Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Straight back at it with the shaky blue heads! It's like you've never been away.

Great to have you back on the boards. Wallace has put up alot of interesting bits over the last few months, including the stuff from Monro's archive in Liverpool, so lots to catch up with.

I am most interested in the statement about the man asking for the non-existent 54 Richmond Park, because it matches the man Lily Hall saw and I don't understand it. I don't understand any reason why an accomplice or participant in a criminal activity would actually approach people on the streets near the crime scene asking for fake addresses. It's a very weird thing.

I think the sighting is after Lily Hall's, because she says she got in at 8.40 and her clock is 5 minutes fast. And wasn't clear on when she looked at the church clock. She had a movie to be at about 5 or 6 minutes away walking and that was 8.50. The other witness Mr. Greenlees' stated time of seeing the clock and stepping indoors aligns with the distance with the brief "accosting" that took place.

That statement transcribed:

Henry Harrison Greenlees of 95 Richmond Park Liverpool will say:-

I am 38 years of age. On Tuesday 20 January last I was returning from a Choir practice at St Georges Church Everton, accompanied by a Mr Leak, my Choirmaster. He left me at Anfield Road. I walked down towards the end of Walton Breck Road, and looked at the Clock of Holy Trinity Church which is brightly illuminated. It was then 8.35 p.m.

I walked along Richmond Park and when opposite No 26 Richmond Park but on the other side I was accosted by a stockily built man in a felt hat who had crossed over from the bottom of Letchworth St. He asked me to direct him to No 54 Richmond Park. I told him that number did not exist.

I know both Mr Wallace and Miss Hall, and did not see either of them that night. It was 8.40 p.m when I stepped into my house.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The idea that William did this alone is the only avenue that is scientifically discredited at present. It is not bizarre to think he couldn't escape blood spatter considering no professional forensic expert thinks it is possible. Nobody then and nobody now. I have questioned the idea using the many variations of it. I asked specifically about the assailant kneeling down in it, that was rejected. All variations were rejected; the consensus is that the jacket was on Julia in some way. I think the blood pattern specialist will be able to give a more definitive write-up on that, and also on several other points I am interested in.

The skirt was burned on the night, as was the mackintosh, the Analyst claims this is proveable based on the friability of the material. Nobody seems to have seen Julia come to the door with a burnt skirt. It was done on the night. I do not necessarily think the skirt was twisted round, that is an opinion based only on a detective's idea about women's fashion which is not credible.

The weapon is not the iron bar. It's something with a distinct pattern or prong.

...

I do not find random people's input on blood spatter or matters of forensics to be credible. Several authors have attempted to give opinions on these things and have been wrong which is then very misleading.

Professional opinion is that he couldn't have done it in the manner described, nor in the manner suggested by any book or forum post. Specifically the jacket was not used as a shield in any way shape or form. They aren't bending over backwards to make the suggestion, that is the honest opinion of people who actually know what they're talking about.

I will get the answer to exactly what happened on that night and IDGAF who ends up being the murderer (though it's looking quite certain it's not William unassisted). I want the particulars, I want it written out as it happened.

I’ve just read through the other thread and all I can see is that your expert doesn’t think it possible that William could have protected himself from blood. That’s hardly a rigorous analysis is it. I’m sorry but if he says that it’s physically impossible for William to have used items (clothing etc) to protect himself from blood then he’s delusional. A coat reaching the floor, a glove and piece of cloth around his face (or even an old balaclava which were popular in those days) would have left the tiniest of areas for blood to have hit home. It’s simply not impossible.

And for someone supposedly sticking to facts he believes Parry to have been guilty. Unshakeable, untouchable alibi. Since when does an alibi mean nothing. Parry was not at Wolverton Street. Now THAT is a fact. He shouldn’t even be mentioned in terms of being the killer until someone puts the slightest dent in his alibi.

