Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Here's a new clue for you... Julia's own box of matches seems very out of place.

They're found on the table at the very back right of the room in the main "famous" crime scene photo of the parlour. There are two tables in that corner/side of the room, both have plants on them... Julia's matches are on the table at the farthest back.

What I want to know is... She's lit the lamp, right, then the fireplace, then sat in the armchair. What are her matches doing over there? Florence found them in this position.

Who put them there? Did William find them first and place them there?

He likely had his own box as when William entered the house he lit the kitchen, and lit a match in the threshold of the door, then the lamp on the right side of the mirror above the fireplace.

If Julia's been battered to death by the fireplace how have her matches teleported over there? If she put them there herself why? Why would you get up from lighting the fire then go put the box of matches on the opposite side of the room then go back to the armchair to the left of the fire?

Has someone else been using them? Did people back then keep their box in their pockets? I imagine they might as there's no electric switches and you'd want to be able to see when walking into a pitch black room. You'd probably need them a lot at night wouldn't you? So I wonder if they did.

The cushions on the lounger couch make it seem it was sat on. But could have been an officer who did that.

If so, wouldn't Julia put them back in her pocket after she's done lighting the fire and lamp? Then has the killer taken them out of her pocket? If her skirt is twisted and had a pocket and the match box is in there is this why it's twisted?

Why does the person need matches if they aren't going to light any more lights unless it's to illuminate the way as they move in darkness?

I am not sure. I think just this has been overlooked and needs mentioning for consideration.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Disregard the above it's another false fact. What is up with literally everyone even witnesses ******* up their own testimony?

Gannon claims she said originally in her original statement that she asked if it was HIS box of matches and he said yes, then just said something different on trial. Their placement matches with him having lit the lamp on the right of the mirror, because Julia's on the left I presumed if she'd set up the parlour they'd be in her pocket or on the left sideboard.

It's just unreal, not only do we have a century of rumours (often perpetuated in books) but also basically every witness themselves saying about 20 completely different mutually exclusive things.

Beattie gives about 1000 different accounts of what the caller said, Mr Johnston can't decide if he went to the police before or after William checked the cash box, Lily Pinches (well not much even needs to be said about that lmao, just read her testimony on trial, unreal), Lily Lloyd can't decide whether the guy she thinks was William is going down one entry or the complete opposite other.

William himself doesn't seem to know what's going on. The prosecution tells him he said "whatever have they used" and he accepts he said it when we know Florence did LOL.

Man...... Was everyone back then just on heroin or whatever like McFall?

The hunt goes on.

If it's William's box then where's Julia's? I would expect them to be taken away like the bar since the bar's removal signifies fingerprint fear. And the attacker would probably want a light source of some kind to navigate out of the home.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Right okay.........

I think I see what's gone on here, for real...

FIRST OFF another HUGE "error" by Gannon (not an error but just unproven claims given as being 100% certain): Marsden's "flu" alibi. There is NO statement saying that this is his alibi, he has made this assumption based 100% on a note that doesn't even say Marsden's name on that handwritten part. Just a scrawling on the side of Wallace's list of suspect names.

Now if you look at the page he makes this assumption based on, you can see why. It definitely does look like it's saying it's his alibi:



But then look just directly below that, another note - more in depth actually, but covers multiple names. Bamber, Albert Wood, Jenkinson etc... The way the lines are drawn there even the bottom alibi includes the end of the description into Marsden.

So it looks like it was his given alibi - but it's not a CERTAIN FACT, though it is now accepted as such.

---

Anyway I think I see what's happened here. I think I'm probably wrong and this - which incorporates my grandpa's idea is probably right. I feel I can't put this in any way that doesn't sound insulting (lol) but he has a criminal mind, and he was brought up in that sort of era. So he's been destroying me with ease on this case.

But anyway, I can forensically prove that the jacket wasn't used which is one of the vital pieces of evidence against William doing everything... I think what's happened is this...

