Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You had said 6.30 at some point which made me mad AF and argued aggressively for like 5 straight pages showing it's wrong. I was surprised your own article said 6.35 and then randomly it was dialled back 5 minutes which is an important difference.

You didn’t show that it was wrong. You think that you showed that it was wrong something you can’t do unless you walk the scene yourself at the same speed as Close (something that you don’t know in the first place) doing exactly what Close did. To make your point you even mocked my entirely reasonable suggestion that Close might have been walking quickly (a kid doing work straight after school trying to get his work finished so that he could meet up with his mates, especially considering that at this time kids had to be in early)

If his suspect pool was so wide why is it so easy to dismiss it like everyone else? Because it's not actually wide at all. I actually considered Draper telling people etc. but there are other issues, they would have to call at the house and be admitted and therefore use the fake name then we're considering singular sneak thief while for various reasons. One is they as a stranger have no reason to kill her UNLESS they didn't know she's there and it's a panic killing. Even a stranger hopped up on adrenaline in a house he believes to be empty, walking in to the room and the homeowner is there, is liable to such extreme panic that he attacks her without real need. So a neighbour other than the Johnstons even. They are just the best pick due to various elements including their behaviour in the house and appearance out back on the occasion the door opens.

Youre trying to preempt what the police ‘might’ have thought. They might have thought that the killer sneaked into the kitchen, looked around and spotted the box. Eliminating Parry and Marsden doesn’t make William the only suspect.

If I am not legitimately retarded as mentioned then given my OCD tier obsession and obsessive deep dive of every single angle that could possibly exist, then it ought to be taken as a conclusion reached for good reason. If I am so wrong I am retarded and you are trying to convince someone who evidently has learning difficulties or something.

I’m sorry but this is simply saying “I’ve looked at this closer than anyone else therefore my conclusions are likely to be correct. And if you disagree you must be saying that I’m retarded.” Rod spent years researching the case so why isn’t he correct?

I may well be suffering retardation and idc if it is pointed out. You have a free pass. Here's my consent, waiver signed.

I’m sorry but you’re blatantly twisting things here. I’ve never accused you of being retarded or an idiot (even though you’ve implied this about me.) We all interpret and we interpret differently. If you want a debate where I simply concede every point then we’re wasting time. You have no monopoly on being correct.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's nothing to do with specks avoiding the sides of the attacker, all people working forensics place the killer where there isn't blood spray if the attack would cause a lot of blowback etc. like blunt trauma.

E.g. he can't be standing directly in front of the armchair and his wife diagonal from there towards the center otherwise it wouldn't go on the violin case because someone is standing in the way - the splashes intended for the case would hit him. At some point he would have had to have been in a different location for that to happen.

Where splashes have actually gone onto something, you can ascertain there was a direct and open path there.

This implies that blood would have flown in every single direction or else the analysis is flawed. What if there is an area, say an arc of one or two feet, where blood doesn’t fly? By the above reckoning they would have to ‘assume’ that something blocked it’s path rather than none flew there in the first place.

The fact you're easily able to dismiss everyone else is his own making. 90% of plausible arguments evaporate without the fact that he himself GAVE YOU this tiny pool that's so easy to work with, thus it's a crap plan. It IS obvious enough to even a toddler just tell a 10 year old and they will say he did it. If it's that obvious it's BS then it's a BAD plan, not a good one as you asserted.

Please show me where I’ve said that it was a good plan? It was a plan and it worked to the extent that it got Wallace out of the house (which it was 99% certain to do) Planned by someone else it’s probably 60%.

Either a bad plan or NOT a plan. Take your pick.

Why are you leaving out - it was a plan? It might not have been a great one but why should we assume that Wallace would only have come up with a brilliant one. And let’s drop the ‘brilliant chess player’ nonsense. Wallace was a fallible human being. People who commit murder often feel that they are cleverer than everyone else and that there plans won’t be discovered. Crime is full of these people.

It's not 1 in a billion that Gordon on his was to his gf's house stopped off at the box having seen William and knowing he tends to go to chess on Monday. Saying it's a billion to one is literally saying you truly believe anyone but William called is essentially impossible because you already expressed previously that you'd favour a prank otherwise, so that's quite ridiculous then.

Im not saying it’s a billion to one that Parry made the call. He might have for all I know. I’m saying it’s a billion to one that the murder occurred and was facilitated by a prank.

Something very specific long ago switched me to Gordon in the box. I might favour P.D. James that he very quickly realizes he's been tricked and realizes he can frame the caller for the crime. Probably obvious it's Gordon. Still a risk in case the directory changed or w.e. and it's a legit appointment then he's screwed. But I find her suggestion very intelligent and Parkes is the destroyer of the idea as well as general forensic opinion that William himself killing her is improbable.

Interesting that you’re now hedging from ‘impossible’ to ‘improbable?’

However it coincides with a recent motive developed within ~a month.

If professional opinion changes then you can use it, like the balaclava theory.

The idea you changed to just now is MUCH worse, the held up shield as would be the case on strike one here is considered actually laughable. The John Bull article I proposed as a confession was instantly dismissrd based on that alone.

The shield idea isn’t impossible.

He's not protected on strike one and even by physical evidence she's coming from the opposite side. He needs to be protected throughout. What exactly are you claiming happened? How far did the jacket burn? Enough to actually ruin the shield? Stick to something.

Coming from a man that has confidently accused every single person involved in the case apart from the cat!

Wearing it is better in all regards. It still doesn't work. A balaclava works better than cloth masks because it also covers the hair. Otherwise a cloth and hat. The hat and gloves must be removed.

