to me he was already planning to use that tongue to good effect when mentioning it – preparing for the following evening’s bogus journey. Since the address didn’t exist, nobody could give him more than a rough idea of where he might find it. As moste pointed out, Wallace did NOT leave in good time for a 7.30 appointment on a miserable winter’s evening, if he knew he’d be trusting the tongue in his head to be his guide. Something is certainly not quite right with the whole thing.

Its just not in keeping with what we know about Wallace. What could have been simpler and more obvious to even the meanest intelligence to check a directory or map before setting out? Or to have made a quick call to Crewe? And then to leave himself only ten minutes to find an address that he didn’t know in such a large area where, for all that he’d known, he might have had 15 or twenty minutes of walking. And this is only based on luckily jumping off one tram and straight onto another. Miss just one connection and he could have been left with just 2 or 3 minutes. How can we deny that this simply doesn’t add up.

If Wallace dreamed up the fake address it was so the tongue in his head could not possibly take him straight to a real one, leaving him with no good excuse to prolong the failed mission. That particular fake address was well chosen because he could continue to search for as long as it suited him, even after being told there was no MG East. He could still legitimately try MG West, North and South, if he wanted to put more minutes between leaving and returning to his house, during which any other potential suspect without a decent alibi for the entire two hours could find himself in the frame – especially considering the huge difficulty then and now, to give an accurate or reliable time of death without recourse to last sightings and so on. That was always Wallace’s best bet regarding reasonable doubt: the window of opportunity for someone else to have killed Julia during her devoted husband’s absence on business.

Agreed Caz. The fake address is opportunity to wander around. He’s able to say “I tried MGW then I tried X the Y....”

If Wallace was even vaguely familiar with Menlove Avenue, he surely knew it was a 40 minute walk from end to end, and that – in theory – Menlove Gardens East could have been almost anywhere in relation to the avenue. It didn’t even have to be that close to Menlove Gardens West, North or South, and in practice we know it wasn’t. It wasn’t close to anywhere! So anyone making assumptions about where Wallace might find the address would be wrong. I find it hard to believe that an experienced insurance salesman, making his living by travelling to the homes of new or established customers, would not have appreciated the potential pitfalls of setting off at the time Wallace did, trusting only the tongue in his head to get him to an unfamiliar destination, somewhere in the Menlove Avenue area, by 7.30. I totally agree with Herlock on this point. It seems like a contradiction that Wallace was so incurious and casual about the mysterious Qualtrough, and his request for an appointment the following evening, that he didn’t make a single enquiry beforehand and then left it to chance that he would find the address at all, let alone in good time, with the result that his tongue had to work overtime and ultimately to no avail. An innocent man would have cursed himself for his stupidity, on learning that his dear wife had been so brutally murdered while he was out chasing a wild goose. If only he’d planned his moves in advance by doing just a modicum of research, he could have smelled a rat in time to save a tragedy.

Crewe said that Menlove Avenue was 2-3 miles long. Wallace was relying on a massive stroke of luck that MGE would be within 10 mins of the tram stop. It’s not believable.

After the murder, it would have become obvious that Qualtrough had already known Wallace’s address when asking Beattie for it. An innocent Wallace would have scratched his head over this, but realised that the caller was trying to give the FALSE impression that he did not know Wallace personally. The fact that Beattie couldn’t supply the address would have told an innocent Wallace that “Qualtrough” was someone who DID know him personally, narrowing down the suspect list accordingly.

The only point that I’d raise here Caz is that Beattie didn’t mention Qualtrough asking for Wallace’s address at the trial so I’m wondering if Wallace was aware that the question had been asked? Beattie only mentioned it in his police statement which we haven’t seen (although Antony saw it whilst researching his book.)

Love,

Caz
X

Great points as ever Caz

[Herlock Sholmes]

For those who think the Wallace relationship was a normal and happy one, just because some people at the time were given no reason to think otherwise...

From this week's Radio Times:

Murder 24/7, a new BBC documentary:

‘In Southend, officers examine the flat where a violent assault took place. A heart-shaped cushion sits on a bloodstained sofa. Essex police’s prime suspect is Ian Slater, but he’s gone missing. In an almost comic interlude a neighbour insists Slater is “the sweetest geezer going”, just as officers searching Slater’s flat find a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire....’

If Wallace planned to murder his wife, he'd have been beyond stupid to advertise the fact that he wasn't a kind and cuddly husband to her.