As it stands there is still only one suspect and virtually every aspect of the case points to him despite the distortions and the excuses that are made.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I’ve just read through the other thread and all I can see is that your expert doesn’t think it possible that William could have protected himself from blood. That’s hardly a rigorous analysis is it. I’m sorry but if he says that it’s physically impossible for William to have used items (clothing etc) to protect himself from blood then he’s delusional. A coat reaching the floor, a glove and piece of cloth around his face (or even an old balaclava which were popular in those days) would have left the tiniest of areas for blood to have hit home. It’s simply not impossible.

And for someone supposedly sticking to facts he believes Parry to have been guilty. Unshakeable, untouchable alibi. Since when does an alibi mean nothing. Parry was not at Wolverton Street. Now THAT is a fact. He shouldn’t even be mentioned in terms of being the killer until someone puts the slightest dent in his alibi.

As it stands there is still only one suspect and virtually every aspect of the case points to him despite the distortions and the excuses that are made.

Actually it's quite a bit more in depth, especially regarding the injuries and weapon. I think it's very important the weapon isn't the iron bar. I post stuff here but I have more time to post fuller dialogues on my website because I can edit it at any date and organize things better. My thinking and posting is very much stream of consciousness - I get excited and post things before double checking the fact, so it's useful to be able to edit things beyond a 10 minute window.

Julia admitted people into the parlour when William was away on several occasions in the presence of the charwoman who never saw the people. She had been working there for 9 months so about 39 visits, during which Julia helped her clean. She went through the whole house - I don't think she has a key? There are friends of hers at church William doesn't know, and some friends Julia would visit while he was at work. I should find Antony's statement from a doctor who relayed a tale given to her by a patient regarding that matter.

Caird says Wallace would go to chess once a week normally. Rarely on Thursdays but sometimes on Mondays. I do know he turned up on Thursday because Gordon saw him there during his drama club. It is important information that he doesn't only go there when matches are scheduled.

I don't currently think that telephone message is part of a plan. Antony has the engineer's report, the box was in perfect working order. Add to that, the first operator says she patched the call through and heard someone answer at the cafe... The caller's got an answer first time (not from Gladys I suppose), jammed button B to get his money back, re-inserted it and claimed he'd pressed A to the second operator so he'd get a refund. The second call was refunded says Moore. No mention of the man having refunded the first call - I think they believe he'd paid for it. I think that was the man's intention.

A murderer would endeavour not to expose their voice to multiple people over an elongated period for the sake of two pennies. All the time he is in that box is also more time for someone to potentially see him in there. I'm not even sure a burglar would do this, maybe if they felt the plan could fail, but the risk of extra exposure and implanting yourself in the minds of these people is not worth it.

If Gordon can fake his voice to the club why would he not do so to the operators who will be called for by the police, knowing that he's going to commit a crime?

It's important to note that Kelly stays on the line to ensure the call is through, yet doesn't state that the caller's voice changed when he started speaking to Gladys. I think it would be obvious if his voice suddenly changed.

And then the description of the tone of the voice, confident, sure of himself, or ordinary. It sounds like the man is very lackadaisical about the outcome of this telephone message. No hint of nervousness. He hasn't made any real effort to hide his identity from several witnesses or to keep the interaction as brief as possible.

If the details are all intentional (e.g. the East is on purpose) I think it might legitimately be a practical joke and therefore unrelated. All things taken into consideration...

[harry]

Well Caz,I believe experience and customs of those times is what helped members of that jury to reach the decision they did.That in conjunction with the evidence presented.What might have happened on a warm summer evening,when the comforts of the front room made that place an ideal location to engage in discussion,is quite different to a cold midwinter evening,especially considering the hostess was suffering the effects of a winters cold,which one might expect would aid in any decision she made.
Considering that the fire in the front room was not lit when Wallace returned and he and Mrs Johnson entered,the question would be,if Julia had lit it,who had, and why had they, turned it off.I can think of a reason why Wallace could have enticed Julia into that room,and even sujjest the fire be lit,what I cannot fathom is why he shouldn't have struck as soon s her back was towards him.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I likewise feel that an attacker admitted into the home by Julia with intent to KILL her would have killed her sooner. ESPECIALLY a hitman, I think a hitman would attack her very quickly and turn up armed (the latter of which is supported because the iron bar wasn't used). Mr. Wallace could have had someone go in the back while his wife was on the couch told to expect a certain visitor very easily. He goes out the back on his journey and the killer enters in his place. A much better explanation for how he is not covered in blood which I think people with expertise in that field of science would take seriously.

