Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[WallaceWackedHer]

I think my memory is right, Antony's book which I checked said they used wood in this fire. This is quite interesting to me because this makes a lot more sense for a guilty person than the shield does. I would actually prefer that he be wearing it because at least then there is a good excuse that perhaps other garments did not fit him. But the idea of a shield for anyone, it would be a very silly idea indeed compared to other options, and if William thought this was a good idea then he was clearly delirious in his old age.

Would you not see how bad it would look if your own blood-soaked jacket was beneath the wife of the person you just murdered?

No "William might think" just I am curious would you not realize how bad that would look? I would most certainly, does everyone agree?

I admittedly know of many killers from marginally older times who just threw their clothing in a fire to destroy it and walked off. Others purposefully start house fires to try to cover up what they've done and destroy evidence. It's only because for example Lizzie Borden was seen doing this (not sure if it was a fireplace though, think it was something else) that anyone knows it happened (or the people involved confessed).

I just know that if I were personally going to kill my wife... Well first of all if it was back in those days where forensics weren't so bright, I'd probably chuck something over her head, bash her, then dip something in the blood and flick it at the walls.

I don't think everyone would have this idea... However I DO feel it is natural that you would feel safer relying on disposing of the clothing you wore completely, in comparison to using a shield of some sort.

We already sort of have semi-proof he wasn't working to beat the alibi clock by getting out "impossibly" soon after Alan left, and we know that because of the failure to mention the boy.

[moste]

Okay yeah I literally never would have known that without being told.

And no I think it is important. You know more about the operation of these things than me. If a fire burned in there for 2 hours would clothing remain recognizable as clothing or is it going to be ash.

I really think police forensics would know if any of the numerous materials used in clothing manufacture were present in ash form below the grate.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I really think police forensics would know if any of the numerous materials used in clothing manufacture were present in ash form below the grate.

But it would be ash is what I want to fact check? I severely doubt a cotton shirt for example survives a 2 hour blaze but I want to make sure.

Why are they going to specifically search the ashes of a fireplace in the kitchen when there's no reason to suspect him? That's the sort of thing they do when pretty deep into an investigation.

The second they saw his jacket they began to form some idea of his guilt. I think that is natural of course. I also think that you and I would realize it may look bad for us and cause us to become suspected if police turn up and our jacket is covered in blood beneath her...

Like I said I cannot possibly envision a worse thing he could have done other than go out wearing it or something lol.

The presence of a jacket might be diverting us (accidentally not by design) away from the real answer that would be much simpler and involve much less risk - which is to simply dispose of the shirt and trousers he's wearing. Should we not consider that? Especially when it is very common in murder cases particularly of the earlier part of the 20th century.

[moste]

Husband is always suspected, first. Now come on Sergeant! LOL.

[moste]

Husband is always suspected, first. Now come on Sergeant! LOL.

The better question I would suggest ‘ Why would Wallace leave for Allerton across town, without wearing his Macintosh? He was wearing it in the morning because of wet weather, and now, after dark ,and probably colder ,and quite possibility the chance of precipitation he wears his lighter non rain proof overcoat. Hhmm !

[moste]

That would be the question firstly on the minds of the police . I don’t think the fact that Williams’s mackintosh was under her body was as incriminating as perceived. A burglar screwing up, or a home invader intent on murder may well have utilized the coat.
As well as Wallace not choosing his Mackintosh, a quite incriminating situation is :why would anyone including Wallace ‘not use the garment to drastically reduce the blood mess ( I.e. throwing it over her head ,before the bludgeoning) The very fact that Julia was apparently , attacked by someone bent on seeing masses of blood letting to the point of spreading brains and bone everywhere, smacks of intense violence driven by passion and hatred, weighing very heavily against William in my opinion.

