Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[Ven]

Don't make me explain the DINNER/ TEA difference for the FOURTH time... its a no brainer... read the Trial transcript... and PROVES so much more than all the "what if's" abounding here.

[Ven]

Accents - I went on a vacation to America when i was young (20yo)... on my own...and called home after two weeks to catch-up.. and was asked why i had an American accent? I obviously am one to pick up an accent...so why couldn't William?

[Ven]

WWH,

If you ignore the blood issue and regardless of motive...do you think William had the time to make the call and to commit the murder... remember.. ignore the blood issue

[WallaceWackedHer]

IIRC your idea was that he held the jacket? I was told that holding the jacket as a shield is laughable and "absurd" hence definitely wouldn't work, and is worse than wearing it. So I said wearing the jacket... As that would be more probable but still isn't what happened.

It's not forensically possible that Wallace killed Julia and avoided blood splatter and the weapon is also not a rusty or rough pipe... Rust or roughness isn't what they're looking for to make those parallel lines. They're looking for distinct patterning like a threaded pipe or spanner or jemmy. Something like that.

As said the mackintosh would not work in any shape or form as a blood shield period. Not only would it not work, it wasn't attempted. I have multiple different experts attesting to this and I don't tell them the result I want to hear, so it's their own conclusion. Even McFall doesn't think it would work.

Neil Norbury said Julia had a "bit of material round her neck" and looked ill.

The scorch marks were horizontal and matched to the fireclays says the appeal trial. I don't necessarily think the skirt was twisted that's a pure assumption by a policeman. He's wrong. The placquet could be anywhere. But the body was moved away from the fire by her hair and cardigan. The photo position is not the original body position which was more like lying in bed position-wise.

If you want William to have done it then find a way that works without the jacket, and also explain its presence. No drains were used.

I'm saying possibly etc. because I cbf to search to verify something I already know. It's labelled on Gannon's diagram.

Fiddling a free call is of course pretty serious as it's hard to imagine a killer caring about two pennies (especially when he's trying to get to the chess club on time btw) and then lying about not getting through. Louisa Alfreds connected the call and heard the ciry cafe pick up. Caller pressed B to return his coins. Then called back claiming he'd pressed A (deposited them) pretending he'd already paid for the call.

Parry placed the call or was with the person who did.

The blood went round the room. The first event is likely her going into the fire. I considered that the skirt was already burned but this was drisproven by the city analyst.

I've read and comprehended and you're not making sense. Telling and discussing are different things. I want to know which exact thing he said, did he first tell her about it then or discuss it then, his testimony is long. Link it. Since he couldn't escape being blood sprayed (neither could any attacker) I'd be inclined to believe Amy is BSing because she has something to do with it or alternatively because it sounds good for William.

My forensics didn't say "not smooth" lmfao. He was investigating a spanner because I suggested Wallace's John Bull article as a concession but he rejected Wallace's recreation because it mentions a raincoat shield. The raincoat shield idea is so done and dusted that entire ideas can actually be discarded the moment they mention it.

[WallaceWackedHer]

WWH,

If you ignore the blood issue and regardless of motive...do you think William had the time to make the call and to commit the murder... remember.. ignore the blood issue

Yeah if he had a magical way to avoid blood spray (not the raincoat, that is considered laughable as an idea btw). He still didn't call. Gordon did. So I'd favor Waterhouse.

Imagine William trynna scam two pennies from a phone booth lmao. To set up murder.

I can't go Waterhouse because it's not possible according to experts for Wallace to have done this in the allotted time.

So then it's a 3 person conspiracy at least where he neither calls nor kills her. I don't favor it rn.

I'll post here when we make actual developments. Or if new ideas are brought up. I've heard it all 100000 times ad nauseum people seem to think they've invented a new idea and it's just something I already knew and considered.

[Ven]

sorry, prove, beyond doubt, Gordon.. Parry... you keep changing names for some unknown reason... made the phone call... except that he COULD HAVE been in the proximity... like William...

[Ven]

When you answer my queries one at a time, then i'll answer yours... don't state that something is empirical/without question. without proof...please

[Ven]

FROM YOUR POSTM#364
If you want William to have done it then find a way that works without the jacket, and also explain its presence. No drains were used.