---

1. First of all as I already mentioned about the chess schedule earlier, anyone can see when Wallace is expected, and CAN'T see when he hasn't been - because if someone doesn't turn it up, be it Wallace OR his partner, no letter is put by the number which makes it look like both failed to show using the logic provided by many authors about this chart. Furthermore - you can't completely exclude the possibility someone had tried on a prior date but saw that Wallace did not leave his house so did not make the call.

Right by the very publicly visible noticeboard is the door, and on it the phone number of the café.



Now on the night of the call, the 19th, you see that whoever called the club was near the house and knew his address. So you have to wonder why they didn't leave a note...

I think it's done on purpose for two reasons: First off because they don't want anyone or police in subsequent inquiries to know the caller knew where the address was (if Murphy isn't lying about the caller asking for the address - sadly it seems he is as per usual) - they'd have to consider the possibility of people who didn't know the address but were given it by Beattie - widening the suspect pool. According to Josh he thinks that's a crap suggestion but I like it so it goes here.

But importantly if it's a phone call, and this is Josh's suggestion which I think is probably correct and better than my own, it allows for the possibility of the message being a mix up which can then be used to gain entry into the home.

This is important. Because I think what's happened is they've got a stranger to go in there pretending he's there for the appointment telling Julia there's been some sort of mistake.

2. So roughly around the appointment time (probably just before) "Mr. Qualtrough" turns up for the appointment - claiming there must have been a mix-up in the taking of the message. Many authors have made what I think is a false leap of faith here in assuming the caller needed Julia to know the name to get in. I don't think so at all. I think even if she doesn't know the name etc. with the guy turning up around this time etc. and knowing about the call etc. it's probably going to fool her.

William's trip to/from the Gardens is about 20 minutes at the minimum isn't it. That's with insane luck and moving like Jack Flash. So if he'd turned up at the Gardens at 19.30 as requested, he's not getting home until past 19.50 at the absolute minimum.

The nature of the robbery is such that it's so stupid-simple it could be done in 5 minutes. They might turn up at say, 7.20 or something like that.

3. So because of the call as opposed to a note being used, this claim can be believed, and Julia lets him in. As with any stranger she takes him into the parlour of course. She sets it up as you would expect and sits herself down in the armchair.

The attacker has like many before me have suggested has made an excuse to go out the back into the kitchen where the cash box is kept:



He gets the cash box, probably hoisting himself up onto the cabinet thing there if he's a shorter man like average height back then.

But now tragedy strikes for this criminal: They open the box and find Ł4. LOL. Not all of it is even in useable money, some of it is in the form of a check.

4. This is where my grandpa made a suggestion, and I had to edit my own site etc. because I think I'm probably wrong and what he said is probably right...

I mean he asked me unprompted why there's only Ł4 in there, and then was like "how much should there have been?" and then was like "oh that's what's happened then isn't it". Lol. I mean I didn't know what he meant.

But he said what's happened is someone's gone in there expecting there to be a huge sum of money in that box, at least Ł20 etc. (and that's over Ł1,000 in modern money - and beyond that the cost of living was cheaper so that amount took you further than it would today), seen there's only Ł4, and thought the "rest of it" is being hidden by the Wallaces somewhere else in the house.

So they've opened up William's little photography cabinet there thinking it might be in there, but there's nothing, and become even MORE frustrated.

5. Because this is a stranger to Julia, he just outright confronts her and demands to know where they're hiding the "rest of the insurance money". The weapon was suggested by my forensics as being long - which doesn't seem like something a criminal would bring to commit a robbery like this, you'd expect something small and concealable... If Goodman is right that the bar was found, then he's taken the poker from the kitchen (the room where the cash box is) and gone back in there to threaten her with to give up the location of the hidden money.

Not only does HE want more money, but he's going to be worried about going back to Parry with Ł4, because Parry will think he's lying about that being all there was and probably beat his ass thinking he's pocketed the rest for himself. So it's two-fold.

There should be at the minimum of Ł16 more and she either refuses to tell him where more money is, or he doesn't believe her claim William was ill, so he cracks her with whatever weapon he was holding... She was apparently leaning forward in the armchair so it might even be that she was in the middle of getting up when he struck her... Actually that might even explain the lack fo defensive wounds which I find weird regardless of the attacker (the strike has come from in front of her and hit her on the front side of her head - I'd expect her to have seen it coming whoever did it).