I suspected the same for William himself as the assailant (which is completely discredited so I have dismissed it anyway), I could not understand why he has left his wife with her back turned to him for so long without attacking her. You have to remember that each second is apparently crucial.

With the blood expert, aside from expecting a further discarding of the raincoat idea (I prefered Gannon's use of it - more plausible - but am told there would be clear tearing and it was discarded), THAT is what I want to get. I want to try to nail down her position and her attacker's to determine the likelihood of premed. For example if she's hit over the back of the head as she enters the room that's far more like premed.

I think everyone can agree it's a very stupid man's proposition to claim nobody else could possibly have had any motive to kill her. Not that it matters, because it's a forensic case not a logical one, and I am certain it can only possibly be solved or proven that way... But the positionings suggested to me don't look like premed if Julia is on the right side of the room, except in the specific switcheroo scenario I mentioned (Mr. Wallace out, killer in, all through the back door). Or a scenario where there had been an argument and neighbours have lied. I should come back to that at a later date because they and Mr. Crewe have been flagged by the detectives (Superintendent Moore) in reports to the chief as being deceitful.

The blood spray up the wall - her head is lower than standing height and McFall thinks this is where she's first hit - but the gas tap is not there it's on the right. I think she's been hit with her head "lower than standing" because she has already been hit or shoved down and that's where her head then is. I am told at THAT point her attacker was some place in front of the fire hence his body blocked the blowback spatter coming in that direction.




I think this point will be able to be clarified. That stain right in the top left corner is exactly at the position where McFall and one of the experts I consulted thinks the spray has come from. Being attacked from the left, going into the fire, then pulled out her feet would be on the left side, her body would be diagonally the other way. I discussed this with professionals also (actually I always thought it about the feet, but it was suggested to me unprompted). Try to imagine her being on the left, then hitting her, she goes into the fire, you grab her by the hair and pull her away from it. And reconcile that with the position of any of those blood pools and her feet being over on the couch side.

I have it on good authority that to open up the skull, the big opening, it would be very difficult to do in one hit to a standing person. Rather it is multiple blows while the victim's head is supported against the floor. The same patterned or pronged weapon that made the distinctive parallel markings on the back of the skull striking the area multiple times.

...

Now have her rise from the right side of the room i.e. the couch, then be hit or shoved (her head has not been smashed open on the mantlepiece, I asked) as she's coming across the room. Then pull her out of the fireplace by her hair, her feet are on the right, her head dumped where the first pool is. Apparently she has then been moved further, leaving those pools with each movement. Something along those lines.

That is a better fit for the facts given she has been over there by the physical evidence too, as in the position of the cushions on the sofa and where her matches are, but I have mentioned that repetitively I think.

I won't opine on the physical forensic evidence whatsoever. I could make suggestions as to what it looks like but I don't have a clue what I'm talking about and don't have the right to even speculate on the matter, lest I put proveably false ideas in people's minds as various books on this case have done.

[Herlock Sholmes]

“ I think everyone would agree it’s a very stupid man’s proposition to claim that no one could have had any motive to kill her.”

Im assuming that this is aimed at me? It’s a question of likelihood. Julia didn’t go out alone often and only occasionally with William and so who would have had the chance or reason to have built up the required level of emotion and who would also have known about the chess club and the location of the cash box. In his 1st interview with Gold William had said that Julia would only have let someone in that she’ known ‘personally’ which counts against the suggestion of someone pretending to be Qualtrough.

”...his body blocked the blowback spatter coming in that direction.”

So all the blood spatter was forward and to the left and right and not a drop passed the killers head for eg? Caz mentioned Murder, Mystery and My Family. I’ve seen both series and I’m sure that there were 2 cases where, in a close range bludgeoning, the lawyers felt that the killer must have gotten blood on him but the forensic expert said “not necessarily.” I’ve also seen this in another case but I just can’t recall it so I can’t use it as an example. Surely some blood would have passed the killers body?