WHAT???!! you want me to explain its use and its presence...LOL... you cant do that now!.

As i have stated, i don't know how the murder happened, and neither can you!!~~ ... it excludes nobody!

[WallaceWackedHer]

FROM YOUR POSTM#364
If you want William to have done it then find a way that works without the jacket, and also explain its presence. No drains were used.

WHAT???!! you want me to explain its use and its presence...LOL... you cant do that now!.

As i have stated, i don't know how the murder happened, and neither can you!!~~ ... it excludes nobody!

You're trying to claim William is definitely guilty (which isn't some genius conclusion btw, even a 2 year old would believe it and random Liverpool locals hence the conviction and my own name and original thoughts) and did something impossible, and don't think you need to explain it at all. Just "he did it alright" like the dumb locals and any toddler.

At least the locals wouldn't buy he had her blindfolded waiting for a surprise.

I mean originally your idea was something about having Julia hold it in front of her eyes waiting for a "surprise" then being hit with a bar, or Wallace holding it up and wacking her over the top somehow.

You're just making William guilty and then making bizarre ideas every professional claims is impossible. So you need something possible. It is in fact your burden to explain how something every professional thinks is impossible could even possibly have happened.

Forensic professionals who investigate suspicious deaths for a career believe he could not possibly have killed her himself. Even McFall and the prosecution had to claim Wallace dressed as Julia to see the milk boy which they said after the trial.

I know some people hate the elderly enough to steal 100s of thousands from them or murder them. Then those people have bias because they'd do it.

[etenguy]

Fiddling a free call is of course pretty serious as it's hard to imagine a killer caring about two pennies (especially when he's trying to get to the chess club on time btw) and then lying about not getting through. Louisa Alfreds connected the call and heard the ciry cafe pick up. Caller pressed B to return his coins. Then called back claiming he'd pressed A (deposited them) pretending he'd already paid for the call.

Parry placed the call or was with the person who did.

Hi WWH

Your research into this case is most impressive, and I found your web-site superb.

However, I disagree that it was necessarily Gordon Parry who made the phone call. I favour Wallace making the call. My reasoning:

a) IMHO the call was to set up an alibi for Wallace, and so the timing had to:
i) be the latest possible that still allowed Wallace to just make the start time for the Chess Club but make it seem as though that was not possible.
ii) the time needed to be recorded by witnesses so Wallace could later claim it could not have been him, and he did that in two ways
- connecting the call through the operator and not paying to make the call more memorable by the operator and more likely to be recorded.
- pressing Beattie to remember the time as more than just after seven (a bit of a manipulative conversation in my opinion).

b) The language used in the call was more in keeping with a Wallace character than with a Parry character, in particular the reference to 'his line of business'.

c) The weak point in this line of thinking is the reference to the 'girl's 21st birthday' which neatly fits with Parry, but perhaps Wallace knew about this and wanted to incriminate Parry - he certainly pointed the police to Parry after the murder.

d) The way in which Wallace repeatedly mentioned Qualtrough to Beattie and others just to make sure a number of people knew and would remember the call.

e) The choice on Menlove Gardens East as the address had two effects - it made sure the call was widely spoken about at the cafe (again so many would remember) and also giving Wallace the excuse to strengthen his alibi by asking locals where it was.

If Parry had made the call, as a prank say or possibly because he was part of a theft plan, there was no need for an unusual name and a non-existent address - in fact the address more than anything points away from Parry. If Wallace or someone at the cafe knew the address did not exist, Wallace would not have set out on the journey. It was in Parry's interest (if he was the caller) to ensure Wallace left the house.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi WWH

Your research into this case is most impressive, and I found your web-site superb.

