Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[etenguy]

Sorry WWh, I forgot to respond to your challenge about why Wallace made the call and not the accomplice. Before I do, I did want to say that the experts you consulted may be entirely correct on the facts, and probably are, and Wallace could still be the murderer.

Regarding the phone call, I think there are three possible reasons Wallace made the call and not any potential accomplice. They are:

- the accomplice was a woman
- the accomplice was willing to help Wallace but not get involved in any substantive way
- Wallace was protective of the accomplice and wanted to shield them from any substantive involvement just in case he was caught out.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Sorry WWh, I forgot to respond to your challenge about why Wallace made the call and not the accomplice. Before I do, I did want to say that the experts you consulted may be entirely correct on the facts, and probably are, and Wallace could still be the murderer.

Regarding the phone call, I think there are three possible reasons Wallace made the call and not any potential accomplice. They are:

- the accomplice was a woman
- the accomplice was willing to help Wallace but not get involved in any substantive way
- Wallace was protective of the accomplice and wanted to shield them from any substantive involvement just in case he was caught out.

He couldn't still be the murderer is essentially what I am told but I can ask more specifically to confirm that in writing. Through no method could he do it. If there's an accomplice the accomplice did it and didn't realize the jacket implication.

I'm told the blood clot time of death estimate is more reasonable but is 18:50 in the minimum end which is after Wallace could have left...

Where are you getting that it's a woman? Because of Amy? That's a strong angle out of all of them but generally the accomplice idea uses Parry and Marsden. Amy has no car AFAIK, too far to travel bloodstained.

The caller is Gordon and then it's a 3 person conspiracy which is dodgy. In fact Gordon being the caller without a prank really forces a 3 person conspiracy unless Denison isn't involved OR Parkes story is untrue (Denison could be the hitman). Why exactly they would agree to murder her seems farfetched. Even if they're gay as per a blog post written to Gannon, they can just cut contact and deny all rumours rather than risk execution and live with the guilt of murder. How much money would they both want to do it?

But William Amy and Gordon is pretty decent if not for Amy's escape distance.

The odds are wild that at the very same time the call was made Gordon was off doing some other criminal thing. Other criminals confessed to petty crimes to evade being suspected of the call. Gordon is hiding something whether he's the caller or not.

But I think it's the neighbours rn. The physical evidence is there, just they found a sneaky way to nullify that. The ONLY way they could in fact.

...

One of the first suspects for police was a weird 50-ish year old man who got a cab near the house around 7 holding an umbrella saying "you won't kill me will you?!" before requesting the driver take him to Sefton Park then directing the driver down a road and rushing off down a side atreet. Well spoken like "Qualtrough". Sounds like a chess club member.

There are many rabbitholes... Forensically I can disprove many ideas and according to them disprove Wallace as the killer.

...

But the rabbithole I'm down rn is Parry bored waiting at the cinema for Lily placing the call. The cat had gone missing about 24 hours before the murder. I reckon the neighbours saw it and snatched it and exploited it... In Slemen's theory/Johnston's confession it says they saw Julia go down the alley and didn't see her return.

I think they didn't see her return because she locked the back kitchen door and came in the front after a fruitless search where she's then set up the parlour for a nap. I reckon... John has a key so the kitchen door is no issue. The yard door would be unbolted.

[etenguy]

He couldn't still be the murderer is essentially what I am told but I can ask more specifically to confirm that in writing. Through no method could he do it. If there's an accomplice the accomplice did it and didn't realize the jacket implication.

I believe the reason the experts say Wallace couldn't have been the murderer is:
a) insufficient time - he would have blood on him and would need to be clean when he left and no current theory has him dirty when he left, but it is conceivable if he left in a car which contained a clean set of clothes for him to change into, particularly if he wore gloves and the mac when committing the murder so it was only his face/head he needed to wipe with perhaps a clean damp cloth in the car. And of course, this would get him to the tram stop in good time too.
b) whoever killed Julia took the weapon away with them - Wallace could have done this as easily as any other suspect.

