Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Before it’s suggested that I’m trying to ‘fit up’ Wallace again I’d like to draw everyone’s attention to this curiosity.

On his return, and when he opens the back door Wallace enters the house. This is a man who is very concerned about his wife’s safety, he couldn’t get in at first, the lights were off and in the kitchen he sees a cupboard door wrenched off. Start your stopwatches...I’ll give my estimated running times

Wallace’s crosses the back kitchen, through the middle kitchen to the door to the hall (yes, right next to the Parlour door that he ignores) - 10 seconds.

He walks up the 15 stairs. - 10 seconds.

Combine the fact that he knew that Julia had been ill with the fact that the Wallace’s bedroom door was directly at the top of the stairs and the fact that we know that he was in his bedroom before the lab (due to the order of lights seen by the Johnstons) Then we know for a certainty that Wallace went into his own room first and turned up the gas. 5 or 10 seconds.

I haven’t added any actions here or given William superpowers.

We have William putting the light up in his bedroom after being inside for 30 seconds.

So why did John Johnston say that the light went on in the middle bedroom after William had been in the house for a minute and a half?

Worse, why did Florence Johnston say that the light went on after he’d been in the house for 2-3 minutes?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another curiosity.

Mr Johnston said that he’d heard William call something around a minute and a half after the bedroom light had gone on.

So William turns up the light and sees immediately Julia isn’t there. He then checks the bathroom and his lab (flicking on a match to do so - seen by the Johnston’s) He then checks the spare room at the other end of the corridor then he goes downstairs. How long would this have taken? I’d say that even a minute would be stretching it out. Nearer 45 seconds for me. So after a minute and a half he’d surely have been in the Parlour and we know for a fact (from William himself) that he didn’t call out in there.

Even if we really slow him down and have him on the stairs when he called out why did he do so? He was 2 or 3 seconds away from the only remaining room to look in. Why didn’t he shout when he entered the house? Why didn’t he shout from the bottom of the stairs when Julia might conceivable have replied?

Do you ever get the feeling, with the events of that night, that things don’t add up?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Or that James Sarginson, a completely impartial locksmith who examined both locks minutely, said that anyone familiar with the rusty backdoor lock couldn’t have failed to have known that it just required a bit of effort to open. And that the lock couldn’t have been difficult on one occasion and then easy the next. And that Johnston said that when William actually opened the door he showed no great effort.

[WallaceWackedHer]

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?’ ‘

But this is essentially "I should make it look so much that I'm guilty that police will assume I wouldn't be that stupid and thus show me to be innocent", which is a hard line to accept.

Buttons don't survive fires I'm not sure where you get that part from, I've seen it posted a few times though. If you put a cotton shirt in a fireplace I wager it's gone within 10 to 20 minutes tops if there's a good blaze going... They also had gas fires but in either case I would bet money if I chucked a cotton shirt in a fireplace it's not surviving, not even the buttons. Albeit the buttons may take longer than 20 minutes.

The idea that putting your jacket (which you just used as a means to get away with murder) with the body, is LESS likely to occur to someone as risky than finding other means of disposal, is implausible. Would this not occur to you how bad it will look if you are in this situation? I'm wary of trying to mind read but I don't think anybody on the planet would not realize that it looks very, very bad for them.

A sheet or towel would look bizarre and could not be used. Where her coats were kept is rather irrelevant for the same reason as the timing taken to stage the robbery can be dismissed as a total of 0 seconds given things can be prepared at any point prior to the killing from 6.05 give or take.

There is evidence there was no desperation for a time alibi which we can almost prove by the neglect of mentioning Alan Close who did not even immediately come forward. Remember without Alan he could have killed his wife at any time from 6.05 PM until he left, as opposed to 6.35 or whatever it is. To make no mention of it shows he does not care or was not even aware Alan had ever arrived at all.

6.05 PM is worse for him than even 6.30 PM if he's hoping to be exonerated by timing alone. Clearly his alibi in his mind is not one reliant on timings which seem too tight. I think that has to be accepted...