(This is the position of the body after being moved by the way, not the originalposition).

6. Julia flops down, the attacker is soaked in blood.

But keep THIS in mind... Regarding footprint trails leaving the room, remember that blood doesn't pool instantly, he could still right now (until there's pooling he's stood in) walk around the home leaving no trail of footprints whatsoever.

He's standing there you must remember, holding what would be a large weapon soaked in blood, his hands probably bloodied, his face, clothes... There's nothing in that room you could easily use like a towel/rag. I thought that thing on Julia's chair was a cloth but actually it's a cushion says the City Analyst, other items like the tableclothes have items on top you'd need to move. So if you needed a towel-like item you would need to leave the parlour to find something convenient. William's jacket is just outside the door on the peg and would be the first useable item to hand.

I can PROVE with modern forensic expert testimony that the jacket wasn't used as a shield or worn by the attacker - so we have to think of alternative possibilities and this is one that occurred to me but I really don't know what to think.

The use of the thing as a rag is just one possibility I thought of and as I said may be way off base.

[TBC due to image limit]

[WallaceWackedHer]

[Cont...]

7. So anyway, I noticed the mention of the horizontal burn marks on Julia's skirt.

As ALL of us have had trouble with, it simply makes no sense at all how she can "fall into the fire" from the position she was in. But then I had a thought... Maybe rather than Julia being taken to the source of heat, the source of heat has been brought to her...

In no photos online (even when I try to scan photos across where it's clearly visible) can you see this very well but there's a grid on the bottom of this fireplace. Gannon says the grid is removable... Presumably what would happen to operate this fire, is you'd take off the covering, light the gas, then put the covering back on. Turning off the fire you'd just use the gas tap to turn the gas off... When the fire has been on this grate would be SCALDING hot... You can SORT of see it in this which I scanned across from my computer:



This advertisement shows it better, I think this is in fact the exact model of fireplace they owned (advert from 1926), it looks identical:



There you can definitely see the grate...

So Julia has just been hit getting up from the chair and she's flopped forward onto the ground face first. The attacker has at some point - I'm not sure when - perhaps removed this grid while the fire is still on, and put it aside where it has made contact with Julia's skirt and caused the horizontal patterned burn marks... Julia's skirt didn't catch fire, it's contact burns - even on trial they say "contact" but with the "fireclays" whatever that is... FIRE just spreads, it doesn't follow neat little lines. Whatever burned her skirt then - if they're like, neat patterened lines, is contact with a hot object but not fire.

The reason for removing this grid - and I think if the prosecution had used this they could've ****ed Wallace bad - would be to get access to the BARE flame. The attacker wants to incinerate things. I would expect the money and DEFINITELY the check to be incinerated if so - anything that had been handled and would burn. If that jacket had been used as a rag as I suggested (again - I can PROVE forensically with multiple modern forensic expert's testimony that this thing was not worn or used as a shield so we HAVE to think of alternative reasons), maybe an attempt was made to burn it but caused too much smoke etc. etc. so they pulled it out.

I don't know why the grid has been put back on. So again I might be wrong.

7. The reason the burning of the jacket (given it was 1000% not used as a shield and I can prove it) is important is for the same reason as the removal of the iron bar/poker (Goodman claims the iron bar was found - which ironically hinders my case despite him using it to prove innocence - but luckily there was a poker gone too)...

Removing an item you just battered someone with is danger. To expose yourself to such danger, there's a good reason. A good reason is fingerprints.

The attacker burned things due to a fear of fingerprints. He can't burn the weapon if it's a big piece of iron or w.e. so he's just wiped that off and taken it with him. He perhaps thinks the jacket can't be burned fully, not sure why... Smoke, fire hazard, smell, thinking someone's back at the house... I don't know... But it's not been fully incinerated, so instead it's been put into a pool of blood to remove the prints.