I'm told the blood clot time of death estimate is more reasonable but is 18:50 in the minimum end which is after Wallace could have left...

Yes, that sounds right to me, I think he waited for Alan Close to deliver the milk before killing Julia - so that he had a witness that saw her alive at a time which made it look like he couldn't have done it.

Where are you getting that it's a woman? Because of Amy? That's a strong angle out of all of them but generally the accomplice idea uses Parry and Marsden. Amy has no car AFAIK, too far to travel bloodstained.

I do not believe the accomplice was a woman - I was just suggesting possible reasons the accomplice did not make the call. I guess it could have been a woman (though unlikely in my view) and if it was a woman, I would not favour Amy - not least for the reasons you suggest.

The caller is Gordon and then it's a 3 person conspiracy which is dodgy. In fact Gordon being the caller without a prank really forces a 3 person conspiracy unless Denison isn't involved OR Parkes story is untrue (Denison could be the hitman). Why exactly they would agree to murder her seems farfetched. Even if they're gay as per a blog post written to Gannon, they can just cut contact and deny all rumours rather than risk execution and live with the guilt of murder. How much money would they both want to do it?

But William Amy and Gordon is pretty decent if not for Amy's escape distance.

I do not believe more than two people were involved - Wallace and an accomplice who had, or had access to, a car.

The odds are wild that at the very same time the call was made Gordon was off doing some other criminal thing. Other criminals confessed to petty crimes to evade being suspected of the call. Gordon is hiding something whether he's the caller or not.

He may or may not have been doing criminal things at that time, but certainly he had in the past and might very well be wary of the police asking about his whereabouts, so just lied to make it seem he was elsewhere.

But I think it's the neighbours rn. The physical evidence is there, just they found a sneaky way to nullify that. The ONLY way they could in fact.

This is a sound, plausible theory, but I ask myself whether they would concoct such an elaborate ruse. They would know when both Julia and Wallace were out of the house together and could easily steal at that time - unless you believe they particularly wanted to kill Julia.

...

One of the first suspects for police was a weird 50-ish year old man who got a cab near the house around 7 holding an umbrella saying "you won't kill me will you?!" before requesting the driver take him to Sefton Park then directing the driver down a road and rushing off down a side atreet. Well spoken like "Qualtrough". Sounds like a chess club member.

There are many rabbitholes... Forensically I can disprove many ideas and according to them disprove Wallace as the killer.

You are right, of course, many scenarios can be imagined and some dismissed by the forensic evidence - however, I do not think the forensic evidence disproves Wallace was the killer - only that the theory the police put forward was not possible (or at least extremely unlikely).
...

But the rabbithole I'm down rn is Parry bored waiting at the cinema for Lily placing the call. The cat had gone missing about 24 hours before the murder. I reckon the neighbours saw it and snatched it and exploited it... In Slemen's theory/Johnston's confession it says they saw Julia go down the alley and didn't see her return.

I think they didn't see her return because she locked the back kitchen door and came in the front after a fruitless search where she's then set up the parlour for a nap. I reckon... John has a key so the kitchen door is no issue. The yard door would be unbolted.

This is a good theory IMHO, and could well be what happened - but it doesn't explain the Parkes testimony, it is a real coincidence that the prank call happened the night before the murder and the Johnstons had a much easier way of committing the theft which would have been put down to the general burglary happening at the time - so I think the ruse needs to be explained.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I believe the reason the experts say Wallace couldn't have been the murderer is:
a) insufficient time - he would have blood on him and would need to be clean when he left and no current theory has him dirty when he left, but it is conceivable if he left in a car which contained a clean set of clothes for him to change into, particularly if he wore gloves and the mac when committing the murder so it was only his face/head he needed to wipe with perhaps a clean damp cloth in the car. And of course, this would get him to the tram stop in good time too.
b) whoever killed Julia took the weapon away with them - Wallace could have done this as easily as any other suspect.