”Especially a hitman.”

Can we really entertain the idea that the mousy, reclusive Julia was killed by a hitman? Maybe hired by Don Vito Parry?

A couple of questions as I genuinely can’t recall the sources:

Where does the info come from that Sarah Draper often saw Julia take visitors into the parlour?

Do we know for certain that Julia was a regular churchgoer?

on the phone call, it’s interesting to note that the voice was described as that of an elderly man. I remember once hearing an interview with an impressionist who said that the most difficult thing was to change your age without sounding like a caricature (like doing an old man and sounding like Clive Dunn in Dad’s Army.)
Beattie also used the words ‘gruff’ and ‘peremptory.’ This appears to suggest that the caller altered his voice even more for him. Could that be because he knew his voice unlike the operators. Gladys Harley barely knew William either. ‘Peremptory’ indicates short and sharp. Someone not wishing any extended conversation. Someone pretty much going through a pre-planned script.

The chances of this being a prank call followed by someone randomly taking advantage of William’s absence to murder her must be astronomically small.

[WallaceWackedHer]

“ I think everyone would agree it’s a very stupid man’s proposition to claim that no one could have had any motive to kill her.”

Im assuming that this is aimed at me? It’s a question of likelihood. Julia didn’t go out alone often and only occasionally with William and so who would have had the chance or reason to have built up the required level of emotion and who would also have known about the chess club and the location of the cash box. In his 1st interview with Gold William had said that Julia would only have let someone in that she’ known ‘personally’ which counts against the suggestion of someone pretending to be Qualtrough.

”...his body blocked the blowback spatter coming in that direction.”

So all the blood spatter was forward and to the left and right and not a drop passed the killers head for eg? Caz mentioned Murder, Mystery and My Family. I’ve seen both series and I’m sure that there were 2 cases where, in a close range bludgeoning, the lawyers felt that the killer must have gotten blood on him but the forensic expert said “not necessarily.” I’ve also seen this in another case but I just can’t recall it so I can’t use it as an example. Surely some blood would have passed the killers body?

”Especially a hitman.”

Can we really entertain the idea that the mousy, reclusive Julia was killed by a hitman? Maybe hired by Don Vito Parry?

A couple of questions as I genuinely can’t recall the sources:

Where does the info come from that Sarah Draper often saw Julia take visitors into the parlour?

Do we know for certain that Julia was a regular churchgoer?

on the phone call, it’s interesting to note that the voice was described as that of an elderly man. I remember once hearing an interview with an impressionist who said that the most difficult thing was to change your age without sounding like a caricature (like doing an old man and sounding like Clive Dunn in Dad’s Army.)
Beattie also used the words ‘gruff’ and ‘peremptory.’ This appears to suggest that the caller altered his voice even more for him. Could that be because he knew his voice unlike the operators. Gladys Harley barely knew William either. ‘Peremptory’ indicates short and sharp. Someone not wishing any extended conversation. Someone pretty much going through a pre-planned script.

The chances of this being a prank call followed by someone randomly taking advantage of William’s absence to murder her must be astronomically small.

Well I didn't suppose you believe it's not possible anyone else could have a motive to murder her? There's no known motive for William and yet apparently he had one (and something recent, there are multiple corroborations of the Julia-late-home incident and how upset he was, that was the 15th of December just gone). The implication being he had a motive we don't know about. If that's the bar to reach then feasibly anyone could have an unknown motive to have wanted her dead.

Sarah Draper's statement, it was 3 out of her ~39 visits to the home that Julia had admitted someone and taken them into the parlour for a few minutes. I have posted all the statements that I have, I think there are some more but very inconsequential like the guy who just says basically "yes I got the lock and gave it to the locksmith" type of thing.

Julia was active in the church, there have been quite a lot of statements regarding that, I think all these are after the murder and trial from people who knew her from the church. The Halls (actually her parents, I think) were among those who knew her through the church.

