Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[jmenges]

So here we are yet again.

And here we are, yet again, watching a Wallace thread.

JM

[caz]

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.

This is so far removed from my own thinking, I'm not sure we'll ever agree, WWH. But for what it's worth...

I'm not buying that Wallace coincidentally ended up with an address that didn't exist, by some freak accidental mix-up between two compass points, West and East, in the run-up to a crime that would supposedly be committed while he was away from the house trying his best to find the correct address and drawing a blank. That's asking too much. How many streets with West in their name didn't have an equivalent East? And how many people would have known about the absence of a Menlove Gardens East, even if they recognised the Menlove bit, unless they already had detailed personal knowledge of all the associated street names? Nobody at the club was likely to question whether that address existed, any more than Beattie thought to question if the caller was using his real name or normal voice. How likely was a simple hoax call, involving a real street name, chosen with no special significance in mind, to have evolved into such a bizarre set of circumstances by pure chance or a mere slip of someone else's pen?

Of course it was beneficial to Qualtrough to give a bogus address for a bogus journey, if it was designed for the sole purpose of keeping Wallace out of the house for as long as possible - whether it was so someone else could commit a crime with less fear of interruption, or so Wallace could claim there was ample opportunity for someone else to have done it.

But - and this is the big one - Qualtrough couldn't have made up just any old bogus address. He had to be a lot smarter than that. Why? Because a sea of blank faces at the chess club, including Wallace's, and a universal: "Never heard of it", if the address had been, say, 25 Front Bottom Crescent, would quickly result in Wallace having to check the directories and inevitably coming up empty. The message would be dismissed as a silly prank, or at best it had been garbled before reaching Wallace, making it anyone's guess what the correct address should be. With no way to find out, and not even a clue about the direction he should take, Wallace would be stuck with 'er indoors the following night, with literally nowhere to go.

So Qualtrough must have planned this well - surely too well for Parry, if he is meant to have been stupid enough to blab to someone like Parkes after the event. But we know Wallace had visited the Menlove Avenue area on various occasions, on business and socially, calling on Crewe for example. If it took an observant person, who paid attention to detail, and took pleasure in uniformity, pattern and logic, to notice when visiting this area, that there was a Menlove Gardens West, North and South, but no East, might that person not be Wallace, and might he not have had that little anomaly stored in his memory banks, and been able to use it at a later date, when he wanted an address that didn't exist, but sounded like it did? That's why the non-existent Menlove Gardens East would have worked a treat, because anyone could point him in an appropriate direction to get him started, or advise him on trams to take, while not being able to help with a precise location. If some smart arses knew there was no such place, it would be put down to a simple mistake with the compass point, giving him three others to try and more time to kill [no pun intended] while doing it.

What I don't understand is how an innocent Wallace, who really was so unfamiliar with the Menlove Avenue area, that he knew he would be needing the tongue in his head to ask for directions and advice on the trams, because he didn't know where Menlove Gardens East was, or how to get there, could possibly have judged beforehand how long the journey might take door to door. His sole reason for leaving the house to start with would have been to secure some new business by impressing this Mr Qualtrough. I dread being late for any appointment, so I always double check the route and my transport options before working out what time to leave home, even if I know precisely where I'm going and how to get there. And I invariably allow myself much more time than I need and arrive too early. If I was insane enough to invite someone round to try and flog me life insurance [with a free pen thrown in just for applying], and the bastard turned up ten minutes late because he hadn't bothered to do any travel homework and had underestimated the journey time, I'd be seriously questioning if he had done any homework on my behalf to stop me being ripped off by his insurance company.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
What I don't understand is how an innocent Wallace, who really was so unfamiliar with the Menlove Avenue area, that he knew he would be needing the tongue in his head to ask for directions and advice on the trams, because he didn't know where Menlove Gardens East was, or how to get there, could possibly have judged beforehand how long the journey might take door to door. His sole reason for leaving the house to start with would have been to secure some new business by impressing this Mr Qualtrough. I dread being late for any appointment, so I always double check the route and my transport options before working out what time to leave home, even if I know precisely where I'm going and how to get there. And I invariably allow myself much more time than I need and arrive too early. If I was insane enough to invite someone round to try and flog me life insurance [with a free pen thrown in just for applying], and the bastard turned up ten minutes late because he hadn't bothered to do any travel homework and had underestimated the journey time, I'd be seriously questioning if he had done any homework on my behalf to stop me being ripped off by his insurance company.