If Wallace planned to murder his wife, he'd have been beyond stupid to hide the bloody murder weapon in his little chemistry lab for instance - or indeed to use poison instead, with the risk that any suspicious circumstances would automatically lead the police to look for a connection between her death and that same chemistry lab.

Make it look like Mister and Missus could have won the Mr. and Mrs. tv game show, and the Missus was murdered by Bertie Burglar in the Parlour with the Lead Piping, which he took away with him, and with a dollop of luck and a smidgen of reasonable doubt you can get away with your foul play.

Love,

Caz
X

No one would have expected Crippen of killing Cora.

This is a point that I’ve thought about lately Caz. We often hear people say “everyone said that they were a happy couple.” So my question is “who are these everyone? Can we name them and with specific quotes?”

On the negative side we have Curwen, Wilson, Mather and the statement from the Doctor that contacted Antony (it’s in my piece on the case Caz)

Who do we have on the ‘pro-happy couple’ side? Caird. Amy (I think that I recall somewhere Amy saying that he thought that William treated Julia like the ‘little woman’ but I can’t substantiate this.) The Johnston’s (who had been in the house 3 times but never when they were together.) Sarah Jane Draper gives them a lukewarm thumb’s up but she came once a week and would have only ever seen them together during William’s lunch break when she’d have been working (William didn’t even know her name)

Where are these droves of people all saying that the Wallace’s were happy? I’m not saying that they couldn’t have existed but should we just accept this blank statement. Or is this something that was said by some at the time and it’s become accepted as fact but without any basis. Has this become an accepted legend?

As it stands here we have 4 ‘unhappy Wallace’s’ versus 4 ‘happy Wallace’s’ and 3 of them aren’t exactly gushing. I’m happy to add others if they’re proven.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Herlock,
A bit of Devils Advocate, if the caller wasn't William, but was set on getting him out at a specific time and place, and thought that contacting the Pru directly was an unreliable way of doing this, would this narrow down the suspect pool? As much as, if "Qualtrough" knew that asking the Pru for an appointment might mean an unreliable, unworkable time that doesn't suit his/ their burglary plan, who would have the knowledge to pin Wallace's movements, to know he would be at the chess club that night? A random distraction burglar might well place a call through the main Pru office. Who else might reasonably know William played chess on a particular night, at a specific club? And, what if the call amounted to nothing? Again, devils advocate, but if the call failed, try again another day. Maybe it was pure fortune that the plan worked first time?

[Abby Normal]

No one would have expected Crippen of killing Cora.

This is a point that I’ve thought about lately Caz. We often hear people say “everyone said that they were a happy couple.” So my question is “who are these everyone? Can we name them and with specific quotes?”

On the negative side we have Curwen, Wilson, Mather and the statement from the Doctor that contacted Antony (it’s in my piece on the case Caz)

Who do we have on the ‘pro-happy couple’ side? Caird. Amy (I think that I recall somewhere Amy saying that he thought that William treated Julia like the ‘little woman’ but I can’t substantiate this.) The Johnston’s (who had been in the house 3 times but never when they were together.) Sarah Jane Draper gives them a lukewarm thumb’s up but she came once a week and would have only ever seen them together during William’s lunch break when she’d have been working (William didn’t even know her name)

Where are these droves of people all saying that the Wallace’s were happy? I’m not saying that they couldn’t have existed but should we just accept this blank statement. Or is this something that was said by some at the time and it’s become accepted as fact but without any basis. Has this become an accepted legend?

As it stands here we have 4 ‘unhappy Wallace’s’ versus 4 ‘happy Wallace’s’ and 3 of them aren’t exactly gushing. I’m happy to add others if they’re proven.

deleted-wrong post

[Abby Normal]

Great points as ever Caz

agree.

Ive often said the idea of Wallace going on a wild goose chase to find Q is hard to believe. any reasonable person would be WTF? and be suspicious right off the bat. I was in sales and I know dam sure I would have blown off that "lead" without much thought.

to me its seems rather obvious Wallace set this all up, not only to give himself an alibi, but to add a "suspect".

[Abby Normal]

stupid question-
why would someone other than Wallace make the Q call?

wouldn't a burgler/killer just wait till Wallace was at work or at his chess club to do the deed?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Omg........ Lmao. Just wow.

Even the most exonerating facts are "huge points against his innocence!". It apparently wasn't a huge point FOR his innocence when I initially mentioned this and it was overlooked and bizarre ideas invented to explain it.

The defence wasn't trying to prove anything. He didn't even have a lawyer when he neglected to mention the milk boy.

Just. Wow. Unbelievable. What sort of forum have I even wandered into here.