8. As you can imagine, doing stuff like that requires staying in the home, and so putting off the lights is even more beneficial than normal, since if people knock WHILE HE'S INSIDE and lights are on, that's really bad lol. Naturally anyone with half a brain would have flipped the bolt on the front door too, otherwise anyone with a key or a returning William can just walk in while he's in the front room with the corpse lmaoooo.

The light idea is a bizarre one anyway, because ANYONE benefits from their crime being discovered as late as possible to give them time to get away - not only William - very weird point...

9. At whatever point, the killer is satisfied he's done a good job of avoiding leaving incriminating evidence, and has left through the back door or an unsecured window.

---

In other words some of my theories are close to that but basically probably BS and most likely my grandpa rekt me and got a hole in one in minutes. Just lol.

Hussey then would be the most accurate. Rod actually combined Goodman and Hussey's idea but has Julia catch the man red handed and he's invented sort of this pantomime thing of Julia being physically dragged into the front room and shoved down onto the seat for a beating.

---

I'm sure I will have to refine this and work on it more. I have TOPPPP level forensics working for me and I'm waiting for them to render an opinion on certain things. I expect they will take a few weeks as they are working live murder cases and have to testify in court so that of course takes priority for them.

[Ven]

Hi All,

I've been off line for a few months and over the last couple of weeks managed to have a look at the Forum and catch-up on all the wonderful, entertaining items you have all posted. I have also spent some time looking at all the work WWH has put into gathering the documentation and such on the Wallace case.

And I found some interesting tit-bits that I believe, helps support my document regarding the Wallace mystery

I speculated in my original doc (refer Post #9) that -

Amy leaves, confident that Julia is totally oblivious to William’s plans. Amy passes William on his rounds and lets him know that everything is going to plan.
... and then I find this is in WWH's photographs of the DPP case files -

The Murder of Julia Wallace (1931) - Full DPP case files

01-17-2020, 06:06 AM POST #37

This would mean that Amy met Wallace after she visited Julia at 3.30pm
William was seen around 3.30pm by PC James Rothwell on Maiden Lane a bit over one mile north of William's home... and in the opposite direction of where Amy lived.
Sorry this is too weird... firstly... she "pops" in to see Julia at 3.30 ...miles away from where she lives ... for 15 minutes... then heads further away and just happens to bump into William, who could be anywhere on his rounds, North East of where he lives....

They must have arranged a rendezvous...logic suggests it can't be coincidental.
Also, when re-reading the Trial transcript, I found this on Page 253 -



And then on Page 255, this -




If he hadn't told her about the business trip until tea-time (about 6pm) then there is no way Amy could have had the discussion with her about the trip when Amy visited at 3.30pm! Making her official statement about that visit a complete lie!

These pieces of information further support my theory that Julia knew nothing of the call, and was expecting a night in, perhaps playing music, and that Amy was indeed an accomplice.

Also, I have not mentioned the testimony of Robert Carr, who claims he saw William and Amy on the night of the murder (refer WWH's website for Robert's written statement). This, I believe , adds another piece to the puzzle.

Thanks
Ven

[Ven]

sad to see Herlock has dropped off the boards... hope he's alright

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

sad to see Herlock has dropped off the boards... hope he's alright

He's got a whole thread. A few tried to contact him, but to no avail.

[Ven]

Thanks Al

[Ven]

any thoughts on my latest items?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi All,

I've been off line for a few months and over the last couple of weeks managed to have a look at the Forum and catch-up on all the wonderful, entertaining items you have all posted. I have also spent some time looking at all the work WWH has put into gathering the documentation and such on the Wallace case.

And I found some interesting tit-bits that I believe, helps support my document regarding the Wallace mystery

I speculated in my original doc (refer Post #9) that -

Amy leaves, confident that Julia is totally oblivious to William’s plans. Amy passes William on his rounds and lets him know that everything is going to plan.
... and then I find this is in WWH's photographs of the DPP case files -

The Murder of Julia Wallace (1931) - Full DPP case files

01-17-2020, 06:06 AM POST #37

This would mean that Amy met Wallace after she visited Julia at 3.30pm
William was seen around 3.30pm by PC James Rothwell on Maiden Lane a bit over one mile north of William's home... and in the opposite direction of where Amy lived.
Sorry this is too weird... firstly... she "pops" in to see Julia at 3.30 ...miles away from where she lives ... for 15 minutes... then heads further away and just happens to bump into William, who could be anywhere on his rounds, North East of where he lives....

