Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[Abby Normal]

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.

ah ok thanks. i guess they figured the wife would not be a problem?!? that makes no sense either. what burgler is going to go through that ruse only to have to deal with the wife being home?

Q shoukd have just said they won an evening out dinner together. lol

[WallaceWackedHer]

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.

They aren't reasoned facts, you're revelling in proven BS.

It's utterly shocking really. It's proven mathematically unlikely, it's proven he told everyone 6.45 including the police and ONLY said he told people 6.30 on trial which every witness said was untrue, the vast majority of witnesses put the time later. They never mentioned the time given by neighbours to Alan so I guess hadn't questioned them about it yet...

Alan was nowhere near the street when the 6.30 bells chimed. Alan told Metcalfe the police would not accept 6.45 on Wilkes - the segment Rod deleted, probably something in that section he didn't like because there was probably something in it discrediting his ides. Before even doing tests or having alternate statements they said he must mean 6.35. So they were actually trying to prove 6.45 wrong.

Just like Roland Oliver proved some of the cops were jogging for the tram based on the time and distance.

30 seconds to deliver milk and pick up the empty ones. Lol. Well that's already unfortunate because with that time and distance even 30 seconds is pushing him into jogging territory.

I didn't take my site down (I would never delete something that took me about literally 30+ hours of work to do), but on the topic of Rod though........ Well....... I could go utterly BALLISTIC when I contact my host depending on what they tell me. Like I will def get banned I will go psychotic if something specific has happened.

I won't accept it because I won't accept proven false facts and I won't accept them being propogated like it's true. Even when arguing for his guilt I used the accurate arrival time not the BS one. I will NEVER accept BS facts.

I know he said 6.30 at court, I know the "accurate reconstruction" where he was jogging with the milk was 5 and 6 minutes. But I know there is enough proof including mathematical proof that the time is bunk.

Do you have Netflix? Police being gung ho to convict someome is a popular documentary topic.

You're LITERALLY just believing what you want to believe. But the thing is, in this case evidence can be found for both sides so people can be COMPLETELY irrational like Rod and STILL feel like they're being rational by skewing the evidence with duality to be all one way... Due to the duality of evidence anyone can do this.

And this is happening here.

That's why writing my "Murder Story" part was SOOOOO difficult (not the solution part), because I had to try SOOOOOO hard to not accidentally influence opinions or use false facts (since different books etc. state opposite facts). I know 6.30 is likely bunk and I won't entertain it.

But yeah if I contact my web host and they tell me a certain something has happened... Well I can EASILY put it back online on some overseas host. But someone's life will be verbally ruined because I have a feeling about what happened.

[Herlock Sholmes]

ah ok thanks. i guess they figured the wife would not be a problem?!? that makes no sense either. what burgler is going to go through that ruse only to have to deal with the wife being home?

Q shoukd have just said they won an evening out dinner together. lol

A quick sum up Abby,

WWH is suggesting that someone posing as Qualtrough arrived and explained that there must have been a mix up and so Julia invites him into the Parlour to wait for Williams return. Whilst he was in there with Julia his accomplice entered via the backdoor using a skeleton key and headed straight for the cash box but he made some kind of noise which alerted Julia who panicked and so was silenced/killed by the man posing as Qualtrough.

This differs from Rod’s theory which only has one man (the guy posing as Qualtrough) who, perhaps under the pretext of going to use the toilet sneaks into the kitchen to steal the cash. Julia becomes suspicious though and panics resulting in him killing her.

In both theories the planner and phone caller was Parry. WWH believes that the man entering via the back door was Marsden.

PS, I still think it was Wallace.

[WallaceWackedHer]

ah ok thanks. i guess they figured the wife would not be a problem?!? that makes no sense either. what burgler is going to go through that ruse only to have to deal with the wife being home?

Q shoukd have just said they won an evening out dinner together. lol

This would not be possible because allegedly they took out all money from the home whenever they both left the house together.

I don't think the man was posing as Qualtrough. He might do, but they could not rely on her knowing the name. Only that her husband had gone out on business.

I think they could have done it in other ways though, like pretending to be someone entirely unrelated to said business.