However, I disagree that it was necessarily Gordon Parry who made the phone call. I favour Wallace making the call. My reasoning:

a) IMHO the call was to set up an alibi for Wallace, and so the timing had to:
i) be the latest possible that still allowed Wallace to just make the start time for the Chess Club but make it seem as though that was not possible.
ii) the time needed to be recorded by witnesses so Wallace could later claim it could not have been him, and he did that in two ways
- connecting the call through the operator and not paying to make the call more memorable by the operator and more likely to be recorded.
- pressing Beattie to remember the time as more than just after seven (a bit of a manipulative conversation in my opinion).

b) The language used in the call was more in keeping with a Wallace character than with a Parry character, in particular the reference to 'his line of business'.

c) The weak point in this line of thinking is the reference to the 'girl's 21st birthday' which neatly fits with Parry, but perhaps Wallace knew about this and wanted to incriminate Parry - he certainly pointed the police to Parry after the murder.

d) The way in which Wallace repeatedly mentioned Qualtrough to Beattie and others just to make sure a number of people knew and would remember the call.

e) The choice on Menlove Gardens East as the address had two effects - it made sure the call was widely spoken about at the cafe (again so many would remember) and also giving Wallace the excuse to strengthen his alibi by asking locals where it was.

If Parry had made the call, as a prank say or possibly because he was part of a theft plan, there was no need for an unusual name and a non-existent address - in fact the address more than anything points away from Parry. If Wallace or someone at the cafe knew the address did not exist, Wallace would not have set out on the journey. It was in Parry's interest (if he was the caller) to ensure Wallace left the house.

The tram from that call box would not physically allow him to arrive at the club on time (as in 19:45) if the conversation with Gladys Harley until hanging up was 5 minutes... The conversation wasn't substantial, but there's a big timesink in Beattie getting an envelope and pen, copying down the address and repeating it back to the caller, and then getting the caller to spell his name letter by letter, repeating that back.

It would also not be possible if the tram wait time was 5 minutes (they came at 8 to 9 minute intervals).

Or if the call was 3 minutes and the tram wait time 2 (etc).

The penalty rule wasn't strictly enforced however...

...

I doubt the general public would know this type of attempt to scam a free call would cause a call to be logged. However I also doubt the public would think the police COULDN'T trace them in any case... Like I'd assume they'd just go interview the operators, I'd assume the cops could find the box personally even if it wasn't within the public knowledge.

The first operator claims to have heard a voice on the other end, so the call was put through successfully the first time. The "technical glitch" is the caller pressing B to get a refund and cutting the call off. Whoever picked up at the cafe that first time wasn't Gladys. Then he calls back saying he's deposited his coins (already paid for the call and it didn't work) when the switchboard proves he's lying.

He just wants a freebie. Gordon was known to fiddle telephone kiosks by the way.

...

The language fit Parry better. The accent was local, and the caller spoke in a posh accent (kaffay), using "my girl" is a common Parry-ism and it's the same excuse he used when caught stealing a car, he was off to "meet his girl". Here he was caught out unexpectedly and came up with that on the spot.

Beattie stated outright that even trying to picture it was Wallace faking a voice would be a great stretch of the imagination.

In no way does the caller fit Wallace by any measure of evidence unless you assume he killed his wife, and moreover, assume he did it alone (which is forensically not possible unless Alan Close is lying). Once you've made that assumption you can make anything fit... You're not meant to investigate a case with a suspect you've already decided did it, twisting things that make them still guilty.

The use of his chess "skills" (a game he sucked at) is the most obvious. Everything can be reduced to a chess move. It seems like Parry did it so clearly Wallace framed him as a chess move. It's corroborated he went to the police less then 3 weeks earlier when his wife was very late home due to a railway accident concerned for her safety. Also by another Pru worker who spoke to Julia who told him that the incident had really upset William. The temptation to just say "chess move" is not right...

What are the odds of framing one random person and then they lie about their whereabouts to the police. What is he hiding?

...

Mentioning the name and call that often is completely unnecessary and a fake address is completely unnecessary. People aren't goldfish. Beattie is going to know he relayed a message when questioned the day after.

The fake address and fake name is bad in both a murder and a robbery scenario unless they are fake by accident. All he has to do is have someone confirm he received a message for business (Beattie, done), and that he was far away from the home at the time his wife was killed (could knock on anyone's door or their neighbours if they're out, that's done...).

You absolutely don't need to keep talking about it. You might if you were overzealous. But you only actually need 2 people.