Love,

This is the point that I don’t think authors on the case have have considered Caz (I can’t recall if Antony mentions it though) A journey of a 500 yard walk, 3 trams and then a walk of unknown length and Wallace allows himself 45 minutes! The more we think about it the more unlikely this becomes for any average person let alone the normally meticulous, weil-prepared William. If he’d have missed just one tram he could have left himself as little as two minutes. To find an address that, for all that he‘d allegedly known, might have been a 20 minute walk away.

Ive also previously questioned his Monday night journey. Would the meticulous, well-prepared Wallace really have left it so late as to have arrived at the club on the stroke of the match deadline, 7.45? On this occasion though Antony suggested that some engineering repair work that was going on might have affected the trams.

[WallaceWackedHer]

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?

Yeah well that's why I wrote allegedly, but also here we see the unbelievable extremity of bias. He can't possibly be telling the truth because he's OBVIOUSLY the killer. No alternative can even be considered. Therefore clearly his word is certainly unreliable.

It's insanely ridiculous.

If he didn't kill Julia then he may well be telling the truth, which then means the home can't be robbed if completely unoccupied.

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.

Do you realize that if Alan Close didn't give his statement then William would have been executed? That does require foresight on his behalf to realize the importance of it of course, which he may not have.

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.

Yeah it was a conglomeration, because another post said it makes it more likely he's guilty for not mentioning Alan, the person who prevented him from being executed. What you wrote is in the same vein. How can it be equally likely - if such a trick was practiced often (and I have searched newspaper archives and not found anything similar thus far) - that he did it, compared to the fact that someone else did?

The suggestions are not fair or rational, it's just coming from a place of assumed guilt with zero desire to even consider another angle. Everyone is basically Hemmerde, there will come a point when crossdressing William giving the jugs back to Alan is considered.

The whole idea start to finish, at least singulalry, is rather ridiculous - to imagine that people actually think in this way when planning a crime. And it DOES all come down to the fact he plays chess. Not even one book does not make mention of it, the judge mentioned it as the reason he's probably guilty, every contemporary publication, newspaper article, magazine, mentioned it... They have images of this Gary Kasparov tier man across a chess board from Detective Moore or whatever.

Actual genius high IQ killers like Leopold and Loeb , or chess masters, commit murders not much better than the average man.

What I can say is highly likely... Is that if William has killed his wife and did it alone, then a few things are highly probable:

1) Something that triggered this motive happened very shortly before her death. The diary entry about her being late home is corroborated, at this point he still cares about her being alive. The suggestion it's part of some con-job is evidently the less likely of the two.

2) He did not wear the jacket then dump it and walk out of the house, he disposed of his clothing (VERY easily done. VERY.) he killed her in an entirely different outfit.

3) There is no iron bar missing from the home, there is no poker taken away from the home. These items are big, their disposal is cumbersome, he would have to put them up his sleeve. More likely would be the use of a small blunt instrument, and more likely would be that the item would be wrapped in newspaper (or wiped down with newspaper, washed in the toilet, whatever), making its disposal entirely unnecessary OR far more trivial.

And furthermore... I think, if he said "West" when Beattie relayed the message, he was expecting West. Therefore, he made a mistake when giving the message by saying "East". It was unintended. And the "M" initial in R M Qualtrough may also be a mistake. In the same vein as his J Lays, Qualthorpe, Menlove Avenue West, 1931 letters dated 1930 (etc.) mistakes.

[WallaceWackedHer]

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.

Marginally, because you have neglected to mention that Lily Lloyd maintained until her death that the time she gave for his arrival at her home on Tuesday night was a lie.