[Herlock Sholmes]

They aren't reasoned facts, you're revelling in proven BS.

It's utterly shocking really. It's proven mathematically unlikely, it's proven he told everyone 6.45 including the police and ONLY said he told people 6.30 on trial which every witness said was untrue, the vast majority of witnesses put the time later. They never mentioned the time given by neighbours to Alan so I guess hadn't questioned them about it yet...

Alan was nowhere near the street when the 6.30 bells chimed. Alan told Metcalfe the police would not accept 6.45 on Wilkes - the segment Rod deleted, probably something in that section he didn't like because there was probably something in it discrediting his ides. Before even doing tests or having alternate statements they said he must mean 6.35. So they were actually trying to prove 6.45 wrong.



Just like Roland Oliver proved some of the cops were jogging for the tram based on the time and distance.

30 seconds to deliver milk and pick up the empty ones. Lol. Well that's already unfortunate because with that time and distance even 30 seconds is pushing him into jogging territory.

I didn't take my site down (I would never delete something that took me about literally 30+ hours of work to do), but on the topic of Rod though........ Well....... I could go utterly BALLISTIC when I contact my host depending on what they tell me. Like I will def get banned I will go psychotic if something specific has happened.

I won't accept it because I won't accept proven false facts and I won't accept them being propogated like it's true. Even when arguing for his guilt I used the accurate arrival time not the BS one. I will NEVER accept BS facts.

I know he said 6.30 at court, I know the "accurate reconstruction" where he was jogging with the milk was 5 and 6 minutes. But I know there is enough proof including mathematical proof that the time is bunk.

Do you have Netflix? Police being gung ho to convict someome is a popular documentary topic.

You're LITERALLY just believing what you want to believe. But the thing is, in this case evidence can be found for both sides so people can be COMPLETELY irrational like Rod and STILL feel like they're being rational by skewing the evidence with duality to be all one way... Due to the duality of evidence anyone can do this.

And this is happening here

That's why writing my "Murder Story" part was SOOOOO difficult (not the solution part), because I had to try SOOOOOO hard to not accidentally influence opinions or use false facts (since different books etc. state opposite facts). I know 6.30 is likely bunk and I won't entertain it.

But yeah if I contact my web host and they tell me a certain something has happened... Well I can EASILY put it back online on some overseas host. But someone's life will be verbally ruined because I have a feeling about what happened.

Ok, so yet again, I’m unable to stay rational and unbiased but you of course are. Why is it that you don’t appear to believe that someone can hold a different and honest opinion to your own without saying that they aren’t being honest?

You've just said that 6.30 is likely bunk. Your own word...likely. Likely and definitely aren’t the same.

Can you prove that Alan Close wasn’t at Holy Trinity Church at 6.25 as he claimed? No you can’t.

the vast majority of witnesses put the time later

Again, what vast majority is this? Wright, Caird and Metcalfe were simply discussing what Close had said. They said 6.45, he said 6.30-6.45. And we know that Elsie Wright was completely wrong once. She said she’d seen Close at 6.40 which, according to you would have meant him getting to number 29 after 6.45 so if she was wrong then why do you believe her the next night?

Massive question....why do you dismiss the testimony of Florence Johnson who said that Close delivered the milk around 6.30? Was she lying too? And the Holme’s who said 6.30mor 6.35. Why are these dismissed? Why do you dismiss Wildman who puts the time earlier.