He didn't kill Julia himself so at most it's a hired gun. The perp would be bloodstained, the jacket wasn't used. The timing is too tight. I've hired multiple forensic experts to work on this case and that is the opinion, he could not have done it. One is very very high up in the field, he's actually the forensic advisor on the CSI TV series and chief forensic pathologist investigating suspicious deaths for numerous Stateside police forces.

...

If it is a prank call sending someone on a wild goose chase to meet a mysterious man is just about the funniest thing you could do. Especially a bookish type like Wallace. That's what I would do.

Fyi Lily's cinema Gordon often picked her up from was right by the call box.

[etenguy]

The tram from that call box would not physically allow him to arrive at the club on time (as in 19:45) if the conversation with Gladys Harley until hanging up was 5 minutes... The conversation wasn't substantial, but there's a big timesink in Beattie getting an envelope and pen, copying down the address and repeating it back to the caller, and then getting the caller to spell his name letter by letter, repeating that back.

It would also not be possible if the tram wait time was 5 minutes (they came at 8 to 9 minute intervals).

Or if the call was 3 minutes and the tram wait time 2 (etc).

The penalty rule wasn't strictly enforced however...

This assumes he travelled by tram. I know he said he took the tram, but no-one checked and confirmed this. If he was the caller and planned the timing so a tram journey seemed all but impossible to get him there on time, then he possibly planned a different/faster route and form of transport as part of his plan. If Wallace did have an accomplice, for example, they possibly drove him close to the cafe.

...

I doubt the general public would know this type of attempt to scam a free call would cause a call to be logged. However I also doubt the public would think the police COULDN'T trace them in any case... Like I'd assume they'd just go interview the operators, I'd assume the cops could find the box personally even if it wasn't within the public knowledge.

The first operator claims to have heard a voice on the other end, so the call was put through successfully the first time. The "technical glitch" is the caller pressing B to get a refund and cutting the call off. Whoever picked up that first time wasn't Gladys. Then he calls back saying he's depositing his coins when the switchboard proves he's lying.

Exactly the point I was making - a memorable call for the operator at the very least - someone who could confirm the time of the call even if the caller did not know it would lead to a formal logging of events.

...

The language fit Parry better. The accent was local, and the caller spoke in a posh accent (kaffay), using "my girl" is a common Parry-ism and it's the same excuse he used when caught stealing a car, he was off to "meet his girl". Here he was caught out unexpectedly and came up with that on the spot.

Beattie said even trying to picture it was Wallace behind the voice would be a great stretch of the imagination.

You make a good point. To be as objective as I am able, the language is ambiguous - it could be Wallace trying to sound a bit like Parry or vice versa - whichever it is, the mix of phrases such as 'my girl' and 'it's in the nature of his business' seem incongruous - a composite person rather than a natural one.

In no way does the caller fit Wallace by any measure of evidence unless you assume he killed his wife, and moreover, assume he did it alone (which is forensically not possible unless Alan Close is lying). Once you've made that assumption you can make anything fit... You're not meant to investigate a case with a suspect you've already decided did it, twisting things that make them still guilty.

I do favour Wallace as the murderer, but I am by no means anywhere close to being entirely convinced. I do think Alan Close lied about the time he saw Julia Wallace (or at least allowed the police to lead him to say it was a bit earlier than it actually was), judging by the way he responded to cross examination, but not in a way that helps any case against Wallace, in fact the opposite. I think the time he saw Julia was a little later than 6.30, up to the 6.45 he originally said he saw her.

The use of his chess "skills" (a game he sucked at) is the most obvious. Everything can be reduced to a chess move. It seems like Parry did it so clearly Wallace framed him as a chess move. It's corroborated he went to the police less then 3 weeks earlier when his wife was very late home due to a railway accident concerned for her safety. Also by another Pru worker who spoke to Julia who told him that the incident had really upset William. The temptation to just say "chess move" is not right...

I agree. I don't think playing Chess (however well or not) has anything to do with planning a murder. I do believe Wallace was reasonably intelligent (science, music and teaching) and was perfectly intellectually capable of planning a murder around ensuring he had an alibi.

What are the odds of framing one random person and then they lie about their whereabouts to the police. What is he hiding?