[WallaceWackedHer]

That would be the question firstly on the minds of the police . I don’t think the fact that Williams’s mackintosh was under her body was as incriminating as perceived. A burglar screwing up, or a home invader intent on murder may well have utilized the coat.
As well as Wallace not choosing his Mackintosh, a quite incriminating situation is :why would anyone including Wallace ‘not use the garment to drastically reduce the blood mess ( I.e. throwing it over her head ,before the bludgeoning) The very fact that Julia was apparently , attacked by someone bent on seeing masses of blood letting to the point of spreading brains and bone everywhere, smacks of intense violence driven by passion and hatred, weighing very heavily against William in my opinion.

You're saying it's not as incriminating as I think yet every single person to review the case including the prosecution believed that it is, and is in fact the ONLY physical evidence connecting him to the crime at all?

Incinerating or disposing of clothing that was worn makes much, much more sense and aligns with what actual killers typically do.

If you think leaving your own jacket soaked in blood beneath the body of the person you just killed is not incriminating then I probably wouldn't suggest you try to get away with a murder any time soon.

It occurred to me only briefly as well. Something like a week or two earlier William called Curwen reporting his wife was coughing up blood. It occurred to me as a slight possibility he had attempted to poison her hence this condition, but found it unreliable or not fast enough.

This doesn't mean I think he did it by the way - but it's a stronger proposition in my view. The shield idea is not great on many levels and him wearing it actually works a bit better from a logical standpoint (as in for example, it might be the only thing that adequately fit him).

The idea of a longer term hatred is less probable. The fact he cares about his wife only something like 4 weeks earlier, to the point of panic - and the fact it was corroborated, suggests a recent reason for motive rather than years of hate. I think that is reasonable.

[moste]

QUOTE: You're saying it's not as incriminating as I think yet every single person to review the case including the prosecution believed that it is, and is in fact the ONLY physical evidence connecting him to the crime at all?

How on earth does it connect Wallace with the crime? Just because the mackintosh belongs to Wallace and normally hangs on a hook in the hall is completely meaningless. How the coat was found and the condition it was in , points to absolutely NOBODY! Surely you can see that. Wallace had no reason whatsoever to reproach himself about his coat having been used. I believe him to have been guilty, but he knew full well that the coat gave the police nothing to work with at all (unless he had left in the pocket ‘note to self. Murder the Bi** before 6 45.’)

[WallaceWackedHer]

QUOTE: You're saying it's not as incriminating as I think yet every single person to review the case including the prosecution believed that it is, and is in fact the ONLY physical evidence connecting him to the crime at all?

How on earth does it connect Wallace with the crime? Just because the mackintosh belongs to Wallace and normally hangs on a hook in the hall is completely meaningless. How the coat was found and the condition it was in points to absolutely NOBODY! Surely you can see that.

If it points to nobody, please explain to me why from the very first moment police entered the scene they seemed to have been forming suspicions about him based on its presence, and why everyone since including authors and posters in this thread says that it could almost ONLY have gotten there if he's guilty. And how the prosecution case made such a big deal of it.

Is that what you're saying still that it points in no direction?

Would it not occur to you? Forget William, if you just killed someone wearing your own jacket as a shield, you wouldn't think it will look bad to then place it with the body?

If it truly points to nobody as you say, then you should suggest everyone stop using it as evidence, because clearly to find its presence condemning is wrong. It points to nobody in your view and you believe it's crazy to not see that. So I should expect such campaigning from now on.

WITHOUT the presence of the jacket there is NO physical evidence to connect the man to this crime in any way at all. It makes the case almost baseless- just a case built in statistics of domestic violence and oddball behaviour from a man who WAS in fact eccentric (his clothes even for the time were so old fashioned as to give him an appearance of eccentricity - at least that's what contemporaries have said - and the weird story about his hunt for boots, constant listing of hat size in diaries, etc).

For example one peculiarity - the checking of his watch with the officer - I know clients of his said he did this constantly but they weren't called as witnesses.

[moste]

If it points to nobody, please explain to me why from the very first moment police entered the scene they seemed to have been forming suspicions about him based on its presence, and why everyone since including authors and posters in this thread says that it could almost ONLY have gotten there if he's guilty. And how the prosecution case made such a big deal of it.

Is that what you're saying still that it points in no direction?