They must have arranged a rendezvous...logic suggests it can't be coincidental.
Also, when re-reading the Trial transcript, I found this on Page 253 -



And then on Page 255, this -




If he hadn't told her about the business trip until tea-time (about 6pm) then there is no way Amy could have had the discussion with her about the trip when Amy visited at 3.30pm! Making her official statement about that visit a complete lie!

These pieces of information further support my theory that Julia knew nothing of the call, and was expecting a night in, perhaps playing music, and that Amy was indeed an accomplice.

Also, I have not mentioned the testimony of Robert Carr, who claims he saw William and Amy on the night of the murder (refer WWH's website for Robert's written statement). This, I believe , adds another piece to the puzzle.

Thanks
Ven

There's a gap in the post where I guess you tried to post a photo and it didn't work.

When he says tea time what time does he mean exactly, is it specified? This is 1931, they have afternoon tea, high tea, etc... Afternoon tea would be around midday.

If Amy is lying anywhere I think she might have done this. It's proven William could not have. I've hired professionals to review the case and all including McFall claim it is impossible (the mackintosh preventing any bloodstains on the killer theory). Wearing it would work better than holding it, though both would not work. The killer is bloodstained no doubt. Not only that but the evidence and blood described on the mackintosh does not fit with such a thing even being ATTEMPTED. The forensic doctors I am working with, one actually outright dismisses any idea that mentions a mackintosh shield. I had sent him Wallace's final John Bull article and suggested to him it's an OJ Simpson "If I Did It" type confession, and he outright dismissed it based on the raincoat shield being attempted in the scenario.

It doesn't fit and wasn't used as a shield, neither held nor worn (holding would be much worse I am told), period.

I already have Amy somewhat high on the list of people who could do this when you consider that out of who we know only a few people have all the details necessary for this crime to have taken place:

William, Julia, Amy, Caird, and Parry/Marsden. Or anybody in cahoots with these people.

The problem is Amy allegedly has kitchen visiting rights (and would probably be taken into the kitchen by Julia) and also the length travelled to get back home after the killing. For her it's a long distance given, as said, the killer has blood on him.

Parry placed this telephone call, an attempt to fiddle a free call was attempted - he lied to the operator claiming button 'A' had been pressed when the switchboard showed it was button 'B' that had been pressed. So: insert two pennies, ask for the café, refund pennies and cut the call off, re-insert pennies and claim you've already deposited two. It's an attempt to get a freebie. Someone who has it in mind to murder their wife wouldn't give a f___ about two pennies. There's a lot more there of course.

...

Robert Carr's statement is, if I remember right, not very plausible. He also sounds like a total wackjob/schizo, he claims he saw Amy in the newspaper but I've seen the John Bull magazine and her picture is nowhere? Curious no other authors included this testimony, they obviously saw it as it's basically sectioned off, you can't miss it. They just didn't bother to mention apparent proof of what happened. You simply cannot trust any author on this case they're all dishonest and in the case of some (Murphy) actually doctor official documents to make them right so they can feel smart. Others are in it for money or have a vested interested in maintaining mystery. Others like Gannon just constantly misquote statements by accident and make tonnes of crucial errors.

Scotland Road from where Wallace was boarding a tram at 8 PM (past 8 PM, according to terrible witness Lily Pinches) is just....... I think I tested it before I don't remember but in the end had to conclude that it wasn't very plausible... Look where Scotland Road is and see if you can figure out the distance and tram times etc. Carr claims they were looking for the Ferry Landing Stage. I heavily got the impression from what he wrote that the police were humoring him kinda treating him like a "crazy".

Let me draw your attention to something:



The delivery boys were walking past this house at I assume would be in the slot of about 6:00 to 7:00 PM-ish, January 20th. I imagine others were still on the street after Alan Close. The netting on the bottom window is thin. Inside I see the curtains and can't make much sense of them, are they double curtains? Either way there's a crack, they're open a bit on one side, this would correspond to the part of the window invisible from the exterior shot.

