Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[etenguy]

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

Hi Ven

Of course we do not have definitive proof - but my money is on William Wallace having made the call.

It therefore follows that I believe William murdered his wife.

[Ven]

Nice to know etenguy... but let's see what WWH delivers... now that his Parry... Gordon...call is no good?

I still have William at 75%

That's why i keep asking questions

[Ven]

I'm not sold on William...but until something substantial comes up...

[Ven]

...and WWH claims keep changing... like a child in a candy store... i'm happy to keep digging for clues

[etenguy]

...and WWH claims keep changing... like a child in a candy store... i'm happy to keep digging for clues

To be fair, this is a complex case and WWH has done much work to gather as much information as possible. When new information is discovered, it is right to reconsider your position and change that if necessary. I too have flitted from one theory to another before more firmly coming down in the camp of William Wallace being the most likely murderer. That is because all the mainstream theories ignore or dismiss parts of the evidence we have in order to be viable. For instance, if you believe William killed his wife - what of the Parkes testimony, if you believe it was Gordon Parry, with or without an accomplice, what of the Gordon Parry alibi, and why would he tell Parkes, and so on. I have developed my own theory which I think explains all the evidence we have, and which is why I can be more certain that William Wallace killed his wife. But, my theory needs more corroborative evidence of a type which is hard to uncover so long after the event.

Also, though I do not subscribe to the theory, the case against Gordon Parry making a prank call is not blown out of the water by the change in location of the cinema - it merely suggests the prank, if that is what it was, was planned rather than spur of the moment.

[Ven]

Hi Ven

Of course we do not have definitive proof - but my money is on William Wallace having made the call.

It therefore follows that I believe William murdered his wife.

I do too etenguy. but let's see what WWH says... because...

[WallaceWackedHer]

NO YOUR MISTAKE

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

Richard Gordon Parry (commonly known as Gordon) made the call. The cinema location had nothing to do with it, I only came up with that about the cinema days ago. Literally everything fits him and the fake alibi confirms it as probably the most certain part of the whole case.

I recommend stealing millions from poor defenceless old ladies to kill time while the professionals I have commissioned work on the case. I'll get back to you all when there's new information. Or you can use the stolen millions to hire your own - either way, professionals are vital. I just called Hill Dickinson again. I'll probably have to pester them.

The idea Wallace did it (and especially the use of the raincoat) is discarded by any forensic expert... Even I attempted to suggest Wallace's John Bull article as a confession to the experts because I'm still considering possible ways he's guilty... And it was instantly dismissed, such is the evidence against it.

It's just not possible.

Alan lying is possible.

[WallaceWackedHer]

To be fair, this is a complex case and WWH has done much work to gather as much information as possible. When new information is discovered, it is right to reconsider your position and change that if necessary. I too have flitted from one theory to another before more firmly coming down in the camp of William Wallace being the most likely murderer. That is because all the mainstream theories ignore or dismiss parts of the evidence we have in order to be viable. For instance, if you believe William killed his wife - what of the Parkes testimony, if you believe it was Gordon Parry, with or without an accomplice, what of the Gordon Parry alibi, and why would he tell Parkes, and so on. I have developed my own theory which I think explains all the evidence we have, and which is why I can be more certain that William Wallace killed his wife. But, my theory needs more corroborative evidence of a type which is hard to uncover so long after the event.

Also, though I do not subscribe to the theory, the case against Gordon Parry making a prank call is not blown out of the water by the change in location of the cinema - it merely suggests the prank, if that is what it was, was planned rather than spur of the moment.

It still doesn't mean it was planned, I previously thought he saw Wallace while driving to Lily's. We have no idea where he really was because he lied to the police because the truth would have got him in legal trouble...

I'm going Denison or Johnston with or without a prank call.

I already have paid professionals to look into the case so I personally know Wallace did not kill his wife. Guilt is different. He just did not kill his wife.

Others are free to come up with anything they like but I already know it's not possible lol... So it's either a conspiracy or not him.

[Ven]

Richard Gordon Parry (commonly known as Gordon) made the call. The cinema location had nothing to do with it,(WOW now, all of a sudden)
I only came up with that days ago.(No you didn't) Literally everything fits him and the fake alibi confirms it as probably the most certain part of the whole case.

I recommend stealing millions from poor defenceless old ladies to kill time while the professionals I have commissioned work on the case. I'll get back to you all when there's new information. Or you can use the stolen millions to hire your own - either way, professionals are vital. I just called Hill Dickinson again. I'll probably have to pester them.( UMMM What is this!!?)

The idea Wallace did it (and especially the use of the raincoat) is discarded by any forensic expert... Even I attempted to suggest Wallace's John Bull article as a confession to the experts because I'm still considering possible ways he's guilty... And it was instantly dismissed, such is the evidence against it. (UMMM DIDN'T mention that... we just don't know how she was murdered!!)

It's just not possible.

Alan lying is possible.

ALAN WHO? lying about what? POST 397

You're all over the place WWH.
Truly, I've ignored your slurs and ignorance...i.e. i don't care who killed her... but your rants are getting worse! please stop the drugs for a day or two... just to realign!

[etenguy]

ALAN WHO? lying about what?

I can help with this question - Alan Cross, the last independent witness who saw Julia alive. he says he delivered milk to her around 6.30-6.45 on the night of the murder - thereby restricting the time in which William had to kill her if William was the murderer.

[WallaceWackedHer]

ALAN WHO? lying about what?

You're all over the place WWH.
Truly, I've ignored your slurs and ignorance...i.e. i don't care who killed her... but your rants are getting worse! please stop the drugs for a day or two... just to realign!

I said about the cinema like days ago. I originally thought he saw Wallace while driving to Lily's house if it was a prank call. Not waiting at a cinema.

I care who killed her (as in solving the case) but don't care to convince people of things. I sincerely recommend never engaging me in debate because insulting people is usually a bigger priority to me than convincing them, there are exceptions but rarely... It's easy to nicely state opinions but I tend to just insult and belittle with little regard for convincing. That's a sidenote.

So I really do not recommend doing so.

If you wanted an actual discussion it'd be better if my friend who used to post here wasn't banned as he will do that. I won't, I'll just start throwing out slurs and insults with very minimal attempt at persuasion.

Why did you stop practicing law?

[etenguy]

It still doesn't mean it was planned, I previously thought he saw Wallace while driving to Lily's. We have no idea where he really was because he lied to the police because the truth would have got him in legal trouble...

I'm going Denison or Johnston with or without a prank call.

I already have paid professionals to look into the case so I personally know Wallace did not kill his wife. Guilt is different. He just did not kill his wife.

Others are free to come up with anything they like but I already know it's not possible lol... So it's either a conspiracy or not him.

Your right - if it was a prank call by Parry it could possibly have been spur of the moment if he happened to already know Wallace was going to chess club and had about him the cafe number for some other reason. I think it more likely to be a planned prank though, if it was indeed a prank call, which i am not yet convinced.

[Ven]

still waiting on your experts about no blood in the house?

[WallaceWackedHer]

still waiting on your experts about no blood in the house?

Yeah I'm curious on this. The shoes aren't an issue, I'm told the skull being opened up was last part of the attack not the first. But I'm wondering about drips off clothes and such.

I don't want to pester them because they are working real current cases where people's lives are at stake. I was told naturally something like this has to take the backburner compared to live court cases.

I'll ask now and just tell them there's no rush.

They are all emphatic William couldn't have killed her, and now also that the weapon had a distinct pattern.

[John G]

I see little possibility that Wallace made the prank call. His voice wasn't recognised and the evidence fir him being the caller is zero.