You keep saying that the reconstruction was proven mathematically unlikely. Again you use unlikely as opposed to definitely. Why get annoyed about stuff that’s only a matter of probability? You mention what Metcalfe said on the radio. Yes 50 years later without Close being around to respond. He could’ve said anything and we couldn’t confirm or deny it.

~~~

Id like to see any proof that Close’s time couldn’t have been correct. For a start, how could anyone else know how quickly Close walked? They couldn’t. How could anyone else know how long Close’s deliveries took? They couldn’t. So without Close how could they have accurately checked the timings? You simply cannot recreate unknown factors. So unless it was ludicrously out, like someone saying that Close walked 500 yards in 2 minutes I don’t see any massive issue here.

When I checked online about the distance done at average walking speed answers varied. The quickest said 4 minutes. The slowest said 8 minutes. The other 3 were in the 5-6 minutes category. Obviously people walk at different speeds - would you accept that? We don’t know how quickly Close walked - would you accept that? It’s not impossible, though of course I can’t prove it, that because he was late that he might have walked quite quickly - would you accept that possibility? Close said that the milk for his deliveries was waiting for him on the counter so he could very easily have just walked in and out in 10 seconds or even less - would you accept that possibility? He said that for his delivery in Letchworth Street he just knocked and handed over some milk. There was no talk of waiting for the customer to open the door for any length of time so this might very easily have taken 30 seconds - do you accept that possibility? In Richmond Park he simply put milk bottles in the garden. Ten seconds - Do you accept that?

I haven’t stretched believability here or lied or bent any facts. So Close’s three tasks on the way to number 29 might easily have taken less than a minute. Leaving him 5 or 6 minutes to walk the route. How is this unbelievable?

Ive never used BS facts. And I also don’t state opinions as fact. Could there have been a difference between the reconstructed times and the actual ones? Of course their could. Close could have unwittingly walked quicker during the reconstruction. The police might have nudged him along who knows. But if the police got him to change his time how much did they get him to change it by? 5 minutes wouldn’t have achieved much in terms of establishing guilt so what about these so called reliable witnesses who said that Close said 6.45? For them to have been correct then Close and the police would have shaved a whole 15 minutes from the time. How could anyone believe that a possibility?

~~~

If the issue on the site is down to you-know-who then I won’t ask about it WWH. I hope that you resolve any issues. Despite our disagreements you’ve done a brilliant job of putting it together.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This would not be possible because allegedly they took out all money from the home whenever they both left the house together.

I don't think the man was posing as Qualtrough. He might do, but they could not rely on her knowing the name. Only that her husband had gone out on business.

I think they could have done it in other ways though, like pretending to be someone entirely unrelated to said business.

Sorry, I got the Qualtrough part wrong with your theory.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Yes I said likely because it's not a fact but it's getting to a point beyond rationality to use it. Elsie I'm not relying on the time she saw Alan, she guessed how long she spent chatting to someome at the door after the bells. I am going by the bells which are VERY conveniently for us chimed at 6.30 and this was at least some minutes before she saw Alan.

That is an incredibly salient timestamp more reliable than any glance at a clock. I think you're more likely to recall where you were when you heard bells chime as opposed to exactly where the hands on a clock face had been pointing. Especially the neighbours because why exactly do they have reason to take note of the exact time someone knocked on the neighbour's door? At least with employees they're "on the clock" and have more reason to do so.

6.30 is simply bunk. The probability is exceptionally low, compared to alternatives, and to use it is to skew anything with any sort of duality to all be in one direction.

As an example, the suggestion that if phone cons were common for burglars like Dorothy Sayers suggested, someone said that makes it more likely he's guilty because surely he did it to exploit that. To suggest that makes him more guilty is of course ridiculous. But this is how people review this case, it's always through a lens.

I get it too, you're certain he killed his wife and that certainty allows you to bend probabilities because obviously the end result is fixed in stone. So even if there's 0.00001% chance he crossdressed as his wife, for people with even STRONGER convictions like Hemmerde, that miniscule probability becomes PROBABLE because anything that explains the end result must be the answer.

I think the shield idea is bunk, I think the idea he wore it is bunk. I reviewed this carefully. It was not used in that manner because to get in the flames lest it caught on the skirt is highly improbable... Furthermore, the obvious and safer option would be to discard all of his clothing and change.

The kitchen fireplace was on. Why would he rely on a jacket and sheer luck to get away with it when he can just dispose all of his clothing and then there's no element of reliance on luck bar having to wash his hair and face to go out in the SAME clothes. Apparently he can get rid of weapons (maybe).

Clearly the jacket was not used in the way we expect. Clearly I think Julia has had it on her, in her hands (say handing it to William), round her shoulders, something along those lines. Or it was used after the fact to douse flames or who knows what.