Now these deliveries are at night, never forget that. This is dark out, it's nearly 7 PM in January and people have lights on at this time. If ANY light at all can escape the curtain or even illuminate them, it would be visible to people walking by outside.

If any delivery boy saw a light in there before Wallace left home then you can determine Julia has gone in there at that time. Vice versa if it's dark. This ought to have been tested. The parlour had been set up we can make a good guess at such from the burning.

With the upper window this is the problem with the statement of Amy Johnston:

Sometime during that morning, according to Russell Johnston (grandson of the Wallaces’ next-door neighbours at No. 31, John Sharp Johnston and his wife Florence Sarah), his mother (Amy Beatrice Towers, married to the Johnstons’ third child and youngest son, Robert Leslie Russell Johnston) was cleaning the front bedroom windows at No. 31 when she saw Julia in her front bedroom window and waved to her.

Gannon, John. The Killing of Julia Wallace. Amberley Publishing. Kindle Edition.

What time in the morning? Was it light out? Were the curtains drawn? Did Julia have a light on in the room? Was Amy cleaning the windows from inside or out? I want to know how exactly she saw Julia behind those nets at #29.

Both myself and a friend have requested Antony give us the statements of the Johnstons that he has but he refuses to share them. He will give anything else but he refuses when it comes to that.

...

Parry called we know. But unless Denison or another Brine relative is involved, his alibi for the murder is real and he didn't kill her and nor did Denison (or whatever).

Unless Alan Close lied, Wallace did not kill his wife. Nor (even if Alan told the truth) was the mackintosh used in any way at all as a blood shield (which in that case rather suggests she'd answered the door to someone with it round her as per Roland Oliver, Florence Johnston, and the forensics I commissioned). It is agreed by all forensics I have spoken to that the jacket was not used. I am told there is no way he could have killed his wife in this fashion and got out so fast. I am told the idea of the blood shield is "absurd" and wouldn't work and was not even attempted. These are true professionals not randoms, one of them is the chief pathologist for various police forces, has appeared on the news, TV documentaries, been the expert witness in IIRC over 500 court cases, and is tasked with investigating suspicious deaths...

So then it's Parry and the killer is _____.

Throwing Wallace in at that point as the mastermind isn't actually supported by actual evidence (because the mackintosh theory is a non-theory it's been completely thrown out) it just makes everything easier but it doesn't mean it's accurate. If he hasn't called and hasn't killed her then it doesn't seem right to just throw him in lol...

ily Hall, friend of the Johnstons, saw Wallace talking to a man. The man if he is the killer is bloodstained and it is not conceivable he would want to loiter around in the streets covered in blood talking to Wallace to say "your wife's dead". And it doesn't match the door knocking either. So I think the sighting is just another random man walking by, most likely. I do not think even if there is a hitman that it's very conceivable that this man was him. Gannon's recreation makes little sense... A killer in terraced housing would not linger about for an hour just so he can go see Wallace in an alley. He'd want to get in, and OUT, using his own weapon, as fast as possible, and never have any more contact with Wallace or even be seen anywhere near him ever again.

Parkes testimony is corroborated but nobody mentions "bar" or "mitten". The bar AND poker are seemingly still at the scene and I have it on authority from forensics that these weapons unless patterned were not correct. The injuries were caused by a pronged implement or something with a pattern on it of some kind. Therefore no "iron bar" was dropped down a grid, unless that iron bar is something like a threaded pipe.

If Parkes testimony is accurate in full then I'm going with Denison absolutely. Parry can't escape it then. If it's not accurate then Parkes is a PoS for confusing things so much, and I'd be inclined to go with one of the Johnstons. Unknown to most is that ANOTHER Johnston (or Norah's fiancé Francis McElroy) also entered the scene of the crime allegedly seeing Wallace cut up meat for the cat while he and Florence were alone in the house. Wallace was in the back room at that point.

...