[WallaceWackedHer]

Before it’s suggested that I’m trying to ‘fit up’ Wallace again I’d like to draw everyone’s attention to this curiosity.

On his return, and when he opens the back door Wallace enters the house. This is a man who is very concerned about his wife’s safety, he couldn’t get in at first, the lights were off and in the kitchen he sees a cupboard door wrenched off. Start your stopwatches...I’ll give my estimated running times

Wallace’s crosses the back kitchen, through the middle kitchen to the door to the hall (yes, right next to the Parlour door that he ignores) - 10 seconds.

He walks up the 15 stairs. - 10 seconds.

Combine the fact that he knew that Julia had been ill with the fact that the Wallace’s bedroom door was directly at the top of the stairs and the fact that we know that he was in his bedroom before the lab (due to the order of lights seen by the Johnstons) Then we know for a certainty that Wallace went into his own room first and turned up the gas. 5 or 10 seconds.

I haven’t added any actions here or given William superpowers.

We have William putting the light up in his bedroom after being inside for 30 seconds.

So why did John Johnston say that the light went on in the middle bedroom after William had been in the house for a minute and a half?

Worse, why did Florence Johnston say that the light went on after he’d been in the house for 2-3 minutes?

I don't believe these people had stopwatches. Albeit it seems lengthy and may suggest William was doing things (e.g. staging for example) in the house prior to making the discovery.

Did he put on the kitchen light, scullery light? The exact order of lighting would be important when considering time since these are gas lights and not simple flick switches. I suppose like the Sunbeam fireplace the gas tap has to be turned then a match struck and the lamp lit.

I would rather pursue actual proof of guilt like matters of the briefcase. Has literally no author ever mentioned it? No lawyer? No police case file? Why are they saying he removed items from the home and not saying a word about the most obvious and easy way to take things out. A bar up his sleeve really Mr. Hemmerde? Briefcase out and no case home = proven guilt beyond reasonable doubt IMO.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But this is essentially "I should make it look so much that I'm guilty that police will assume I wouldn't be that stupid and thus show me to be innocent", which is a hard line to accept.

Buttons don't survive fires I'm not sure where you get that part from, I've seen it posted a few times though. If you put a cotton shirt in a fireplace I wager it's gone within 10 to 20 minutes tops if there's a good blaze going... They also had gas fires but in either case I would bet money if I chucked a cotton shirt in a fireplace it's not surviving, not even the buttons. Albeit the buttons may take longer than 20 minutes.

I’ve mentioned buttons because I can remember reading of a crime where ashes were sifted and buttons were found. And so you’re just stating an opinion as fact. Some trousers were fastened with metal fasteners which would have survived a fire. Cloth can survive a fire. Paper can survive a fire.

The idea that putting your jacket (which you just used as a means to get away with murder) with the body, is LESS likely to occur to someone as risky than finding other means of disposal, is implausible. Would this not occur to you how bad it will look if you are in this situation? I'm wary of trying to mind read but I don't think anybody on the planet would not realize that it looks very, very bad for them.

My idea is not implausible. How reasonable and calm and logical do I have to be for you not to dismiss very, very obvious but inconvenient statements. That things survive fires is a demonstrable fact. That fires can go out if untended before burning everything is a demonstrable fact. That William couldn’t have waited until everything burned is a demonstrable fact. That he couldn’t possibly have done anything after he’d returned home is a demonstrable fact. Therefore it is entirely logical and reasonable that William, who was certainly not an idiot, wouldn't have even considered for second such a blatantly risky and also impossible to explain away idea. There’s very little in this case that I completely dismiss but burning bloodied clothing is one of them. It’s simply a non-starter and shouldn’t even be considered.