I don't think the shield idea holds water compared to other ideas. I don't get it either... In the Man from the Pru movie the cops suggested it's a red herring to confuse them because he changed clothes anyway. I agree he would change. It would be insane not to.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Sorry, I got the Qualtrough part wrong with your theory.

Regarding the name, I think the blatant answer is that the name is used to either have William recognize it, or to be able to frame someone if it goes bad.

To be randomly by chance the name of a carpentry shop seems peculiar. To even use a weird name is peculiar and unnecessary.

The fake address is not beneficial for anyone and it makes me wonder if it's a mistake. As does William saying West but there are so many reported variants of that conversation with Beattie that I don't know what to believe.

So I wonder if it was made up on the spot. The caller perhaps knowing he needs to give some client name and that's the one he thinks of. The 21st birthday seems blatantly improvised to me, so perhaps the name too. I see some possibility at least.

Neither a fake address nor a fake name are necessary for the creation of an alibi. In actual fact, if his plan hinges on impossible timing he doesn't NEEEEED the call at all. It's definitely helpful but it's not vital. On the other hand the weird name and fake address are damaging to his case. It actually funny enough makes more sense for a burglar because they want him out for an extended period and they might stupidly believe this was a smart way to do it.

William doesn't NEED to be out so long unless he has a hitman. 2 hours is way longer than is actually necessary. His alibi apparently hinges on impossible timing - how he could get out of the house blood free in such a short time. He doesn't need so many alibis, he needs one to show roughly when he left his house, and one when he gets to the address, then return home and find he can't get in or w.e... Tell me, do you really think his alibi would be weaker or STRONGER if he only spoke to that conductor on the first tram, Mather at 25 MGW saying maybe there's been a mix up, walked to North and South, went into the post office for a directory then went home.

No longer looks like alibi mongering. But he displayed similar behavior on his quest for "K Boots".

The fact the street address and client name is wrong is one of the few minor pointers against William because we know he had problems with names, addresses, and dates (he thought it was 1930 fgs). I'm not sure the errors were on purpose. It's not the fact that they're fake being beneficial, but moreso him being likely to accidentally get them wrong.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes I said likely because it's not a fact but it's getting to a point beyond rationality to use it. Elsie I'm not relying on the time she saw Alan, she guessed how long she spent chatting to someome at the door after the bells. I am going by the bells which are VERY conveniently for us chimed at 6.30 and this was at least some minutes before she saw Alan.

That is an incredibly salient timestamp more reliable than any glance at a clock. I think you're more likely to recall where you were when you heard bells chime as opposed to exactly where the hands on a clock face had been pointing. Especially the neighbours because why exactly do they have reason to take note of the exact time someone knocked on the neighbour's door? At least with employees they're "on the clock" and have more reason to do so.

This is blatantly selective. Exactly the kind of thing that you persist in accusing me of. How can you make a statement like - what reason did the neighbours have to check the time? They could have had any number of reasons. A pretty obvious one is this “it’s nearly half past six. The milk boy is late today.” And yet you prefer to believe a child on hearing bells! If you compare likelihoods Mr Johnston beats Elsie Wright every single time.

6.30 is simply bunk. The probability is exceptionally low, compared to alternatives, and to use it is to skew anything with any sort of duality to all be in one direction.

No it’s not. You have to assume dishonesty by the police without evidence. Perhaps it was after 6.30 but the evidence points well away from 6.45. And if it wasn’t 6.45 then Caird, Wright and Metcalfe were lying or mistakenwhich is the likeihood.

As an example, the suggestion that if phone cons were common for burglars like Dorothy Sayers suggested, someone said that makes it more likely he's guilty because surely he did it to exploit that. To suggest that makes him more guilty is of course ridiculous. But this is how people review this case, it's always through a lens.

No it’s not. It makes it possible not likely. The chances of a coincidental prank call resulting in a murder plan is so vanishingly small as to be unworthy of real consideration.

I get it too, you're certain he killed his wife and that certainty allows you to bend probabilities because obviously the end result is fixed in stone. So even if there's 0.00001% chance he crossdressed as his wife, for people with even STRONGER convictions like Hemmerde, that miniscule probability becomes PROBABLE because anything that explains the end result must be the answer.