Phyllis the daughter John and Florence Johnston were going to visit said she was not expecting their visit and when they did visit it would be between 6 and 7 PM. Antony refuses to post the statement but I know that much of it.

I think the person who did the actual killing is Denison, Johnston, Caird, or Amy. I would prefer Amy more if she didn't live in Sefton Park. I know Parry placed the phone call, I'm not entirely convinced it's related. If it's not related it's not Denison.

I don't like Wallace with Parry and Marsden on the grounds that AFTER ACQUITTAL he urged the police to go arrest Parry and that they shouldn't feel embarassed to arrest another man just because he was acquitted. That's very strange behaviour from a guilty man period but even weirder if the man you're sending them after is truly your accomplice. I don't like it... I also don't like the hitman seemingly being there with the body for ages in a terraced home to wait - for no reason - for a ride from Gordon (unless the hitman is Denison or another Brine relative), nor do I like them talking to Wallace in the streets, nor do I then like Wallace knocking on the doors.

...

So yeah my top picks are Denison or Johnston and I can justify it fully if required.

Caird is a smart pick and I can explain fully too. For one thing, his chess nights were the same as Parry's drama nights (Thursdays) and the two could know each other and both know William, his business, the box location, and Caird could ensure delivery of the message (he in fact stood beside Beattie as the message was relayed - and discussed the trip on the way home). His home is also positioned in a location where he could watch Wallace leave, and as the killer escape would be trivial as he lives only a street over... Caird wasn't actually due at the club the night Wallace went.

Parry as the killer doesn't require the extra day unless it's for the extra money and in all honesty that wouldn't be hard to swallow since the takings were huge and one extra day would make a substantial difference if you convert the amount to modern currency and factor in the 1930s cost of living too.

Amy as the killer works very well. If she'd gone there, heard about this trip, and had it in for Julia which according to Goodman she kind of did. She also made a big scene at the coroner's trial (whatever they call it) over something the papers printed which is her saying Julia probably let a stranger in. The distance to a safe zone for her is a big problem, too far to travel.

My forensics are currently looking over some vintage jemmy bars. The injuries to Julia's skull are very distinctive.

Parallel and also one mark I'm told appears to be a hammer. In the 1930s there were hybrid tools called box openers used at shipyard which often had a jemmy at one end, and a hammer or some other tool (or two tools) at the other.



This type of thing for example. There are others, I've sent over about 4 or 5 tools in the same vein which were floating around in the 30s.

A straight iron bar was NOT used to kill Julia.

[WallaceWackedHer]

This case will probably never be solved by logic it's going to be a forensic case. There are plans to present this at a nationwide AAFS meeting in Houston in February 2021.

Logic can only give you an array of probability. F___ probability. I want THE answer. Forensics can rule out Wallace and the raincoat theory, it can do more but what needs to be nailed down is the position of Julia in the room and a few other things that would suggest either pre-med or otherwise. But the Wallace and raincoat ideas are gone forever.

It's a case for professional crime scene investigators. Not armchair detectives like me. Non-forensic professionals are why the raincoat idea has even been propogated for a century and only just now vanquished. Even McFall thinks the assailant would have blood on him wearing the jacket (wearing it, I am told, certainly working better than holding it as a shield, but both failing).

Yes, even if worn [the jacket would not protect the attacker from blood]. There would still be spatter on the attackers face and neck (and hands unless wearing gloves). And on the lower pant legs and shoes, since a mac does not drag on the floor. And I can’t accept it being used as a “shield”. You simply can’t hold up a coat like that and protect your entire body. We know from the spatter at the scene that it was not placed over the head for all blows (if any). And if it was over the head for “some” of the blows the lab should have been able to detect defects – most likely true tears – in the material. Absent that, unless we think the lab was incompetent too, I do not think the mac was ever over the head when it was being hit. As I think it was accepted that Julia was alive when the milk boy arrived, the concept of Wallace being naked is simply absurd to me. Not enough time for all that and still make it to the tram. And I actually have a lot of trouble believing that anyone involved in this murder was that calculating. It seems to be either a crime of passion or an offender who panicked. With “overkill”. In my opinion offenders like that are not nearly so neat nor do they plan so well.