It does of course require outright calling Parkes a liar, not even an exaggerator, lol. Which he may be.

If he's NOT lying, however, then it looks to me like either he's involved in some other unrelated crime and wants to get rid of this glove with some OTHER person's blood on it because there's no DNA back then and he knows he might be suspected, or, he's gone to pick up these items at a later time.

The Williamson's visit can be verified as true, one of them called into the Radio City show. The Hignett's visit etc. was NOT checked which is pretty bad when dealing with a known alibi-faker... Because Lily maintains she lied about the time he came to her house, I think maybe he picked up items at some time around then. I do not know why or how the killers kept the items... It might even be that they did what other housebreakers did - just chucked them in some bushes nearby and told Gordon to go get them and put them in a better spot... That is what I think may have happened with Maddie if her parents are guilty btw (due to the dog alerts in the hire car).

Parry is a "family friend" of William... William trusted him with insurance work even though he was a known crook (and a coworker had said as much), and remained friendly with him. Parry had given him a calendar something like a month earlier. An unlikely friendship, but clearly the two like each other... So if there is a "Mr. X" then he may well be a good fit... I do not much care about poking bears or whatever, it doesn't actually prove he's not the "Mr. X"...

If he had been pressed about his Monday night alibi that would have been helpful.

I also might be being a bit too fair about his visits to the Williamsons etc. In the past, killers or accomplices of killers have done very mundane things afterwards, like attending parties etc. and acting completely normal... But I think Gordon liked Julia and I think personally that he would not have acted that way naturally.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve just read through the Appeal Transcript regarding Close to see if Oliver had indeed proved the timing wrong. What we can prove is blatant sleight of hand on the part of Oliver. This is was he said:

My comments are emboldened.

“....he has to get rid of his empty milk cans and bring full ones out (failing to mention of course that Close said that these were waiting for him on the counter). He then has to come out into Sedley Street, turn to the left up Letchworth Street, where he has to ring a bell and leave some cans with milk and take away cans, and then go through Letchworth Street, drop his cans of milk (Oliver is blatantly adding another task here, Close had only one task in Letchworth Street)and deliver some in Richmond Park (conveniently making this appear like the previous door knocking delivery, as opposed to the much quicker task of putting bottles into a garden which is what Close actually did), then go up the little entry coloured red in Wolverton Street, round to the front of Wolverton Street, there ring Mrs Wallace’s bell and go beyond that, deliver another can and then come back and hand his can into the hands of Mrs Wallace. That is what he had to do in 5 minutes. ( No it’s not! The timings are based on arriving at 29 Wolverton Street. The delivering of milk to numbers 29 and 31 are just additions to add more tasks required within the 5 minutes. By doing so and by including waiting time he’s dishonestly added a minute to the time)

Nice piece of misdirection Mr Oliver. So much wrong in one short paragraph. And this is the Defence’s disproving of the reconstruction times. I don’t think so.

[WallaceWackedHer]

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.

I am indeed one of the only posters without bias. I originally thought he was guilty as you can see, I currently do not. It may be that at some point I again do... Actually I think only recently I considered he might be guilty and Alan made up his sighting of Julia to impress his friends which at the time was quite a good suggestion until I learned the boy on the doorstep next door saw Alan at the door with the door open, presumably waiting for milk jugs to be returned.

6.30 is bending probabilities, if you want to stick with it then fine, but you should know it's bending probability and very clear prejudice.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I’ve just read through the Appeal Transcript regarding Close to see if Oliver had indeed proved the timing wrong. What we can prove is blatant sleight of hand on the part of Oliver. This is was he said:

My comments are emboldened.

