Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Kew, I've publicised everything in those front and back covers. There are some newspaper articles I could also post up but you can get those on the BNA.

And at the police station but heavily pruned (why would you prune this case?!?!? It's sacred tier).

Yeah, I meant that file with the Johnstone statement. Is that one in Liverpool?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Where are the other records held?

Kew, I've publicised everything in those front and back covers. There are some newspaper articles I could also post up but you can get those on the BNA.

And at the police station but heavily pruned (why would you prune this case?!?!? It's sacred tier).

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

No the authors just write them down or whatever, or maybe photograph them like I did at Kew. They will be there right now. I think they might be in Hill Dickinson's files though so we are desperately trying to get those.

They are accessible just people are a bit lazy so you have to pester.

Where are the other records held?

[caz]

This is a slight tangent to the thread, but I would be interested to know whether people think the intent that night was robbery or murder.

As I see it there are two possibilities:

A. This was attempted robbery which was interrupted, leading to the attack on Julia. If we believe that it leads to one set of suspects.
B. This was premeditated murder which was rather clumsily set up to look like an interrupted robbery, which leads us to a different set of suspects.

My thoughts on the matter are that this was always intended as a murder of Julia, the signs of robbery were clumsy at best and the evidence for attempted burglary not strong (ie no burglary took place (except a small amount of money from the box) and yet valuables were in the house).

My thoughts are the same, etenguy.

I can't dismiss as an irrelevant coincidence the fact that Julia was so many years older than anyone at the time - including her husband - apparently believed.

How close a couple could they really have been, for him not to know? Was he too gallant to come out with the truth about her real age, when charged with her murder, or too afraid it would be seen as a motive?

I'm not sure I understand why the Johnstons are suspected today. How insane would it have been for them to commit such a crime - be it burglary or murder or both - in the house of their next-door neighbours, while they knew Julia would be there? Has anything like it ever happened before, with the culprits getting away with it until decades later, when some amateur tec goes digging in the files?

Love,

Caz
X

[WallaceWackedHer]

This is interesting but I am a bit confused. Has the Johnstons' statement been taken away from the police/archive files? If so, why do the police/archivist not require their return? I think I may be a bit naive here.

No the authors just write them down or whatever, or maybe photograph them like I did at Kew. They will be there right now. I think they might be in Hill Dickinson's files though so we are desperately trying to get those.

They are accessible just people are a bit lazy so you have to pester.

[etenguy]

No author will release information on this burglary, no author who has seen the files will provide the statements of any of the Johnstons.

I have asked several I know have seen the files. I have been given everything else. This is kept totally hidden. Antony who makes a career off of cases remaining unsolved gets very angry (srs) if you suggest the Johnstons.

This is interesting but I am a bit confused. Has the Johnstons' statement been taken away from the police/archive files? If so, why do the police/archivist not require their return? I think I may be a bit naive here.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Wilkes got Gannon to contact me to offer assistance with the files. He has not replied since I asked about the Johnston's statements. But he may be busy of course...

The scientific facts of the murder so far seem to be this, just according to experts:

1. The raincoat was not worn or held by the attacker during the assault. It's presence is a mystery. Suggestion is it's most likely to have been upon Julia. The raincoat theory can be safely dismissed completely. For the record, holding it is "absurd" and would work even LESS well as a shield.

The killer did not kneel while wearing it, markings do not match that idea either.

All raincoat theories are trash basically.

2. Q: Just for the record, would you forensically dismiss William having killed Julia alone in ANY manner (e.g. not necessarily the raincoat theory, just having battered her skull in and leaving the house in the allotted time in any way).

A: I find it highly improbable that he could have done the crime and gotten out in the available time.

3. Bloody footprints would be expected to be tracked out of the room not necessarily on any other surfaces (e.g. door handles). A forensic student and another expert during trial suggested wiping feet on the jacket or hearth rug.

4. The murder weapon has some kind of obvious pattern on it to create parallel markings. A spanner, shipyard wooden crate opener things, threadrd pipe. It has to be pronged or have actual blatant patterning.

The weapon is NOT the iron bar or poker claimed as missing.

5. The wound believed to be first (front left of Julia's skull, opening it up), is actually almost certainly last.

6. Julia probably on the right side of the parlour when attacked.

7. The rigor estimates by McFall are to be dismissed. The blood clot estimate is more plausible:

The observation of the clotted blood has MacFall say it was 2-3 hrs old and indicates a time of 6:50-7:50 for the killing. This is much more plausible [than the rigor estimate]...

8. The toilet pan clot and bank note blood does not fit the body of evidence and should be dismissed as transfer.

9. Rigor test is very unreliable and even for the time not performed correctly. Liver temperature is generally used now but at the time rectal was most up to date and was not done. Room temp not taken. Rigor estimate ought to be dismissed.

10. "The blood pattern analysis is, as expected, rudimentary and regarded too highly."

...

This is as it stands I think. There is probably more. I have the entire dialogues up online.

With the type of fire, I am willing to buy one if anyone can direct me to it to perform tests (it's a specific model of a Wilson's Sunbeam Gas Fire), burning should not be immediate as it's not an exposed flame. The radiants would take time to heat.

That suggests the parlour fire was lit at least some time before her death. The arrangement of the pillows suggest Julia was napping or reclining on it. The chair by the sideboard may indicate a guest if that is not its usual position.