The blue circle there is around an area where he says it looks similar to a hammer wound. The red I circled to show him, as it looks like the wound lines join and I'm curious if that's where the prongs of the weapon joined. So yeah I guessed something like the following (the hammer is against the tape measure) along with 4 or 5 other similar tools and am awaiting reponse. These are shipyard box opener tools:



I was just CTRL+F'ing my forensic expert communication and found this earlier on when he was suggesting someone was indeed still in the house when Wallace got back:

With regard to the doors, have you ever considered that the assailant was in the home when Wallace got back? The doors were locked and he escaped after Wallace had tried both doors and couldn’t get in? The sequence [edited to be accurate] appears that Wallace tried the front door, then the back, went back to the front. Then he rushed back around to the back door, passing the Johnsons in a hurry, and found the back door now unlocked. It would seem that it would take Wallace a couple of minutes to walk from the back to the front, then a bit less time to go back to the back as he was rushing.

I would think it would be possible that the attacker had come in via the yard door and left it unbolted. Then when he got (or was let) in, he bolted the kitchen door. The fact that Wallace found the yard door unbolted seems to indicate someone other than Julia had gone through that door. And even if let in, Julia may not have bolted it since she felt safe with the visitor. Seems she only bolted it when home alone.

I think he's going with the two-man robbery as well at that point, I don't know when that was I didn't put a date on any of them when pasting them to my site. But it was earlier than when I wrote up my Parry and Denison thing. But he is a forensic scientist not a detective, so he's rending his opinion like the rest of us there, he can just tell you what went down in the parlour and how Julia was killed, stuff about the raincoat etc. but still...

Denison or Johnston is going to be the answer to "Who Killed Julia?" is my guess.

[Ven]

Thanks for your response WWH.

The missing images is a little weird as they appear in your response to my post?!
The first to images are the from the The Murder of Julia Wallace (1931) - Full DPP case files
01-17-2020, 06:06 AM POST #37

Where it reads as - "Apart from that Sister-In-Law had seen him alone at 4pm" Which confirms my theory that Amy and Wallace met up after her visit to Julia at 3.30pm
I said it must have been a pre-arranged rendezvous because Amy walked further away from her home and had to meet William who could have been anywhere on his afternoon collection - and we know he was a mile or two north-east because he was seen around 3.30pm by PC James Rothwell on Maiden Lane.

The second lot of images was from the trial -
Page 253
Q. I notice that afterwards in your first statement you say: first of all, when I arrived at my house at 2.10 "my wife was then well and I had DINNER and left the hose", and again afterwards; "I entered my house and had TEA with my wife who was quite well". (This would have been at 6.05pm when he returned home after finishing work for the day)
A. Yes, except for the slight cold.

Then on Page 255 (so only a few minutes later) -
Q. Had you ever told your wife you were going out that night?
A. Certainly, we discussed it.
Q. You discussed it?
A. We discussed it at TEA time.
(NOT the previous night after chess, NOT at breakfast, NOT at DINNER at 2.10 BUT at TEA after work!)

William, in his own words clearly distinguishes between DINNER and TEA.

If he didn't discussed it until TEA time then Amy could not possible have had the discussion she said she did with Julia. (Refer Post #1 in this thread for Amy's statement about her visit to Julia at 3.30pm)

These items don't prove William used the Mack as a shield... How she was murdered is obviously still up for more investigation... but in a case that seems to lack evidence linking anyone to anything, they are pretty damning.

[Ven]

Hey WWH,

were your forensic experts (great job in getting them involved btw) able to explain why no blood was found anywhere else in the house? I'm still trying to get my head around anyone being covered in blood (if they were) and not leaving any trace anywhere.

Thanks

[Ven]

Hey WWH,

in regards to the curtains, I'm not sure too much can be taken from those photos. One photo is from the night of the murder and the other during the day.

The crime scene one might be after they moved the curtains to check the windows for a sign of a break-in...and we know lots of things were moved in that room that night.

[Ven]

Seems strange Antony won't share the Johnston's statements. Did he pay for them? Are there other official copies retained somewhere?