The idea that William’s coat was underneath Julia did not look very, very bad (or even just bad) for William. With one sentence “Julia might have been holding it when the killer struck” we have a possible explanation. And there are others. You are talking as if the police might just as well have slapped on the cuffs there and then. This was no great issue. If there was a pair of William’s socks underneath him would that have condemned him too with the police saying “he must have used them as gloves, take him in.” You are exaggerating massively at both ends.

The two just don’t come close to comparing. They are miles apart. Burning = obviously, stupidly risky with there being a high level of a loss of control over the outcome. Mackintosh = might be suggested that William used it as opposed to 3 or 4 other suggestions. But it doesn’t come within a thousand miles of proof of guilt.

You can explain the mackintosh but not anything found amongst the ashes. It’s this simple.

A sheet or towel would look bizarre and could not be used. Where her coats were kept is rather irrelevant for the same reason as the timing taken to stage the robbery can be dismissed as a total of 0 seconds given things can be prepared at any point prior to the killing from 6.05 give or take.

There is evidence there was no desperation for a time alibi which we can almost prove by the neglect of mentioning Alan Close who did not even immediately come forward. Remember without Alan he could have killed his wife at any time from 6.05 PM until he left, as opposed to 6.35 or whatever it is. To make no mention of it shows he does not care or was not even aware Alan had ever arrived at all.

6.05 PM is worse for him than even 6.30 PM if he's hoping to be exonerated by timing alone. Clearly his alibi in his mind is not one reliant on timings which seem too tight. I think that has to be accepted...

Absolutely staggering!!

The whole Defence Case is based on timing. Every theory exonerating William is based on timing. It’s the single issue that theorists have gone on about over the years. How could he have killed his wife at anytime from 6.05? He’d have known that the milk boy was due. He’d have known that Julia always took in the milk (as all women would have done in those days) What do you think would have been deduced if Close had said “oh, Mr Wallace took the milk in for the first time ever!” He could not.....and I couldn’t stress anything more....could not have killed Julia until Alan Close had gone.

Anyone can question the suggestion of using the mackintosh. Of course they can. But to say that it was more risky than trying to burn clothing! I’m struggling to believe that you’re being serious on this issue. It not even one worthy of debate. It’s obvious.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't believe these people had stopwatches. Albeit it seems lengthy and may suggest William was doing things (e.g. staging for example) in the house prior to making the discovery.

Did he put on the kitchen light, scullery light? The exact order of lighting would be important when considering time since these are gas lights and not simple flick switches. I suppose like the Sunbeam fireplace the gas tap has to be turned then a match struck and the lamp lit.

I would rather pursue actual proof of guilt like matters of the briefcase. Has literally no author ever mentioned it? No lawyer? No police case file? Why are they saying he removed items from the home and not saying a word about the most obvious and easy way to take things out. A bar up his sleeve really Mr. Hemmerde? Briefcase out and no case home = proven guilt beyond reasonable doubt IMO.

He lit the kitchen light but he didn’t mention lighting the back kitchen light. So one light. Mr Johnston 1.5 mins/Florence 2-3 mins.

Just number 97 on the list of suspicious things about Wallace to be ignored or excused.

[WallaceWackedHer]

You're doing the same as others. Stop talking about "William".

YOU have just murdered your wife, you did it using your own jacket as a shield, you then decide it's wise to stuff it down with the body.

Do you not think this might look bad for you? This is a premeditated attack you've carefully devised to kill your wife, this is the best you can come up with?

And you're being a silly goose with the timing again. William did not mention Alan. Alan came forward by sheer luck off his own accord, nobody had mentioned his arrival and he took something like a week to come forward.

If nobody knew Alan had been, then in the eyes of the law he had from 6.05 to kill this woman. He did not mention Alan, therefore he did not care about Alan. Therefore it's not vital to any alibi in his mind that Alan's timing be given. It's sheer luck.

You used this yourself when you thought he came at 6.30 to show that William failing to mention him helps prove his guilt or something. So you understand what I am saying exactly.