Yes, that sounds right to me, I think he waited for Alan Close to deliver the milk before killing Julia - so that he had a witness that saw her alive at a time which made it look like he couldn't have done it.



I do not believe the accomplice was a woman - I was just suggesting possible reasons the accomplice did not make the call. I guess it could have been a woman (though unlikely in my view) and if it was a woman, I would not favour Amy - not least for the reasons you suggest.



I do not believe more than two people were involved - Wallace and an accomplice who had, or had access to, a car.



He may or may not have been doing criminal things at that time, but certainly he had in the past and might very well be wary of the police asking about his whereabouts, so just lied to make it seem he was elsewhere.



This is a sound, plausible theory, but I ask myself whether they would concoct such an elaborate ruse. They would know when both Julia and Wallace were out of the house together and could easily steal at that time - unless you believe they particularly wanted to kill Julia.

...



You are right, of course, many scenarios can be imagined and some dismissed by the forensic evidence - however, I do not think the forensic evidence disproves Wallace was the killer - only that the theory the police put forward was not possible (or at least extremely unlikely).
...



This is a good theory IMHO, and could well be what happened - but it doesn't explain the Parkes testimony, it is a real coincidence that the prank call happened the night before the murder and the Johnstons had a much easier way of committing the theft which would have been put down to the general burglary happening at the time - so I think the ruse needs to be explained.

The mac wasn't worn or used at all. That's solid. He could have owned a different one who knows (so he has 3).

If Alan Close was the absolute most crucial point for the alibi to work Wallace would have told police the last person apart from himself to see Julia alive was probably the milk boy. But he didn't. The milk boy came forward reluctantly pressured by friends after bragging and voluntarily, and didn't come forward right away. It looks like Wallace couldn't have done it because he couldn't, this is what is said by experts in crime scene investigation, including both prosecutors and McFall who ALL believed Wallace dressed as Julia... The day's newspaper open at the center pages is another overlooked timestamp since that was delivered around 18:30 to 18:35.

As stated even if he had been wearing gloves and a mackintosh it is heavily discredited.

Forensics discredit Wallace as the killer period. Not just the prosecution theory. I can get it clearly stated if you need.

...

Whether or not the cat is related to this crime, it has to be accepted as coincidence unless it was planned, that it had been missing. The coincidence is already there. And by newspaper accounts and Goodman this happened on the day of the chess club if not during chess.

Lily usually left the cinema around 7 to 7.15 PM. I think Parry's there in his car waiting for Lily thinking she's working at the cinema. While waiting he gets bored and makes the call. That's why the timing aligns because it matches the time Lily's shifts ended.

He's loitered then gone to Lily's house.

...

If Parkes testimony is accurate - and I do think Parry had his car hosed down - I'd rather go with Denison. I still want to know where William Denison was. NOT Albert Denison.

Wallace performing a Mr. Bean late to the dentist scene in Parry's car speeding to the second tram stop seems bizarre. And why exactly Parry is taking part in this unless tricked I don't know... And then his car would be EXTENSIVELY soaked in blood. Not just a mitten in a glove box.

It's also not possible because without a Brine relative being involved Parry's alibi is real and is from 17:30 to 20:30. Very few people could drive (hence he couldn't easily lend it - nor would he want to tbh, it's his pride and joy whether his own car or his dad's) and very few owned cars.

I don't accept Parry lying about his alibi for no reason at all if he had a real one. He knew what he was being questioned about.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hang on there's something about Lily and the cinema that needs researching. It says for the orchestra she finished at 8 or 9. But it's testified she no longer held that position after the orchestra left in September 1929.

[etenguy]

The mac wasn't worn or used at all. That's solid. He could have owned a different one who knows (so he has 3).

If Alan Close was the absolute most crucial point for the alibi to work Wallace would have told police the last person apart from himself to see Julia alive was probably the milk boy. But he didn't. The milk boy came forward reluctantly pressured by friends after bragging and voluntarily, and didn't come forward right away. It looks like Wallace couldn't have done it because he couldn't, this is what is said by experts in crime scene investigation, including both prosecutors and McFall who ALL believed Wallace dressed as Julia... The day's newspaper open at the center pages is another overlooked timestamp since that was delivered around 18:30 to 18:35.