That is how forensic professionals usually determine where the assailant was, by where the blood did not go, because it was blocked by their body. I am not very much interested in musings about these matters unless someone is qualified to speak on it. I am quite sure they use the actual details of the injuries to determine the force and type of spray that would be expected etc. In this case I am told there would be a large amount of blowback spatter. There is actually no disagreement whatsoever among the experts analyzing this case, they may only come to different conclusions about other matters like the movement of the body. The stance on the plausibility of the raincoat shield is entirely agreed upon. Kneeling ideas included in that.

I cannot accept that any murderer would just alter his voice when Samuel Beattie comes on the line and spend extended periods talking in his normal voice to multiple witnesses, making himself quite memorable to them in the process, for the sake of a couple of pennies. There is a very good chance the call is a practical joke based on a number of points. The killing should therefore be looked at independently. Who is the suspect if this was a real business appointment? If it is a true coincidence, and that answers the case, then does that mean nobody will ever, ever figure it out because they just refuse to consider it? If it is exploited then it's not actually a coincidence at all. The coincidence of the cat running away is accepted without question.

I do wish Mr. Greenlees' "hat man" had come forward to the police if he is an innocent person. I want to know who that person was and why he was looking for fake addresses, and I want to know if he spoke to William too, where Lily Hall claimed. He isn't the killer, the killer would have blood on him and not loiter the streets. The most likely killer is someone with access to a car or who lives very close to the house. William unassisted isn't credible, a hitman doesn't necessarily need payment if there is a shared motive. Nobody knows of any motive.

[caz]

A question - why was William surprised/worried when he couldn’t initially get in via the back door? He always returned via the front door at night. Julia knew this. So she was in the house alone, after dark and with The Anfield Housebreaker still at large and not expecting any visitors via the backdoor. He didn’t knock the back door to get Julia’s attention he expected it not to have been locked/bolted. Why?

Great questions, Herlock. Wallace should have been expecting Julia to be indoors by herself. So initially finding the front and back doors apparently locked/bolted should have struck him as natural enough, considering she had a bad cold, was not expecting visitors and he had been called out on business, leaving her more vulnerable to the Anfield Housebreaker or other undesirables. Since lockdown, my other half has urged me to keep the front and back doors locked at all times while I'm indoors alone, so I have to listen out for the bell when he gets back from anywhere and check it's him before opening up. Wallace should have been knocking at both doors for all he was worth, expecting Julia to eventually open up.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Great questions, Herlock. Wallace should have been expecting Julia to be indoors by herself. So initially finding the front and back doors apparently locked/bolted should have struck him as natural enough, considering she had a bad cold, was not expecting visitors and he had been called out on business, leaving her more vulnerable to the Anfield Housebreaker or other undesirables. Since lockdown, my other half has urged me to keep the front and back doors locked at all times while I'm indoors alone, so I have to listen out for the bell when he gets back from anywhere and check it's him before opening up. Wallace should have been knocking at both doors for all he was worth, expecting Julia to eventually open up.

Love,

Caz
X

Cheers Caz, it’s almost as if he expected the backdoor to be open

Its also worth mentioning that PC Williams who had no issues describing what went on on the other side of the door, ie that Mrs Johnston fumbled with the lock then a gap then William opened the door but he was adamant that he heard no bolt being drawn. And if no bolt was drawn then William lied and was therefore guilty. She couldn’t say yes or no with the bolt but, when asked, said that she couldn’t open the door due to a combination of nerves and the fact that it was a different lock to her own. It’s a bit difficult to believe that she wouldn’t have spotted that a bolt existed. I’ve no doubt that she simply had doubts but naturally didn’t want to contradict William on such an important issue.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well I didn't suppose you believe it's not possible anyone else could have a motive to murder her? There's no known motive for William and yet apparently he had one (and something recent, there are multiple corroborations of the Julia-late-home incident and how upset he was, that was the 15th of December just gone). The implication being he had a motive we don't know about. If that's the bar to reach then feasibly anyone could have an unknown motive to have wanted her dead.