[WallaceWackedHer]

It should tell you something that so many murderers have attempted to incinerate their clothing rather than shove it beneath the body of their victim then say "yeah it's mine bro, guess she was holding it".

Why do you think this might be? Apparently it's obviously less risky to shove all of the evidence of what you used during the crime under your victim's body, so why do killers rarely do this very obvious thing?

I agree it's staggering and unworthy of consideration that I suggested someone might think it could look remotely bad for the killer, and that they might instead have done something thousands of real actual killers have done or attempted.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I think you might be wrong again by the way. It was a minute and a half after the light went up in the middle bedroom that he came outside according to John.

He called out to his wife at what John believes would be the top of the stairs, lit the light, then came out about a minute and a half later saying she's been killed. Florence's testimony is quite long but John's was easy to find so you might just be wrong again. This will need to be fact checked but there's a chance you're just wrong.

If not the weirdly long time could be time for fake robbery staging IMO. But on a preliminary scan it appears you're possibly wrong again so please show me what you refer to.

[OneRound]

Hi folks,

On the basis that Wallace did kill Julia, a couple of points on whether or not it would have been a good idea for him to try and destroy his mackintosh by burning it:

1. If any part of the mack had survived burning, Wallace would have been in very deep trouble as there's no reason anyone else would have done that. I think that's accepted although WWH is satisfied the mack would have been completely destroyed. Like others here, I'm not so sure that could be relied upon. I suspect the usually meticulous Wallace would have been of the same cautious view. Furthermore, it's not as if Wallace could have tried out burning macks at home to see how it went!

2. Even if it had been completely destroyed by fire, the police would surely have worked out that Wallace's mack was missing. After all, he wore it earlier in the day for his work visits. That would then prompt the police to probe where it was and, more importantly, who had got rid of it and why. Would anyone other than Wallace have a reason?

Best regards,
OneRound

[Herlock Sholmes]

You're doing the same as others. Stop talking about "William".

YOU have just murdered your wife, you did it using your own jacket as a shield, you then decide it's wise to stuff it down with the body.

Do you not think this might look bad for you? This is a premeditated attack you've carefully devised to kill your wife, this is the best you can come up with?

Not particularly. You are exaggerating the importance of this massively. Do you honestly believe that the police would have thought “it’s his mackintosh so he must be guilty?” Of course they wouldn’t. It would have been one of a number of possibilities. That’s all.

How do you think that William might have explained away some incriminating piece of clothing (perhaps even with blood on it) recovered from the grate? We can come up with alternative uses for the mackintosh but not for this.

And you're being a silly goose with the timing again. William did not mention Alan. Alan came forward by sheer luck off his own accord, nobody had mentioned his arrival and he took something like a week to come forward.

If nobody knew Alan had been, then in the eyes of the law he had from 6.05 to kill this woman. He did not mention Alan, therefore he did not care about Alan. Therefore it's not vital to any alibi in his mind that Alan's timing be given. It's sheer luck.

You used this yourself when you thought he came at 6.30 to show that William failing to mention him helps prove his guilt or something. So you understand what I am saying exactly.

I simply don’t understand your point. You’re the one that has been saying that Alan Close wasn’t important to William. Are you seriously suggesting that William wouldn’t have known that the milk boy was due? He didn’t usually go out in the evenings so he’d have seen Julia bring in the milk every night at the same time. It’s impossible that he couldn’t have known this. And so, very obviously he knew, absolutely 100% knew, that he couldn’t kill Julia until after the milk boy had gone.

Are you saying that you think that there was a chance, after a murder in which the victim hadn’t answered the door and collected the milk for the very first time ever, that William might have thought “perhaps the milk boy might not come forward?”

[Herlock Sholmes]

It should tell you something that so many murderers have attempted to incinerate their clothing rather than shove it beneath the body of their victim then say "yeah it's mine bro, guess she was holding it".

Why do you think this might be? Apparently it's obviously less risky to shove all of the evidence of what you used during the crime under your victim's body, so why do killers rarely do this very obvious thing?