As stated even if he had been wearing gloves and a mackintosh it is heavily discredited.

Forensics discredit Wallace as the killer period. Not just the prosecution theory. I can get it clearly stated if you need.

Hi WWH

I am going to revisit your site and the opinions of the forensic experts you consulted. I accept forensic expert opinion and if it really does rule Wallace out as the killer, there is the end of my theory.

...

Whether or not the cat is related to this crime, it has to be accepted as coincidence unless it was planned, that it had been missing. The coincidence is already there. And by newspaper accounts and Goodman this happened on the day of the chess club if not during chess.

Lily usually left the cinema around 7 to 7.15 PM. I think Parry's there in his car waiting for Lily thinking she's working at the cinema. While waiting he gets bored and makes the call. That's why the timing aligns because it matches the time Lily's shifts ended.

He's loitered then gone to Lily's house.

Perfectly plausible, but this couldn't have been entirely a spur of the moment/being bored prank - it must have least fermented in Parry's mind and he would have needed to check the chess schedule and he would have to have known/noted down the phone number of the cafe. And it is a bit coincidental that this prank was played only once and it just happened to be the night before Julia's murder, allowing Wallace an alibi. As I said, plausible, but to my mind too coincidental not to be connected to the plan to either commit theft or commit murder.

...

If Parkes testimony is accurate - and I do think Parry had his car hosed down - I'd rather go with Denison. I still want to know where William Denison was. NOT Albert Denison.

I think Parkes testimony is entirely false and was a deliberate attempt to implicate Parry.

Wallace performing a Mr. Bean late to the dentist scene in Parry's car speeding to the second tram stop seems bizarre. And why exactly Parry is taking part in this unless tricked I don't know... And then his car would be EXTENSIVELY soaked in blood. Not just a mitten in a glove box.

It's also not possible because without a Brine relative being involved Parry's alibi is real and is from 17:30 to 20:30. Very few people could drive (hence he couldn't easily lend it - nor would he want to tbh, it's his pride and joy whether his own car or his dad's) and very few owned cars.

I don't accept Parry lying about his alibi for no reason at all if he had a real one. He knew what he was being questioned about.

I think it entirely plausible that Wallace protected himself from blood as best he could using the mac and gloves (subject to re-examining the forensic opinion)- under the mac would be fairly clean but areas not protected might still have blood on them. Changing in the car, or perhaps in a quiet spot just outside the car, would not necessarily mean a lot of blood - and indeed if a plastic cover was used, even less chance of blood contaminating the car. Regardless I then think the car was thoroughly cleaned.

I agree with you about Parry and the Brine relatives. I think Parry's alibi is real. I do not believe Parry was involved in the theft/murder of Julia Wallace - I think any accomplice of Wallace to this crime would need to be someone with whom he was very close.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Okay false alarm, Gannon's simply done it again it seems. Lily's cinema isn't there where he labels it. According to Goodman it's Cosy Cinema, Boaler Street, Clubmoor.

So he's not waiting for her. That would seal it for me I think. But it's still what happened I think. It matches forensics, the confession matches all forensic evidence down to the weapon and Julia's position. Which is bizarre because it contradicted every other book and statement.

He's just not loitering the cinema for Lily. Sorry. It was another Gannon mistake.

[WallaceWackedHer]

If the call happened and no crime it's like blatant he got punked. It's only because there's a murder that anything is made of it.

I think right now it's either that or Parry and Denison after the money.

However you should look at the details for the burglary at #19 Wolverton just a month earlier.

Give me some time to work on this I'm in contact with a lot of people including Antony, Gannon, Wilkes etc... I know forensically Wallace could not have killed his wife. I changed my site a few weeks ago to say innocent of killing his wife. Because I might be persuaded by a hitman.

Just give me some time with it. I'm also in touch with Hill Dickinson (Munro's company).