Hopefully a forum where we don’t become absorbed in conspiracy theories.

Theres nothing bizarre going on here. If Close turned up just before William left why didn’t he mention it? It’s a very valid question.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's fiction. Pure and simple. Idc if he killed her, idc if he's guilty, idc if they're happy. I care about this complete falsehood of a time being propogated.

Tell us again how the timing is accurate because he was running so as to go out to play with his friends. Read the appeal trial because Roland Oliver worked out the speeds people were walking and some of the officers were jogging in their tests.

You're going on about 6.45 because you know damn well I say earlier than that and it's easy to break down 6.45. Just like it's easier than 6.30.

I feel spergy arguing over a matter of minutes (minutes which IMO don't even matter) but it's false fact and I'm not going to allow it. It's false. I can prove it's false. And yet it's repeated because everyone here has their nose stuck so deep up the ass of the police that they'd crown anyone able to pull it out King Arthur.

It wasn't an "interpretation" of a conversation. He told everyone it was 18.45 he NEVER said 18.30. Not even ONE person but himself said he ever had said that. NOT ONE. The police wouldn't accept Alan's stated 6.45 time, before they even had evidence it was earlier. Metcalfe said so on Wilkes' show.

Buzz Aldrin on the moon lol. Seconds to make deliveries etc. when even without deliveries it's a FAST walking pace to make the distance and generally adults walk a tiny bit faster than kids. It's pure delusion I'm not accepting false facts leaking in out of people's desire to lick police ass.

Every single other worker who had seen him testified it was later. The goddamn bells chimed and where was Alan? Not at Wolverton Street. I don't EVER want to see 6.30 again. It's proven wrong and no reasonable person would believe it. It's Hemmerde crossdressing theory tier.

I’m sorry but you’re completing losing touch with reality. You seem to think that “I’m not having it” constitutes proof. I’m sorry but you’re the only person that would think that it does.

Can anyone apart from Close have known how quickly or slowly that he’d walked? The answer is categorically no.

Can anyone apart from Close have known how long the one collection and two deliveries took? The answer is categorically no.

You cannot, simply and categorically cannot prove it wrong. You want it to be wrong but you cannot prove it.

~~~

Then you say that he never said 6.30. Please listen to yourself when you say these logical falsehoods. You were not there. Neither was I. It’s simply a case of who we believe. You cannot say that he definitely didn’t say it.

Absolutely illogically you prefer the statements of three kids, neither of whom were there at the time, based on what they said that they’d heard Close say. Even though the evidence points away from 6.45. This is important.

~~~

Adults generally walk faster than kids. Another generality. Do they? They usually have longer strides certainly. But what you’re using to discredit the reconstruction is that you’re completely dismissing the fact fact that we simply don’t know how quickly he walked. It’s a fact that he was late. People who are late tend to walk quicker. This isn’t imagination it’s a reasonable suggestion which no one should dispute. Plus he was a kid working whilst his mates were out probably playing football.

So is it a wild stretch of the imagination then to suggest that a 14 kid who was late and who probably wanted to be out with his mates might have walked fairly quickly? Of course it isn’t. And yet you try and paint a picture of someone loaded down under 2 hundred weight of crates which isn’t the case.

~~~

Your “licking police ass” seems to imply a dislike of the police. Perhaps an assumption of lying? I prefer to check the facts. I believe Mrs Johnston over 3 kids 24 hours later. Why do they get believed over Close?

~~~

You get angry at the mention of 6.45 but this is the time that they were trying to prove. Even if the reconstruction time was out it wouldn’t have been out by 15 minutes!! If the police were trying to con everyone they could easily have told Close to say 10 minutes because it would have still made his arrival at 6.35 and would have given him 15 minutes. So would they have risked being exposed as liars all for the sake of 5 minutes? No chance.

~~~

We’re entering a Twilight Zone of conspiracy here when the truth is simply

Johnston and the Holme’s put Close’s arrival at 6.30-6.35 (which outweighs disputed kids testimony every day of the week)
Wildman say 6.37-6.38.
Close himself said around 6.30.

Give me reasoned facts of over a conspiracy agenda every time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

stupid question-
why would someone other than Wallace make the Q call?

wouldn't a burgler/killer just wait till Wallace was at work or at his chess club to do the deed?

Hi Abby, the thinking is that on the Tuesday Wallace would have had a greater amount in his cash box as he usually paid in his takings on a Wednesday. On this particular week though he’d only taken around £14 due to his being ill. He’d also had to pay out around £10 to customers.