I agree it's staggering and unworthy of consideration that I suggested someone might think it could look remotely bad for the killer, and that they might instead have done something thousands of real actual killers have done or attempted.

No it’s not wrong to suggest it of course. The problem is when you suggest this point over the unbelievably risky notion of burning clothes. If William had had a couple of hours to spare either before leaving or after he’d returned I’d say yes, why not. But with zero chance to check or to act if things didn’t go to plan, like the fire burning itself out before the job was done, or that he missed something in the ashes that the police later found.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi folks,

On the basis that Wallace did kill Julia, a couple of points on whether or not it would have been a good idea for him to try and destroy his mackintosh by burning it:

1. If any part of the mack had survived burning, Wallace would have been in very deep trouble as there's no reason anyone else would have done that. I think that's accepted although WWH is satisfied the mack would have been completely destroyed. Like others here, I'm not so sure that could be relied upon. I suspect the usually meticulous Wallace would have been of the same cautious view. Furthermore, it's not as if Wallace could have tried out burning macks at home to see how it went!

2. Even if it had been completely destroyed by fire, the police would surely have worked out that Wallace's mack was missing. After all, he wore it earlier in the day for his work visits. That would then prompt the police to probe where it was and, more importantly, who had got rid of it and why. Would anyone other than Wallace have a reason?

Best regards,
OneRound

Yes absolutely if they figured it was missing I think that would be rather condemning. Of course the man had multiple jackets, did not have to use that particular one (or even wear the intended one on the day or weeks leading up to this if it's so premeditated), and I am simply stating what real killers do.

Attempting to destroy evidence of bloodstained clothing, particularly by burning, is extremely common. I think this is why the prosecution also suggested he may have purposefully attempted to incinerate it.

What killers on the other hand don't tend to do, and what I'm sure you yourself would not do, is use your very own jacket like a shield, then leave it there with the body. I am quite positive nobody in their right mind would not see how this might implicate them. Usually if items belonging to the killer are left at the scene the killer is rather unknown to the woman hence it might not be identified.

I ask if YOU would do it, because it's always what "chess grandmaster William" would do, because of course he's able to pre-empt every possible move because he plays chess as a hobby, and as far as anyone else is concerned that means he is able to pre-empt so much as to be nearly impossible.

But for a non-chess player like me or you, is this going to seem wise? Nobody seems to want to answer that specific question lol. You have killed someone, you used your own jacket to protect yourself from spray (now this is mistake one but assume you've already made it), do you think it WON'T be incriminating or make you feel uncomfortable to just stuff it with the body?

[WallaceWackedHer]

I simply don’t understand your point. You’re the one that has been saying that Alan Close wasn’t important to William. Are you seriously suggesting that William wouldn’t have known that the milk boy was due? He didn’t usually go out in the evenings so he’d have seen Julia bring in the milk every night at the same time. It’s impossible that he couldn’t have known this. And so, very obviously he knew, absolutely 100% knew, that he couldn’t kill Julia until after the milk boy had gone.

Are you saying that you think that there was a chance, after a murder in which the victim hadn’t answered the door and collected the milk for the very first time ever, that William might have thought “perhaps the milk boy might not come forward?”

My point is this:

If Alan Close did not testify William has no alibi (not a time-based one at least).

In other words Alan Close is the absolute be all and end all of the impossible timing alibi.

In other words if this was the method of the alibi William would have said Alan was probably the last to see Julia alive apart from himself that he knows of.

In other words if he doesn't mention Alan, and Alan doesn't come forward, the police do not know that anyone had seen Julia alive after something like 4.30 or whatever (baker's boy, window cleaner? Something like that).

In other words if Alan never testified the police believe that William could well have murdered Julia at 6 PM and had a full hour to get dressed.

Failure to mention Alan means he does not view Alan as vital = his alibi in his mind does not rest on beating the clock by killing her and getting out in an impossibly short time frame after the milk boy comes.