[etenguy]

If the call happened and no crime it's like blatant he got punked. It's only because there's a murder that anything is made of it.

I think right now it's either that or Parry and Denison after the money.

However you should look at the details for the burglary at #19 Wolverton just a month earlier.

Give me some time to work on this I'm in contact with a lot of people including Antony, Gannon, Wilkes etc... I know forensically Wallace could not have killed his wife. I changed my site a few weeks ago to say innocent of killing his wife. Because I might be persuaded by a hitman.

Just give me some time with it. I'm also in touch with Hill Dickinson (Munro's company).

Hi WWH

Happy to give you some time - I need some too, to recheck the latest evidence and to search for any additional corroborative evidence that supports/detracts from the theory I think best explains what happened.

I don't think the prank, if that is what it was, was spur of the moment. Parry would have had to prepare for it, therefore the position of the cinema is of no consequence to me. If it was a prank, Parry planned it and was at that particular phone box so he could observe Wallace leaving before making the prank call. Though, as I said earlier, I'm not convinced it was a prank.

[Ven]

Okay false alarm, Gannon's simply done it again it seems. Lily's cinema isn't there where he labels it. According to Goodman it's Cosy Cinema, Boaler Street, Clubmoor.

So he's not waiting for her. That would seal it for me I think. But it's still what happened I think. It matches forensics, the confession matches all forensic evidence down to the weapon and Julia's position. Which is bizarre because it contradicted every other book and statement.

He's just not loitering the cinema for Lily. Sorry. It was another Gannon mistake.

NO YOUR MISTAKE

So Gordon... Parry... you choose... you keep changing for whatever reason... wasn't there.. AND DIDN'T make the phone call !!!!

[etenguy]

WWH

May i ask if you are planning to write a book about this case - and if so, whether it is likely to be a purely 'these are the facts as best we know them' type approach, or might it include 'this is the best theory we have at the moment about who was involved'?

[Ven]

Wow!! WWH where do we start..

Firstly I love your passion... and I had to wait a few days as I'm thick skinned and had to wait a few days to let it sink in...however.... if I'm a child then so are you.. you move from one prospect to the next...like a kid in a candy store (I'll have 5 of them , no 4, 2 of them , no 3)...I can't keep up.

If I followed your course, I would have a massive headache! According to you there are ten people in the parlour!! Who's your latest suspect> LOL I can't keep up!(refer your post #369)

My questions, previously, are not necessarily to support William, but are to verify anything. If we can knock out anyone, prove anything , then we move on.

Was there a missing bar... the charwoman said it was iron and rough... which may match your forensics!

Why was there no blood in any other room...? waiting for your forensic experts.

My detailed PROOF about Amy's false statement... AND MY PROVEN SPECULATION that she met William (at some random place) at 4pm AFTER she met with Julia... further away from her home...If you had this sort of evidence on any other of your 20 suspects you would be screaming blue murder!!

Your experts say a large coat couldn't be held up as a shield... Why.. they don't say why? They just say it's absurd... why?

As I said i'm not 100% on William... if we have the evidence then let's exclude them... and i do think the Johnstons may be involved... but let's clear up these other issues

WWH, my questions are not to support the case against William, but to sort the fact from the conjecture.

I dont care if William didn't do it.... I just don't have a better prospect at the moment

[etenguy]

NO YOUR MISTAKE

So Gordon... Parry... you choose... you keep changing for whatever reason... wasn't there.. AND DIDN'T make the phone call !!!!

Hi Ven

I don't think the issue of the location of the cinema detracts from the proposition that Parry made a prank call - it is just that the logistics changes. Though my own personal view is that the call was not a prank.

[Ven]

Sorry etenguy, But WWH placed so much emphasis on Gordon.. Parry... whichever... making this call because he was waiting...
IT DIDN'T HAPPEN... so who made the call!!?

[Ven]

Sorry be being so EMPHATIC.. but that is what WWH does all the time...SOOOO who made the call?