If you mean Wallace casting suspicion in Parry's direction (not a random person)- we know Parry was a shady character and he might have a number of reasons to lie to the police about his whereabouts. We also know Wallace definitely cast suspicion in that direction after the murder.

...

Mentioning the name and call that often is completely unnecessary and a fake address is completely unnecessary. People aren't goldfish. Beattie is going to know he relayed a message when questioned the day after.

This is true, but how much better to cement this in the mind of others also, especially around the false address, even saying he would ask around in the area - thus setting it up for him to ask lots of people in the area on the night of the murder to ensure his movements at certain times was well evidenced.

The fake address and fake name is bad in both a murder and a robbery scenario unless they are fake by accident. All he has to do is have someone confirm he received a message for business (Beattie, done), and that he was far away from the home at the time his wife was killed (could knock on anyone's door or their neighbours if they're out, that's done...).

Here I disagree with you - I think the fake address gives Wallace the excuse to ensure over the whole period he is in the Menlove area he is talking to people who can witness the amount of time he was there. If a real address had been used, he would only speak with one person at one specific time that may not be well remembered (in terms of the time) and could lead to a weakness in the alibi he set up for himself.

You absolutely don't need to keep talking about it. You might if you were overzealous. But you only actually need 2 people.

True - and ironically his over-zealousness is what draws attention to him being a serious suspect, IMHO. Although his asking about the address of a few people at the cafe helps to establish that he needed to speak to a number of people in the Menlove area.

He didn't kill Julia himself so at most it's a hired gun. The perp would be bloodstained, the jacket wasn't used. The timing is too tight. I've hired multiple forensic experts to work on this case and that is the opinion, he could not have done it. One is very very high up in the field, he's actually the forensic advisor on the CSI TV series and chief forensic pathologist investigating suspicious deaths for numerous Stateside police forces.

Actually we don't know Wallace was not the murderer - we only know that experts have opined that the manner of how the murder has been described as happening does not accurately describe what could have happened.

...

If it is a prank call sending someone on a wild goose chase to meet a mysterious man is just about the funniest thing you could do. Especially a bookish type like Wallace. That's what I would do.

Fyi Lily's cinema Gordon often picked her up from was right by the call box.

If Wallace knew of Gordon's link with Lily and the cinema, it may explain why he chose that phone box to make the call.

[WallaceWackedHer]

No it's not just a discrediting of the raincoat theory, it's a discrediting of the idea he killed her and cleaned up in the allotted time according to the experts. Essentially I am told it is impossible. Whether he was nude, wearing a raincoat, holding a raincoat...whatever variation. I am told they can see "no way" he killed her and got away in the time he did.

I am also told the nature of the crime does not match the careful premeditation very well. The profile of the killer and the caller (were the call part of the plan) does not fit. I am told either a panicked intruder with overkill, or a crime of passion WITHOUT premeditation with overkill. I have the full correspondence on my website with both forensics so you can see what they say. The second expert is very senior and a doctor in forensics. The other is a PhD student who has worked live homicide cases with various police forces. The second expert is basically the "McFall" though, the top of his field. Interestingly McFall also did not think the mackintosh theory would protect the assailant and also did not believe the timeframe was possible hence suggesting Wallace put on his wife's dress to trick the milk boy... When you are already certain a person is guilty you can do all sorts of things like that, whatever's necessary to make it fit...

Wallace did not kill her himself and the weapon isn't the poker or iron bar.

Going back to the raincoat specifically, any theory even suggesting it was held or worn by the attacker is instantly thrown out by the experts I am in contact with.

So then why is it there? The first impression of Florence is it was on Julia in some way. Probably to answer the door to somebody and maybe around her in the parlour until the room warmed up. My grandparents I asked for advice as they lived in that era (before telling them about any theories), both thought Julia had thrown it round her shoulders to answer the door.

Forensics prefer this explanation too. A knock at the door isn't Wallace. Whether the person came in the front or back who knows. The back door could be undone by any neighbour as keys from one house would fit anothet leading to a serious security problem. Julia could also let someone in the back.