Why is it that because I believe it likely that Wallace was guilty then I can be accused of bending probability and yet you, who believe him innocent, are allowed to paint yourself as a paragon of impartiality? I evaluate every circumstance based on real logic and a fair balance. I’m not the one who keeps performing logical contortion to keep defending every single suspicious or unbelievable thing about William.

I think the shield idea is bunk, I think the idea he wore it is bunk. I reviewed this carefully. It was not used in that manner because to get in the flames lest it caught on the skirt is highly improbable... Furthermore, the obvious and safer option would be to discard all of his clothing and change.

Rubbish. I’m getting tired of this. The shield is bunk but it’s perfectly ok to suggest Julia the cross dresser. Someone that can’t be bothered to reach a further 6 inches to pick up her own coat. Or that she was so cold that she put a coat around her shoulders and yet just a short while ago she went outside in the actual cold without a coat. Or we have to come up with another contortion to get the coat beneath her. Or we have to come up with palpable nonsense about killers bolting doors or switching off lights. Or that you fail to recognised the least likely robbery scene ever. Or you happily quote the 4 people that give the Wallace’s marriage a lukewarm thumbs up but conveniently dismiss the four people who tell us the opposite. Or you ignore the blatant lie about being a complete stranger. The list of convenient excuse making and turning blind eyes is fairly nonending.

The kitchen fireplace was on. Why would he rely on a jacket and sheer luck to get away with it when he can just dispose all of his clothing and then there's no element of reliance on luck bar having to wash his hair and face to go out in the SAME clothes. Apparently he can get rid of weapons (maybe).

Exceptionally poor logic. Wallace did have a brain. He knew that the police would search everywhere. He couldn’t stand there waiting for it to completely burn. What if the police found a piece of cloth in the ashes or a button? Game over for William. This is reasoning.

Clearly the jacket was not used in the way we expect. Clearly I think Julia has had it on her, in her hands (say handing it to William), round her shoulders, something along those lines. Or it was used after the fact to douse flames or who knows what.

Who knows what you say? But obviously you can’t accept any explanation that incriminates William. That it was used in the crime is transparently the likeliest explanation especially in the absence of a reasoned one. One that isn’t weird. Even William himself suggested it.

I don't think the shield idea holds water compared to other ideas. I don't get it either... In the Man from the Pru movie the cops suggested it's a red herring to confuse them because he changed clothes anyway. I agree he would change. It would be insane not to.

Nonsense. It’s the likeliest suggestion. By a mile

So here we are yet again. With you calling me dishonest. With you painting yourself as the only poster with integrity. The only one who can take a reasoned view of the case. You really need to review your outlook because discussion can’t proceed with such a bloody minded, blinkered approach with you stamping your feet every time someone disagrees with you. You’re being selective with your explanations. You are constantly bending over backwards to exonerate William and I believe that everyone can see it. You believe that a guilty Wallace is such an unlikely, stupid suggestion? Caz has written a book and she disagrees. Antony has written 4 books and he disagrees. Two nights ago a man that’s written 3 books congratulated me on my piece. Moste believes Wallace guilty as does Abby as does Josh. None of these people are gullible. None of them are idiots. None of them are so committed to Wallace that there opinions have been warped.

Taking a calm, reasoned, logical approach and casting aside all preconceptions or rumours Wallace stands alone as a suspect. Not game over guilty but the overwhelming likeliest. And yet you prefer to support a man that the actual evidence shows played no part in the nights events.

[caz]

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

Agreed. But you are still missing my point and I don't know why, unless it's related to your difficulty with the chess club notice board [which must have been a piece of cake for the members to interpret, or what would have been the bloody point of it? ].

Let me spell this out one more time. If guilty, Wallace only cared about the milk boy's departure time, and whether it still allowed him to whack Julia and get out of the house at a time that would not look suspiciously late for a 7.30 appointment at an address he had never heard of [he already knew it didn't exist, so he couldn't claim otherwise] and therefore didn't know how to find.