Would it not occur to you? Forget William, if you just killed someone wearing your own jacket as a shield, you wouldn't think it will look bad to then place it with the body?

If it truly points to nobody as you say, then you should suggest everyone stop using it as evidence, because clearly to find its presence condemning is wrong. It points to nobody in your view and you believe it's crazy to not see that. So I should expect such campaigning from now on.

WITHOUT the presence of the jacket there is NO physical evidence to connect the man to this crime in any way at all. It makes the case almost baseless- just a case built in statistics of domestic violence and oddball behaviour from a man who WAS in fact eccentric (his clothes even for the time were so old fashioned as to give him an appearance of eccentricity - at least that's what contemporaries have said - and the weird story about his hunt for boots, constant listing of hat size in diaries, etc).

For example one peculiarity - the checking of his watch with the officer - I know clients of his said he did this constantly but they weren't called as witnesses.

Well I will point your good self in the direction of the Appeal Judge ‘ Case against Wallace not proven’ He knew the Mackintosh wasn’t going to hang anybody!

[moste]

We’ll have to agree to not agree then on this one?
I take it then that your of the opinion now that Wallace was in fact guilty ?

[moste]

Quote: If it truly points to nobody as you say, then you should suggest everyone stop using it as evidence, because clearly to find its presence condemning is wrong. It points to nobody in your view and you believe it's crazy to not see that. So I should expect such campaigning from now on.

It wasn’t used as evidence of Wallace’s’ guilt It was an exhibit for the juries consideration I believe. I am not campaigning by the way so much as discussing I hope. Try not get heated.

[moste]

Heading for the’Great Room ‘and a few beers, maybe a couple of episodes of ‘Shameless’ LOL ...Laters!

[WallaceWackedHer]

Quote: If it truly points to nobody as you say, then you should suggest everyone stop using it as evidence, because clearly to find its presence condemning is wrong. It points to nobody in your view and you believe it's crazy to not see that. So I should expect such campaigning from now on.

It wasn’t used as evidence of Wallace’s’ guilt It was an exhibit for the juries consideration I believe. I am not campaigning by the way so much as discussing I hope. Try not get heated.

I'm not heated... On forums tone is entirely lost which is a shame. I'm often very passionate when talking about things I'm higly interested in - so heated moreso in that sense.

I get a bit "Christopher Hitchens" and start throwing out what probably seems like verbal beatdowns but it's not personal.

Anyway what you said here again, the prosecution immediately put forth the theory that the jacket had been used in order to protect him from blood splatter. That was the main crux of their case alongside the call being put through by himself.

The defence suggested that the killer did not use the jacket in this way and I think their suggestion is more probable.

I do not think William is guilty now.

But I have maintained that I think the suggestions of Waterhouse and Gannon are strong. I don't think he could do it COMPLETELY alone and there are MANY reasons including what to me - in a guilt scenario - looks like VERY obvious framing so he has a scapegoat to give the police.

I think the suggested use of the jacket does not make plausible sense. In the exact same way her falling into the fire from the armchair doesn't make sense. It's to do with positioning etc. and what would have to happen for things to turn out that way. It's also burnt quite significantly isn't it? Not just something minor...

Would a killer not realize he's on fire? Possible given the circumstances, but then the clothes underneath would surely be scorched a bit at the LEAST from the flames raging up a good portion of the jacket on top.

Holding it as a shield I like even less for a few reasons including the foolishness of using your own jacket which I don't believe many could overlook.

Along with the fact the idea of a jacket completely shielding the clothing underneath is a very unreliable one (and I'm not sure many people at all would feel safe relying on such a thing). I prefer that Julia either falls into the fire with the jacket (e.g. she's holding it bringing it to William in a guilt scenario)... Then it is much more obvious... And real life murderers often attempt to burn their clothing, Borden, Leopold and Loeb I mentioned - but it's a VERY common thing.