Sarah Draper's statement, it was 3 out of her ~39 visits to the home that Julia had admitted someone and taken them into the parlour for a few minutes. I have posted all the statements that I have, I think there are some more but very inconsequential like the guy who just says basically "yes I got the lock and gave it to the locksmith" type of thing.

Julia was active in the church, there have been quite a lot of statements regarding that, I think all these are after the murder and trial from people who knew her from the church. The Halls (actually her parents, I think) were among those who knew her through the church.

That is how forensic professionals usually determine where the assailant was, by where the blood did not go, because it was blocked by their body. I am not very much interested in musings about these matters unless someone is qualified to speak on it. I am quite sure they use the actual details of the injuries to determine the force and type of spray that would be expected etc. In this case I am told there would be a large amount of blowback spatter. There is actually no disagreement whatsoever among the experts analyzing this case, they may only come to different conclusions about other matters like the movement of the body. The stance on the plausibility of the raincoat shield is entirely agreed upon. Kneeling ideas included in that.

I cannot accept that any murderer would just alter his voice when Samuel Beattie comes on the line and spend extended periods talking in his normal voice to multiple witnesses, making himself quite memorable to them in the process, for the sake of a couple of pennies. There is a very good chance the call is a practical joke based on a number of points. The killing should therefore be looked at independently. Who is the suspect if this was a real business appointment? If it is a true coincidence, and that answers the case, then does that mean nobody will ever, ever figure it out because they just refuse to consider it? If it is exploited then it's not actually a coincidence at all. The coincidence of the cat running away is accepted without question.

I do wish Mr. Greenlees' "hat man" had come forward to the police if he is an innocent person. I want to know who that person was and why he was looking for fake addresses, and I want to know if he spoke to William too, where Lily Hall claimed. He isn't the killer, the killer would have blood on him and not loiter the streets. The most likely killer is someone with access to a car or who lives very close to the house. William unassisted isn't credible, a hitman doesn't necessarily need payment if there is a shared motive. Nobody knows of any motive.

It seems a strange way of determining the position of the killer. They assume that blood spatter must spread 360 degrees and any gap indicates the position of the killer?

What if the killer crouched down low and the blood went over his head?
Why have we heard of experts describing similar crime scenes say that the killer might not necessarily have gotten blood on him?

Why are they apparently unfamiliar with the concept of protective clothing?

On the subject of motive we at least have witnesses who contradict the suggestion of the happy marriage.

And finally why why when apparently trying to follow evidence is there still an attempt to ignore Parry’s inconvenient alibi?

[Abby Normal]

IMHO the strangest thing about the doors is that on this night he has trouble getting in and as soon as the neighbors show up bang he can get in. so two anomolies/coincidences right there. added to the fact that its guilty behavior 101 to set it up have someone else find the body or be present when you do. I cant help but think he would made a loud fuss about trying to get in until someone heard and showed up.

similar suspicious is he waits until the maid says anything about the missing murder weapon/poker.

and the q call from the phone booth near his home on the way to the club. and who goes on a wild goose chase for a meeting from such a dodgy phone call? cmon.

and he had plenty of time to get rid of the weapon and clean up more(if he even had any blood on him to begin with-he was probably wearing the blood... er rain coat when he killed her anyway) on his WHERE IS THE ADDRESS!?! IM ESTABLISHING AN ALIBI jaunt.

seems more than likely this is a planned domestic murder staged to look like a burglary gone wrong.

I lean more and more heavily that Wallace wacked her. sorry WallaceWackedHer. ; )

[WallaceWackedHer]

How do you guys get around the fact that Parry almost certainly made the call? Seems convenient to not consider this fact...

[caz]

How do you guys get around the fact that Parry almost certainly made the call? Seems convenient to not consider this fact...

Only 'almost' certainly, WWH?

Doubts creeping in?