“....he has to get rid of his empty milk cans and bring full ones out (failing to mention of course that Close said that these were waiting for him on the counter). He then has to come out into Sedley Street, turn to the left up Letchworth Street, where he has to ring a bell and leave some cans with milk and take away cans, and then go through Letchworth Street, drop his cans of milk (Oliver is blatantly adding another task here, Close had only one task in Letchworth Street)and deliver some in Richmond Park (conveniently making this appear like the previous door knocking delivery, as opposed to the much quicker task of putting bottles into a garden which is what Close actually did), then go up the little entry coloured red in Wolverton Street, round to the front of Wolverton Street, there ring Mrs Wallace’s bell and go beyond that, deliver another can and then come back and hand his can into the hands of Mrs Wallace. That is what he had to do in 5 minutes. ( No it’s not! The timings are based on arriving at 29 Wolverton Street. The delivering of milk to numbers 29 and 31 are just additions to add more tasks required within the 5 minutes. By doing so and by including waiting time he’s dishonestly added a minute to the time)

Nice piece of misdirection Mr Oliver. So much wrong in one short paragraph. And this is the Defence’s disproving of the reconstruction times. I don’t think so.

This is irrelevant, it's to do with the distance covered in the time allotted. It's unreasonable. Roland Oliver dragging it out to make it sound long has nothing to do with the actual math showing the unlikelihood, along with Elsie's testimony which literally proves it was not 18.30 unless she's also lying or something.

Alan also did not see Julia when he rang the doorbell, he only saw her when she handed the cans back. So his sighting of her was when she came to the door to give the cans back before shutting the door on him. FYI.

[WallaceWackedHer]

If every single thing Alan did in addition to simply walking the distance he walked took just one minute, then 5 minutes would mean he was "walking" at 4.28 mph AKA an average jogging pace (between 4 to 6 mph). Jogging with his milk crates. 6.30.

Clearly reasonable... Clearly these tests were conducted fairly... Just lol tbh. Just. Lol.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I should have elaborated further on the shield idea. It is of course very silly, for the simple reason that he can change his clothes in all of 30 seconds if he really wanted to. How long does it take you to get dressed in the morning if you're late for work?

The crime scene can very easily be staged in advanced as you know. So the only thing he has to do is kill her and leave without blood that can later be found upon him.

What sane man, would hold up his OWN jacket as a shield (as opposed to say, using his wife's) then dump it at the scene, and walk out of the door wearing the same exact outfit, knowing that even the tiniest droplet of blood will prove his guilt? What sort of utter fool would not simply throw his shirt and trousers into the kitchen fireplace and put on a new pair?

Do you see how silly it is? Ronald McDonald the clown tier really...

Btw Tom Slemen has written 20+ books and thinks John Sharpe Johnston did it. Umad?

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is irrelevant, it's to do with the distance covered in the time allotted. It's unreasonable. Roland Oliver dragging it out to make it sound long has nothing to do with the actual math showing the unlikelihood, along with Elsie's testimony which literally proves it was not 18.30 unless she's also lying or something.

Alan also did not see Julia when he rang the doorbell, he only saw her when she handed the cans back. So his sighting of her was when she came to the door to give the cans back before shutting the door on him. FYI.

What? How can it be irrelevant when, to try and show that the timings were impossible Oliver is adding two extra things.

I haven’t disputed the fact that he didn’t see Julia until she returned with the milk jug. But the 5 minute time was based on Close arriving at number 29 and not on then going to serve Mrs Johnston and then returning to receive the jug from Julia. He’s just dishonestly added a minute onto the time required as well as dishonestly adding another task earlier on as well as dishonestly insinuating that the task in Richmond Park was a delivery where he had to wait on a customer when all that he had to do was leave bottles in the garden. So by doing this he’s implying at least another minute. So that’s a dishonest 2 minutes added deliberately to make the timing appear unlikely. He makes no other points on how he can ‘prove’ the physical timings were impossible.

This part can safely be dismissed. It’s there in black and white and so beyond dispute.

Onto Elsie Wright. Why do you place so much emphasis on the validity of her testimony? If she was correct in her timing then not only was Alan Close wrong but so was James Wildman and so was Florence Johnston and so were the Holme’s. All of whom were actually in Wolverton Street at the time. The evidence suggests that her testimony, based simply on hearing something, was wrong. And if she was wrong then why are we adamant that she was right about Close saying 6.45? Elsie Wright is therefore an unreliable witness.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am indeed one of the only posters without bias. I originally thought he was guilty as you can see, I currently do not. It may be that at some point I again do... Actually I think only recently I considered he might be guilty and Alan made up his sighting of Julia to impress his friends which at the time was quite a good suggestion until I learned the boy on the doorstep next door saw Alan at the door with the door open, presumably waiting for milk jugs to be returned.