In Slemen's suggestion (Johnston's alleged confession), he claims Julia had gone down the alley in the jacket. That wasn't with William. She was looking for the cat it says. That aligns in a nice way with the time actually, because the milk had just been delivered. Julia was intensely attached to that cat, people forget that, and she was very cut up about it going missing claims Goodman. Having the milk delivered would remind her of the cat and perhaps spur her to go out looking, but also if the cat is given milk at roughly that time you might expect that it would return home at that time which might also cause her to worry about it and go out looking.

I ought to mention that...

Why she's at some stage dead in the parlour, I don't suppose she would want to play music (though she might), so the other reasons she might go in there would be for a visitor or because she wanted to take a nap on the lounger. If you look at the lounger the position of the cushions support that she had been reclining there. I checked and McFall said he sat on the edge of the arm, so unless other cops sat down there it looks like it was being lounged upon. One cushion for the head and then one you see sort of stuck down the side.

The forensic experts are now placing her on the lounger side of the room because of her foot positioning. Because the photographer did not do his job properly (you'd expect photographs of the blood up close) and McFall made no notes and his sketches of the blood spray is not published it's hard to place her when it should be very trivial. Both experts I hired though, think the attacker delivered the final blows to the right of Julia (her right I think - so armchair side. There is a mark on the ceiling that's either cast off from the weapon which would confirm it, or a photo glitch).

The box of matches which were either Wallace's or Julia's (Florence's testimony on this varies annoyingly) are on the big table near the window. Which would support her having gone to that side of the room if the matches are hers.

This is in direct contrast to all other theories. Johnston's alleged confession is the only one that has her being on the right side of the room. Also the only one to have her getting up from that lounger. Unlike any other theory it also uses a jemmy bar which would match with the parallel injuries on the back of the head. I am told to rule out any item without prongs or an obvious pattern.

...

There are reasons I find it hard to believe Wallace worked with Parry, mainly because it's odd a guilty man would write pieces for the paper and magazines urging the police to arrest his accomplice. Obviously if Parry is sentenced to death he will tell-all. Killers often fall off the grid a bit after acquittal, it's rare to get away with murder then go around still speaking about it and urging police to arrest a man and investigate the crime.

It would theb suggest a personal vendetta where he's involved Gordon to frame him on purpose (e.g. maybe upset Gordon was flirting with his wife). Because he wants them both dead. But then he's missed some major opportunities to frame Gordon.

...

At this precise moment, and my ideas change a lot... Based on Parkes' corroborators he has exaggerated massively. Gordon got his car washed, but no mention by others (Dolly and Gordon) of this bar and blood stained mitten. We also know a regular iron bar was NOT the murder weapon which throws shade at the idea Gordon blurted out he dropped an "iron bar" somewhere...

If it's like a threaded pipe maybe...

Anyway I think right now, consider it musing... We can show Wallace did not kill his wife so at the least he's had someone else do it.

Parry fits the profile of the caller very well. He was also known to frequently make prank phone calls in funny voices from Atkinson's garage. I think he's waiting round the cinema thinking Lily is there, waiting for her. Gets bored and makes the call. It's a prank call. He loiters a bit for Lily then drives to Lily's house and barges in on a lesson to see if she's there. She is.

The black cat is missing. The neighbours have snatched it up and decided to use it to rob the Wallaces before they move house in February (note they planned to move in February and instead moved the next day in January). They want to hit up the house the next time Wallace goes out. They might have heard Wallace was going out on business, seen the cat, and snatched it then even. Remember they can always hear Amy's visits through the walls they say.

if you get the house blueprint, mirror it and put it together so the parlours and kitchens etc. are touching because this is how Wallace and Johnston's homes were aligned... They've probably heard the back door open because everyone then lived in the kitchen, and realized Wallace is going out. They might not even know why but on InACityLiving it says Florence had spoken to Julia in the yard that day. I can find no verification but if true that's big because she denied speaking to or seeing her at all that day (just heard her in the yard), and she could have learned of the trip. Johnston has a friend from the docks on Menlove Gardens South and might even know the address is fake.

I don't know what has happened from here... I understand Johnston has a vested interest to keep the names of others out of it, so I might consider a scenario similar to what I suggested for Parry and Denison... But the bit about her rising from the couch is strange because it's forensically matching and is the only idea/"confession" to have it be this way.

Quite possibly it happened as said.