I can actually purchase and test this fireplace to see how easily it would burn and how long it would take on average to burn a mackintosh or skirt. If anyone can help me locate one I will do so.

[WallaceWackedHer]

This is a slight tangent to the thread, but I would be interested to know whether people think the intent that night was robbery or murder.

As I see it there are two possibilities:

A. This was attempted robbery which was interrupted, leading to the attack on Julia. If we believe that it leads to one set of suspects.
B. This was premeditated murder which was rather clumsily set up to look like an interrupted robbery, which leads us to a different set of suspects.

My thoughts on the matter are that this was always intended as a murder of Julia, the signs of robbery were clumsy at best and the evidence for attempted burglary not strong (ie no burglary took place (except a small amount of money from the box) and yet valuables were in the house).

"All the books and theories concerning the Julia Wallace murder do not reference the following curious fact. The police thought the circumstances surrounding the killing of Julia Wallace had an eerie parallel with a burglary that had taken place weeks before and just four doors away from the Wallace’s home (same side, same back entry) in December 1930.

Samuel Shotton, a retired postman, had returned from holiday with his wife Clara to find their house at 19 Wolverton Street burgled, yet there had been no forced entry, even though the perpetrator of the crime had needlessly tossed pillows and blankets from the bed up in the Shottons spare room - creating the impression that the burglar was a disorganised soul who had been rummaging about for money and valuables.

The person who had burgled Samuel and Clara Shotton's home in Wolverton Street had known exactly where the couple kept their savings, and he had known that the couple were away on holiday, almost as if he had inside knowledge, and what's more, he had even gone to the trouble of replacing the lid on the box that had contained the savings."

No author will release information on this burglary, no author who has seen the files will provide the statements of any of the Johnstons.

I have asked several I know have seen the files. I have been given everything else. This is kept totally hidden. Antony who makes a career off of cases remaining unsolved gets very angry (srs) if you suggest the Johnstons.

[etenguy]

This is a slight tangent to the thread, but I would be interested to know whether people think the intent that night was robbery or murder.

As I see it there are two possibilities:

A. This was attempted robbery which was interrupted, leading to the attack on Julia. If we believe that it leads to one set of suspects.
B. This was premeditated murder which was rather clumsily set up to look like an interrupted robbery, which leads us to a different set of suspects.

My thoughts on the matter are that this was always intended as a murder of Julia, the signs of robbery were clumsy at best and the evidence for attempted burglary not strong (ie no burglary took place (except a small amount of money from the box) and yet valuables were in the house).

[etenguy]

Intuitively it feels like a mistake to link the events simply because of how strong the opinion was that the caller WAS the killer. And now we realize it's a silly assumption that the caller and killer are definitely the same person.

Almost no theories actually have it that way.

So maybe the same mistake is made in assuming the call and crime is definitely 100% related. It seems like common human-think errors.

I have it written up it's related but I'm not sure.

Hi WWH

I haven't ruled out that the call may simply have been a prank and the person who made the call was not part of the robbery / murder. However, whichever way you look at it the call is linked to the murder, since without it the murder would not have taken place.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi John

There is no good solid evidence which points to a particular person being the caller, we have to infer the caller from the rest of the known facts. We can say it was a man. That if Wallace was the killer then he was most likely the caller, even though he disguised his voice so Sam Beattie did not recognise it. If he wasn't the murderer then it was Parry pranking or the would be thief/murderer. How you determine the latter is through the other evidence.

Intuitively it feels like a mistake to link the events simply because of how strong the opinion was that the caller WAS the killer. And now we realize it's a silly assumption that the caller and killer are definitely the same person.

Almost no theories actually have it that way.

So maybe the same mistake is made in assuming the call and crime is definitely 100% related. It seems like common human-think errors.

I have it written up it's related but I'm not sure.

Parry's call alibi proves the police did a bad job and Wilkes interview with Walsh is BS: Walsh says the defence never criticised the police. They definitely did, especially on the appeal trial which you can see. They were crap. And Bailey's son said his dad told him Moore turned up drunk and used then flushed the toilet before it had even been investigated. The forensics did a crap job too. Didn't even take room temp or rectal temp etc. Made no notes. Hugh Pierce said rigor was identical to what McFall said despite a 2 hour time difference. I'm told that is impossible.

Did you know Munro was illegally denied access to witness statements like Parry's statement?

The whole investigation of the case is a disgrace.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Gentlemen, seriously, enough Wallace threads have been shut for exactly this kind of thing. We may all have our opinions about WWH, I myself politely told him to F off in the past, but, for anyone who is genuinely interested in the case, his contribution has been massive, and continues to be so. And yes, he flip flops from one theory to the next. It's thinking aloud. His words not gospel, it's not like every post is a sermon. Rake through and see what fits and what doesn't. There's a reason this case is a mystery. Prior to WWH going to the time, effort and expense that he has, less was understood about it. Disagree, by all means, he does it with himself enough, and God knows LSD fuelled criminology is a weird trait, and not necessarily helpful, but leave out the personal squabbling, because the end result will be that everyone loses out.

Rant over.

[etenguy]

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.

Hi John

There is no good solid evidence which points to a particular person being the caller, we have to infer the caller from the rest of the known facts. We can say it was a man. That if Wallace was the killer then he was most likely the caller, even though he disguised his voice so Sam Beattie did not recognise it. If he wasn't the murderer then it was Parry pranking or the would be thief/murderer. How you determine the latter is through the other evidence.

[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.

[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.