6.30 is bending probabilities, if you want to stick with it then fine, but you should know it's bending probability and very clear prejudice.

Its shows an obvious weakness if you keep resorting to accusations of bias. I am not biased. In fact I’m one of the most cautious posters on Casebook as I’m always complaining about posters stating opinion as fact. You appear to now resemble Rod I’m afraid. You have a fixed idea and you therefore think that you must be correct because only you are capable of assessing facts impartially.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I should have elaborated further on the shield idea. It is of course very silly, for the simple reason that he can change his clothes in all of 30 seconds if he really wanted to. How long does it take you to get dressed in the morning if you're late for work?

The crime scene can very easily be staged in advanced as you know. So the only thing he has to do is kill her and leave without blood that can later be found upon him.

What sane man, would hold up his OWN jacket as a shield (as opposed to say, using his wife's) then dump it at the scene, and walk out of the door wearing the same exact outfit, knowing that even the tiniest droplet of blood will prove his guilt? What sort of utter fool would not simply throw his shirt and trousers into the kitchen fireplace and put on a new pair?

Do you see how silly it is? Ronald McDonald the clown tier really...

Btw Tom Slemen has written 20+ books and thinks John Sharpe Johnston did it. Umad?

Does this pass for logic?

He would then have the task of having to dispose of a shirt, a pair of trousers and probably a tie. You keep on with this silly idea of burning clothing. Why do you keep ignoring very obvious facts? Could he have stood around for half an hour or more ensuring that they had burned fully? Of course not? Could he have been certain of having enough time on his return? Of course not. Would he have had time on his return to sift through the ashes to ensure that nothing remained? No piece of cloth or button.? Of course not. The burning idea is a non-starter.

So now you are suggesting that ifWallace had used his wife’s coat he’d have been ok? For real? Would the police have said “gotcha” just because it was his coat? The suggestion is ludicrous as they couldn’t prove what it was doing there in the first place. This is elementary stuff. It’s very obvious. And you accuse me of being biased?

The fact that she didn’t wear it when she went outside plus the fact that it ended up underneath her plus the fact that her own coat would have been next to William’s make it extremely unlikely that she had worn it.

Could she have carried it into the Parlour for innocent reasons? No one has come up with anything plausible.

As Holmes said “when you eliminate the impossible whatever remains however improbable must be the truth.”

There can be almost no doubt that the mackintosh was used in some way by the killer. This is the only reasoned, logical suggestion. However inconvenient for some.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Btw Tom Slemen has written 20+ books and thinks John Sharpe Johnston did it.

Slemen’s theory is contemptible nonsense. A complete fabrication.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If every single thing Alan did in addition to simply walking the distance he walked took just one minute, then 5 minutes would mean he was "walking" at 4.28 mph AKA an average jogging pace (between 4 to 6 mph). Jogging with his milk crates. 6.30.

Clearly reasonable... Clearly these tests were conducted fairly... Just lol tbh. Just. Lol.

From Healthline:

“The average walking speed of a human is 3 to 4 miles per hour,”

From VeryWellFit:

“A brisk walking pace can be from 13 to 20 minutes per mile, or from 3.0 mph to 4.5 mph.”

Brisk - As in a lad who is running late and probably wants to be out with his mates.

Plus, using an online calculator 500 yards in 5 minutes is 3.41 mph. So even if we add on an extra and generous 100 yards to account for the tasks, we get 600 yards which is 4.09 mph. Which according to the above health sites is average walking pace according to one and brisk walking space according to the other. So where you get jogging pace from is rather a mystery?

Are we know trying to bend the laws of physics to prove a point? What next? Parry had the ability to slip into another dimension?