But - assuming he was innocent, and Close had arrived at a quarter to seven, the same time as Wallace gave the Johnstons for his own departure, it's very hard for me to see how he could possibly fail to have recalled, when first quizzed by the police, the milk boy seeing and speaking to Julia just as he was about to leave for his appointment, leaving him with no time at all to have murdered her.

My conclusion, therefore, is that regardless of who committed the murder, the milk boy did not arrive as late as 6.45.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

It's delusional.

Time for some anger management, WWH? You must realise it's terribly unbecoming to make personal comments about another poster's state of mind just because you don't see things in the same way.

People who plan to commit murder are still human and fallible, and depend on everyone around them, including themselves, not to spoil the plan, before, during or after the event. Wallace very nearly hanged because his behaviour was considered downright suspicious, so if he was guilty he made a lot of mistakes, but emerged a winner in the end thanks to every criminal's most dependable chum, reasonable doubt.

The idea that Wallace would have risked involving Parry [or anyone of his ilk], in a plan to murder his wife, and later try to throw him under the bus, when he had a solid alibi for the murder and could not be connected with the phone call, is a real non-starter as far as I'm concerned. But it is your absolute right to believe otherwise, and to take it as far as you can.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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?

There are no stupid questions, Abby, only stupid answers.

It's a great question. Qualtrough clearly knew where Wallace lived. He apparently knew where the cash box was kept and when it was likely to contain a decent amount of money. He was even prepared for Wallace's wife to be at home. He made a point of finding out when Wallace was next due to play chess. He almost certainly knew - or could have found out - the working hours Wallace kept. There was never any need in this case for a bogus telephone message to lure Wallace away, and risk attracting suspicion to "Qualtrough" as one of the few people who would have known this much about the victims. Assuming the caller already knew Wallace's routine, when he generally went out - for business or pleasure - and for how long, he could simply have picked one such occasion to suit himself and made it look like a random, opportunist crime by someone who had simply seen Wallace leave the house.

But then, nobody knew as much about Wallace as Wallace himself, so while he couldn't avoid the suspicion that he was Qualtrough, by making that call himself he'd have an excuse to be out for a couple of hours at someone else's behest, on the evening he planned to kill Julia, while giving the police an alternative suspect to track down and investigate. The advantages of this, if Wallace was the caller and killer, are fairly obvious. Not so for anyone else making that call, who would inevitably put himself at a disadvantage, as one of Wallace's known associates, by running the very real risk of being identified as Qualtrough. Where were the advantages of this cunning plan for any other Qualtrough? I can't see any.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

This would not be possible because allegedly they took out all money from the home whenever they both left the house together.

This would not be possible because allegedly... ?? Do you even read what you write, WWH?

Firstly, who is the source for this alleged practice of taking all their money with them whenever they left the house unoccupied? Is the source reliable? If it was Wallace himself who originated this claim, the answer has to be no, he is not a reliable source. He was the murder suspect, claiming to be an innocent victim of a ruse to get him out of the house so it could be burgled while his wife was home alone. So he would say that, wouldn't he?

Secondly, even if it was true, how the hell would a burglar have got hold of this information? It's not something Wallace would have advertised before the murder, is it?

Thirdly, any burglar who could have got the simple, unquestioning Wallace out of the way that easily, and bashed his wife over the head in his absence, would have had considerably less trouble mugging the couple as they left the house with all their cash. IF he knew that was their habit.

Fourthly, if Wallace thought his wife might be out posting a letter when he returned from the fool's errand, did he seriously expect her to have taken all their cash to the post box with her, rather than leave it in an empty house?

This really cannot be an argument for a burglar needing Julia to be at home.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

As an example, the suggestion that if phone cons were common for burglars like Dorothy Sayers suggested, someone said that makes it more likely he's guilty because surely he did it to exploit that. To suggest that makes him more guilty is of course ridiculous. But this is how people review this case, it's always through a lens.

Hi WWH,

As an example of what, exactly? Twisting what 'someone' actually said? If you were referring to me, this is what I actually wrote:

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.

That's all. A pretty innocuous and perfectly reasonable observation to make, I would have thought. Certainly no worse than suggesting a burglar might have used this well-known trick to lure an innocent husband away while his wife was left alone in the house minding all their cash.