If it was just a prank call, Parry went to some trouble to a) make it from a call box near to Wallace's home address; b) make the call at a time when Wallace could reasonably have made it himself, before going on to the chess club; and c) make sure the call could be traced to that particular box and at that particular time. How would any of that have made sense if Parry was not seeking to frame Wallace for the call, or for any crime that might be committed the following evening, but just wanted a laugh at his expense, imagining him searching in vain for Menlove Gardens East and the mysterious Mr Qualtrough? Or was this all just a terribly unfortunate coincidence for Wallace, that the call was traced and he was suspected of making it, because of the time and place, and what happened to his wife the following night while he was asking directions from all and sundry?

Why would Parry not have made the call from a box much nearer the chess club, where he could see if Wallace was going to attend and make sure his call was picked up and the hoax message taken down before Wallace actually entered the premises? Parry wouldn't then have needed or wanted the call to be traced.

Love,

Caz
X

[WallaceWackedHer]

Only 'almost' certainly, WWH?

Doubts creeping in?

If it was just a prank call, Parry went to some trouble to a) make it from a call box near to Wallace's home address; b) make the call at a time when Wallace could reasonably have made it himself, before going on to the chess club; and c) make sure the call could be traced to that particular box and at that particular time. How would any of that have made sense if Parry was not seeking to frame Wallace for the call, or for any crime that might be committed the following evening, but just wanted a laugh at his expense, imagining him searching in vain for Menlove Gardens East and the mysterious Mr Qualtrough? Or was this all just a terribly unfortunate coincidence for Wallace, that the call was traced and he was suspected of making it, because of the time and place, and what happened to his wife the following night while he was asking directions from all and sundry?

Why would Parry not have made the call from a box much nearer the chess club, where he could see if Wallace was going to attend and make sure his call was picked up and the hoax message taken down before Wallace actually entered the premises? Parry wouldn't then have needed or wanted the call to be traced.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz, the problem is you aren't addressing the things that point to Parry being the caller. What you are talking about is trying to disentangle it logically because it seems to make sense that Wallace is the caller. The facts don't point to that, no matter how impressive the logic is. I think it is the wrong starting point when we have some facts that need to be dealt with.

First, please deal with this:

The caller mentions a 21st birthday party, and it was not a planned thing (I have seen you try to say maybe Wallace did this to frame Parry.) If you read the call transcript, he was caught out a bit by Beattie's questioning and forced to quickly answer. Parry in his alibi mentions arranging a 21st birthday (Leslie Williamson's). Parry barged in to Lily Lloyd's music lesson at 735, a perfect fit for having made the call then heading there after which was en route to her house and a few minutes drive away. I trust Lily's timing more than here mother as she knew her lesson started 10 minutes later than normal. The voice was said to certainly not be Wallace by Beattie ( I know you think he could have fooled him), also the dialect was local dialect, Wallace was from out of town. John Parkes (whose entire testimony is admittedly questionable) says Parry was in the habit of making prank calls. The box was found to be in perfect working order and it is clear the caller scammed for a free call. An interesting behavior for a man planning a murder of his wife...

If you could deal with these things or at least address them, that would be nice. I think it is cool to have a difference of opinion and argue nicely about it, but it seems those who think one way just gloss over facts that point another way. At least explain why you think the facts are wrong or why it doesn't lead to the conclusion I get from it rather than ignoring it and just repeating reasons why logically it seems Wallace is behind it.

Particularly caller mentioning 21st and Parry mentioning planning a 21st his alibi (but the transcript shows a caller caught out a bit and saying the 1st thing that popped into his mind), not a planned mention, and the caller scamming a free call needs to be dealt with imo. That is extremely odd if Wallace is the caller for both of those things imo. Also, the timing of the call dovetailing perfectly with a Parry arrival right after, although I suspect one can argue that there is coincidences of timing surrounding Wallace too (as you did eloquently in your last post), so perhaps these cancel eachother out.

PS. This glossing over of facts that point in the other direction is not a criticism directed solely at you, it has been done by both sides of this debate here and particularly by someone whose theory was featured in a book recently I think people get a theory in mind and because they strongly believe in it, there is a tendency to dismiss out of hand anything that points in another direction altogether.

I think we should all try to get to the bottom of this and deal with every fact, whichever way it points and then agree to disagree if we still do.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Only 'almost' certainly, WWH?