---

Without the jacket the theory of the prosecution does not exist. In terms of PHYSICAL evidence if is the sole thing they have against the man. And as I said they presented the jacket as the crux of their theory.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the question of risk for a guilty William we have to start from the point that William knows 4 things before he proceeds. 1. The method that he’s going to use to kill Julia. 2. That the method he’d selected, without taking precautions, would involve him getting covered, to whatever extent, in blood. 3. He would have a tight time frame to work with as he had to be elsewhere at a pre-arranged time, and 4. He couldn’t plan on doing anything time consuming after his return (because of the possibility of being seen on a return tram or being seen at the door by a neighbour for eg.)

So whatever he decides to do it has to be 100% done and dusted before he leaves for MGE.

If he decides on burning bloodied clothing in the kitchen stove then we know categorically that he cannot wait around until it burns completely because this might have taken an hour or more and so he would have been forced to have left the house with clothing in the stove still burning. As Moste has quite rightly pointed out these things can burn themselves out. Of course I’m not suggesting that this happens every time but William would, as a man of his time, would have known that it was a fair possibility (and not some 1000-1 chance either.)

So if this did happen to occur then William, on his return, would have to have to, a) start up the fire again, wait until the clothes burned completely, sift through the ashes to find and remove any buttons or zips, and then explain to the police why he’d taken so long to contact them after he’d been seen getting off a tram at x time or after Mrs Y had seen him at the front door. Or b) if the fire had burned out earlier and the ashes were cold when he got back then he’d have had to remove the partially burnt clothes (checking thoroughly for zips and buttons of course) and then found somewhere to dispose of them where the police wouldn’t have looked, and then explained to the police why.....etc, etc.

Why know that the police took the fire grate out when looking for the weapon. We know that they thoroughly searched the ash bin outside. Would William, after going to all the trouble of planning and executing a murder, have left his fate to an unforeseeable piece of police negligence? No one can assume this. Attempting to burn clothing would have been just about the most risky action that William could have taken under the circumstances. I think the idea can pretty safely be dismissed.

Obviously I believe that William used the mackintosh but if we, for the time being, ignore the practicality of doing this then just how risky was it for William having the police find his own mackintosh underneath his dead wife?

Firstly William would have been aware of, and would have weighed up the risks. Would he really have considered the mackintosh a deal breaker or would he have considered that other explanations might have been offered? Might he not have have thought “well if the police have the idea that I wore it how would they explain my face or legs having no blood?” Might it not have been suggested, as it has been, that Julia was using it? Or that she’d dried it in front of the fire? There are always risks but William was relying on other things to show his innocence. The tight timing, the lack of blood on him, the apparent lack of motive, his good character, the phone call, possibly even Parry or Marsden having no alibi?

Isn’t it strange that it can be said that, on one hand, the use of the mackintosh is such an outlandish idea and yet, on the other, it’s assumed that the police and a jury with think it fairly obvious, plausible idea?

If William had used something else, like a sheet or a towel, how would the presence of these be explained? Julia might have had equal reason for carrying William’s coat that she had for carrying either of these.

What if the only coat of Julia’s that was hanging up was of little more than waste length and inadequate for a 6’2” William?

As Julia didn’t go out as often as William what if her coats were kept upstairs in the front bedroom where she kept her clothes? (By suggesting this of course it might equally be used as a possible explanation for Julia not wearing her own coat over her shoulders?) There’s also might have been this line thinking that William might have considered? “Might the police not think ‘why didn’t he get rid of the coat?’ Or ‘why did he use his own coat in the first place instead of something else?’ ‘

There are advantages in looking back on a crime of course. We can come up with new ideas or consider previously ignored scenarios. One of the downsides can be trying to imagine why people did things or how they were thinking. We can end up imposing our own thinking. Therefore what seem like doubts to us might not have loomed large at the time. At the end of the day you can come up with alternative explanations for the presence of the mackintosh and they cannot categorically be dismissed but William wouldn’t have been able to explain away a piece of unturned cloth in the stove (especially if it had blood on it) or the presence of a button or two. Burning the clothing would have been suicidally risky. Leaving the coat underneath Julia’s body, making it look like she was carrying it at the time of her murder, was not.