I said nothing about it being 'more likely' that Wallace was guilty because 'surely' he did it to exploit the trick. I said nothing to suggest that makes him 'more' guilty. That would indeed have been a ridiculous thing to write. But I didn't write it. You did. So this is not how 'people' review the case. If it's an example of how you read people's posts, you need a stronger lens and some decent lens wipes.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

So did Parry play any part at all in the events of the Tuesday night? Let’s look at possibilities and likelihoods without assuming without evidence that witnesses lied.


Parry finished work at 5.30 and went straight to the Brine’s at 43 Knocklaid Road. Present where Olivia Brine, her 13 year old daughter Savona. Her nephew Harold Dennison and a Miss Plant arrived during the visit and all 4 of them said that Parry left at around 8.30. Parry said the same. We have zero reason to question this so it’s reasonable to use 8.30 (with a fair give or take of a couple of minutes either way) Even if, at this point, he’d have zoomed around to Wolverton Street he’d have arrived a mere 10 minutes before William got home and, as Julia knew him well, he couldn’t have even hoped to have stolen the cash without her knowing so we would have to propose that he’d dashed round there just to murder Julia. So reason tells us that we can discount Parry as the murderer.


Now, according to Parkes (and he’s one of the main reasons for Parry being connected to the crime) Parry said that the mitten would have gotten him hanged. But we know that he didn’t kill her. The implication is that Parry and the killer were connected and that they had met up sometime that evening. The question is...when?


Now it’s unthinkable that Parry met up with his accomplice at the accomplices home because, to fit in with Parkes, we need a bloodied accomplice with the incriminating mitten in Parry’s car. So they would have met somewhere close to the time of the murder. So when would the killer have killed Julia. Logic tells us that it would have been closer to 7.30 but we have to be fair and say that it might have been 8.00. 8.30 for example would have been unlikely in the extreme because it was conceivably have been a time that William might have returned if he’d have given up his search earlier. So let’s say that the killer left number 29 at 8.00 (I’d still say earlier though) He’s hardly going to walk miles so it’s very probable that at 8.10 at the latest he’s waiting for Parry.


The first and very valid question of course is why did Parry stay at the Brine’s until 8.30 when this was simply a social call and he could have left at any time?


Not only that but Parry then goes to the Maiden Lane Post Office for cigarettes and a paper. He then goes down to West Derby Road to Hignett’s to pick up his accumulator battery. We have no evidence that the police checked these alibi’s but that doesn’t mean that they didn’t (they exonerated him after all) But those two alibi’s were there to be checked. So those two stops including travelling/parking etc must have accounted for say 15 minutes. We might be generous and say 10. He then went to the Williamson’s where he stayed around 10 minutes. Then he got to his girlfriends, according to her at 8.30-9.00 though she felt nearer to 9.00. So based on what else he did 9.00 is reasonable. So there is close to no chance (it’s tempting to say absolutely certain) of Parry going to meet an accomplice.


Parry stays at the Lloyd’s until 11.00pm. So could he have met up with his accomplice at say 11.10? Remember, this is a whole 3 hours after the murder! Very obvious questions...

1. Is it at all likely that the killer would have been wearing the same bloodied clothing?
2. Is it at all likely that his clothing would have been wet with blood so that he’d need to get his car washed inside?
3. Is it at all likely that the killer, in that 3 hours, wouldn’t have disposed of the incriminating mitten?

So did Parry play any part at all in the events of the Tuesday night? Let’s look at possibilities and likelihoods without assuming without evidence that witnesses lied.


Parry finished work at 5.30 and went straight to the Brine’s at 43 Knocklaid Road. Present where Olivia Brine, her 13 year old daughter Savona. Her nephew Harold Dennison and a Miss Plant arrived during the visit and all 4 of them said that Parry left at around 8.30. Parry said the same. We have zero reason to question this so it’s reasonable to use 8.30 (with a fair give or take of a couple of minutes either way) Even if, at this point, he’d have zoomed around to Wolverton Street he’d have arrived a mere 10 minutes before William got home and, as Julia knew him well, he couldn’t have even hoped to have stolen the cash without her knowing so we would have to propose that he’d dashed round there just to murder Julia. So reason tells us that we can discount Parry as the murderer.