Doubts creeping in?

If it was just a prank call, Parry went to some trouble to a) make it from a call box near to Wallace's home address; b) make the call at a time when Wallace could reasonably have made it himself, before going on to the chess club; and c) make sure the call could be traced to that particular box and at that particular time. How would any of that have made sense if Parry was not seeking to frame Wallace for the call, or for any crime that might be committed the following evening, but just wanted a laugh at his expense, imagining him searching in vain for Menlove Gardens East and the mysterious Mr Qualtrough? Or was this all just a terribly unfortunate coincidence for Wallace, that the call was traced and he was suspected of making it, because of the time and place, and what happened to his wife the following night while he was asking directions from all and sundry?

Why would Parry not have made the call from a box much nearer the chess club, where he could see if Wallace was going to attend and make sure his call was picked up and the hoax message taken down before Wallace actually entered the premises? Parry wouldn't then have needed or wanted the call to be traced.

Love,

Caz
X

I don't think you understand the mentality behind people placing calls like this. You are treating it like a complex riddle where he'd go down there and stuff. I don't think that's how people do these things.

Probably spur of the moment. Possibly spurred by a chance sighting but also potentially sheer coincidence. And by the tone of the voice he is not remotely nervous, and to operators very casual. He does not seem to care overly about the success or failure of the thing.

I do not have any doubt about the caller. Nothing in life is certain but the falsified alibi and then the time he turns up at his only witness Lily's house seals it for me and that's it, permanently. It's false and I can never get past it. I do not accept the excuses provided for it, they are very poor and is not something I can have tested scientifically etc.

Out of every statement ever made in the entire case this is the most flagrant falsification. Maybe if the incredible police force had re-questioned him as they should have it could be known with certainty. But then there would hardly be a mystery.

(Otherwise I would investigate Johnston as the caller because then the entire Stan confession would be a match. The details about the murder and the weapon - but not a modern type crowbar, the old style - are a match which warrants taking it very seriously, as well as the mention of strange obscure facts. Right now it isn't a full match and also specific elements don't make sense which is why I have contacted Tom Slemen... He's added stuff to what Stan actually said, so I can't tell what bits he's adding. I want the testimony as it was said exactly.

Stan himself might be the killer or know the killer. He's the one giving specific and now verified details about the murder, it's only his word Johnston told him. Hence I requested his full name too so I can check where he lived at the time, his line of work etc.

I would also look at Wallace and John premed slightly, or chess club members because someone else could be there at the place, even with Gordon there could be in fairness, but there are quite a few things I could explore. Which I CAN'T because Gordon called.)

...

If the caller scammed a couple of pennies there's no way to square that with how a killer would act. Even a burglar really. The long exposing of your REAL voice and implanting yourself into people's mind is completely abnormal.

The operators would be called for regardless of whether he'd pulled this little stunt. The chief of police requested the location of the box before knowing it had been noted also, btw. I don't understand how a random citizen could be expected to somehow know or even suspect the police could not possibly do this.

Menlove Gardens East and Qualtrough also do not make sense for anyone. If it's a real plan it IS a bad one. I could go into a LOT of depth about this. It makes more sense as a joke with those details.

If Mr. Wallace did it (and as I understand he must have assistance for this to be plausible) I think East and R. M. is a mistake. He mixes up names places and dates very often which would sit well with that. Though he was intoxicated on Brandy when giving his first statement.

If anyone did it as a scheme to rob the joint or murder the woman I also think the details are a mistake.

...

The details of the message as well as the general demeanour of the caller and the gruff tone when delivering the message squares with a typical prank call better than anything.

If there had been no crime would you actually assume the call was taken down wrong? Or would it look like someone had pulled a fast one on him? I think it would look blatant that he had been "had" and not that there had been any mishap in the taking of the message.

As I mentioned I would have liked more details from Mr. Greenlees and for that individual to be searched for in case he had been called out on some fake errand too.

So I have disconnected the events. Only John Parkes' statement makes it seem planned if the details are intentional, and the fact the iron bar is NOT the weapon damages his testimony.