The Johnstons fingerprints are all over the crime scene... I mean of course they are, they entered the property. But then it's like what can you do with that? It's like a murderer going and shaking his hair all over the body. Like you will find hair with his DNA there but obviously you would expect that.

However we know the Johnstons showered and changed clothes, appeared at just the right time, and IF they knew their fingerprints were in there they had no choice but to do this. They said they were going out to visit Phyllis their daughter. Notice their yard door cannot be bolted from outside yet nobody follows them down the yard (so if they're going out, they're leaving their yard unsecured)... Phyllis told police she was not expecting her parents to visit, and that if they ever did it was usually between 6 and 7 PM...

Johnston has his key to unlock that back door. I reckon they were still in there. That's why I suggest this as an alternative to Denison/Parry because some things are clean which shouldn't be.

...

Btw if of any intetest, Robert Johnston sometimes wore a single glove. I don't know why. It's in a picture of him.

Lily Hall is Robert Johnston's friend and also Amy Johnston's friend. She's the one who testified to seeing Wallace chatting to a man in the alley and got screwy with her statement in the various trials, and altered her story.

Barely anybody in the Johnston home works and Arthur Mills is infirm.

...

Because Wallace did not do this alone according to forensic science, it's at least a conspiracy of 2 with him, and the popular one is Parry and Marsden as his accomplices.

Why exactly they would agree to help murder a woman (and why he would broach the subject with multiple people) I'm not sure.

Because Parry called with high certainty, yet without Denison being involved has a real alibi for the murder, then it's a 3 person conspiracy at least... At that point when he's neither the caller or killer it's like shoehorning him in becuase it feels "right".

I might like to consider a prank call followed by Caird going to rob the house, or even Parry WITH Caird since there's a proveable link where the two men had their chess and drama nights on Thursday (Wallace was scheduled for Mondays).

I might also like Amy as the killer but she lives too far away to escape bloodstained. Whoever killed Julia WOULD be bloodstained. Not just William. Making eacape difficult without a car or living very close i.e. a neighbour.

...

At this exact present moment, subject to change drastically, I am liking Parry making that call and Johnston being the man who robbed #19 Wolverton Street the month prior.

Author's reluctance to give up their statements also makes me think they did it. They're not even trivial statements, Florence claims to have heard loud thuds at 20:25 from the direction of Wallace's parlour.

...

Cars were rare yes. Wallace didn't have one but Parry did (or Parry's father which they shared depending on what you read). But Wallace was seen on trams, so he's at most had a short little drive to the second tram stop, saving little time. If he's got someone in on it to drive him to the club why would he even make the call instead of getting his accomplice to?

Wallace's stated times make sense and are more likely than the alternative.

If Parkes is telling the truth though, it's Parry and Denison unless it can be shown Parry knew the Johnstons which would help.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Oh by the way, forensics like Johnston's alleged confession very much for accuracy with the science. If Julia had the coat round her reclining on the couch having just come in from looking for Puss, the position would be right for the burning which took place on the jacket and skirt IIRC. It's all there on my site in the transcripts.

Logically though he thinks it's Parry because he believes Parkes' testimony. But forensically, Johnston's alleged confession is a match.

[etenguy]

Oh by the way, forensics like Johnston's alleged confession very much for accuracy with the science. If Julia had the coat round her reclining on the couch having just come in from looking for Puss, the position would be right for the burning which took place on the jacket and skirt IIRC. It's all there on my site in the transcripts.

Logically though he thinks it's Parry because he believes Parkes' testimony. But forensically, Johnston's alleged confession is a match.

Hi WWH

Two great posts with lots of information. I agree with a lot of the issues you raise about the raincoat, the murderer being covered in blood, your experts view of the time required and the need for the Parkes statement to be explained.

One way - not necessarily what happened, but an example, - Wallace could have escaped after killing Julia (and he would be blood splattered), is for him to be met by an accomplice in a car. He could have cleaned up and changed in the car which dropped him at the tram stop ready for the alibi trip.

I'm inclined to be a little sceptical about Johnston's confession, though quite happy to accept the forensic experts view that Julia was reclining on the lounger when Wallace came in and attacked her.