Now, according to Parkes (and he’s one of the main reasons for Parry being connected to the crime) Parry said that the mitten would have gotten him hanged. But we know that he didn’t kill her. The implication is that Parry and the killer were connected and that they had met up sometime that evening. The question is...when?


Now it’s unthinkable that Parry met up with his accomplice at the accomplices home because, to fit in with Parkes, we need a bloodied accomplice with the incriminating mitten in Party’s car. So they would have met somewhere close to the time of the murder. So when would the killer have killed Julia. Logic tells us that it would have been closer to 7.30 but we have to be fair and say that it might have been 8.00. 8.30 for example would have been unlikely in the extreme because it was conceivably have been a time that William might have returned if he’d have given up his search earlier. So let’s say that the killer left number 29 at 8.00 (I’d still say earlier though) He’s hardly going to walk miles so it’s very probable that at 8.10 at the latest he’s waiting for Parry.


The first and very valid question of course is why did Parry stay at the Brine’s until 8.30 when this was simply a social call and he could have left at any time.


Not only that but Parry then goes to the Maiden Lane Post Office for cigarettes and a paper. He then goes down to West Derby Road to Hignett’s to pick up his accumulator battery. We have no evidence that the police checked these alibi’s but that doesn’t mean that they didn’t (they exonerated him after all) But those two alibi’s were there to be checked. So those two stops including travelling/parking etc must have accounted for say 15 minutes. We might be generous and say 10. He then went to the Williamson’s where he stayed around 10 minutes. Then he got to his girlfriends, according to her at 8.30-9.00 though she felt nearer to 9.00. So based on what else he did 9.00 is reasonable. So there is close to no chance (it’s tempting to say absolutely certain) of Parry going to meet an accomplice.


Parry stays at the Lloyd’s until 11.00pm. So could he have met up with his accomplice at say 11.10? Remember, this is a whole 3 hours after the murder! Very obvious questions...

1. Is it at all likely that the killer would have been wearing the same bloodied clothing?
2. Is it at all likely that his clothing would have been wet with blood so that he’d need to get his car washed inside?
3. Is it at all likely that the killer, in that 3 hours, wouldn’t have disposed of the incriminating mitten?
4. Consequently is it at all likely that Parry would have then waited until the early hours of the morning before deciding to go and incriminate himself with Parkes. Was this the same man that planned this whole caper?!

Am I being illogical, unreasoned or biased here. Or have I assessed the know facts, even giving Parry the benefit of leeway on timings? What does this overwhelmingly show? It shows that Richard Gordon Parry played no part in events of the night of the murder. So if the evidence points away from any involvement on the Tuesday evening (and as a consequence Parkes testimony is unreliable to say the least) then what do we have to link Parry to the crime? We have the suggestion that Parry was the likelier type of person to have made the call. We we have the fact that Parry knew Wallace’s habits and home. And we have William’s detailed biography of him given to the police.


Taken as a whole there’s nothing tangible. And yet this man is constantly proposed. Why? If we pick away there’s very little there. In fact the actual evidence (the events of Tuesday evening) point strongly away from any involvement. No contortions, leaps of faith or excuses are required. Just the known facts.

Am I being illogical, unreasoned or biased here? Or have I assessed the know facts, even giving Parry the benefit of leeway on timings? What does this overwhelmingly show? It shows that Richard Gordon Parry played no part in events of the night of the murder. So if the evidence points away from any involvement on the Tuesday evening (and as a consequence Parkes testimony is unreliable to say the least) then what do we have to link Parry to the crime? We have the suggestion that Parry was the likelier type of person to have made the call. We we have the fact that Parry knew Wallace’s habits and home. And we have William’s detailed biography of him given to the police.


Taken as a whole there’s nothing tangible. And yet this man is constantly proposed. Why? If we pick away there’s very little there. In fact the actual evidence (the events of Tuesday evening) point strongly away from any involvement. No contortions, leaps of faith or excuses are required. Just the known facts.