That William could have protected himself from
blood is not worth arguing about. He could have.

Yes the stubs would be kept they'd be in his pocket still when he got back to the house.

I already considered changing clothes. It's better than anything presented and quite obvious. I just don't think it happened for other reasons aside which aren't to do with the feasibility.

The parlour must be set in advance because of the heat on the radiants to cause the burning.

It is no surprise you see no problems because you couldn't even see how the plan wasn't obviously crap. Which it is. If you see no problems with that crap plan then it is clear the train of thought you are on which is assuming the culprit on the sus circumstances (also his own making in his master plan) and fitting everything to that.

More insults. Ok. You appear to be turning in to Rod ll.

Julia did enter at 6.38 to 6.39. 6.49 is the time taken by jogging cops who took a different tram than claimed and it was the absolute best time they could get.

Why do you have such difficulty accepting that you ‘might’ be wrong on some issues?

[WallaceWackedHer]

In terms of a prank call - the tying in of Parry later saying Wallace was gay and the address given on the call is 'menlove' does neatly dovetail. He isn't just sending Wallace on a wild goose chase, he's taking the piss. So if it was a prank call, then Parry is a prime suspect, just the puerile kind of joke he might make. But if this was a prank call by Parry, I don't think he was then involved in the crime, and we know he had an alibi at the crucial time. So we are left with an opportunist taking advantage (such as the Johnstons) or Wallace taking advantage of an opportunity to commit murder. Conversely, it is possible Wallace called or arranged the call himself to produce the opportunity. I slightly favour the latter because of Wallace's behaviour at the Chess club and on his way home.



It's possible, but I think unlikely that Julia, suffering from a cold, would be going out on a January night on her own, especially when we look at the set up in the house - in the kitchen and in the front parlour. Plus, if the Johnstons saw her leave and thought they'd take a chance, surely they would have kept an eye out for her coming back, just in case they were caught. In fact if Mr J went in to rob the cash box, wouldn't he leave Mrs J somewhere out the back to intercept Julia in case she came back. It would be for a matter of a couple of minutes if he knew where to look.



If Wallace and Julia were at home together ahead of the murder, then yes, they may have put the fire on and set up the room as it was found. Alan Close's time of arrival doesn't matter to Wallace, he just has to wait until he has been, commit the crime and then off to the Tram. It is the juxtaposition of his arrival and the murder that needs to be close in time.

I prefer the idea William exploited Gordon's call but the scientific "extreme improbability" William did it via ANY means by HIMSELF claimed by professionals (and practical impossibility of the holding up shields thing, I mean that one is considered actually laughable - wearing it is in fact better btw although still considered incredibly unlikely) to me means he then commissioned someone to agree to kill his wife within 24 hours giving them the safety net that some local crook made a call and they can pin it on him.

That's a short time to go ask someone to do this etc. I think I mentioned blackmail if he knew the neighbour who had robbed 17 Wolverton. Still pretty swift.

Or it was coincidentally already planned or at least in mind and this provided opportunity to get away with it by framing someone (the caller, which he could easily figure out was likely Gordon).

(I actually feel his behaviour changes after the killing if anything, and he's very ordinary before that, gleefully discussing chess moves. Not so distracted as to lose his match I see (even though he is one of the worst players in the whole club).)

She would go out for the cat I think, she's bizarrely obsessed with it it's noted. I think Goodman said she had some weird superstitious beliefs about it because it was a black cat... It's not even HER cat, the neighbours she catsat for (Antony thinks this was the Johnstons?) gave it to her because when they came back from holiday they'd developed such an attachment.

You just see if forensically William is considered a very poor suspect, and the call is not a genuine plan, there is little option left. It's process of elimination.

Because Gordon as the caller is strong evidencewise and then that suspicion sealed in and difficult to escape by his falsification of his whereabouts as I often repeat.

If he called and the accomplice is NOT one of Brine's relatives then he has an alibi and didn't kill the woman.

The main switch over from that to the neighbours is just the cleanliness of the scene. They have the best opportunity to **** with evidence etc, are first to discover the body after William who is forensically unlikely.

[Ven]

If julia followed William down to the back gate an bolted it. how did he get in the yard that night?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Why do you have such difficulty accepting that you ‘might’ be wrong on some issues?

If I didn't accept I ever got any issue wrong I'd still be espousing my original idea which is the obvious one that he called the club and killed the woman in his jacket shield.

I posted like, allll this JUST to prove the plan is flawed and bad, because you were implying it's an awesome one for William.

If you admit the plan is bizarre, unnecessarily convoluted, and full of holes, then you have to consider that the planner is either an idiot with poor foresight OR it's not a plan. If it's not a plan it's a practical joke, and I explained some of the details that are suggestive of the latter. If it was proven that box had a 2 penny trick attempted then that's highly suggestive, the severity of the crime does not match penny pinching or loitering. Maybe for a robbery moreso but STILL it's like who would do that?

And yeah from testimonies if Louisa Alfreds isn't BSing the person got an answer first time (someone other than Gladys I assume). They jammed B to disconnect, then came back on the line pretending they'd already pressed A and therefore paid. Nobody at the exchange said he was asked to pay again (actually he's told to press B to refund his "SECOND" payment) but regardless it implies an attempt was made if that's what happened.

Determining the functionality of that box is CRUCIAL.

Because I believe Gordon to be the caller, and btw I don't even remember what the thing that changed my mind on that was (it's probably stupid to make arguments that I myself wasn't swayed by), then in conjunction with some other elements I can explain, I then favour one of the neighbours.

YOU didn't say I'm retarded, I'M saying it. If I am this wrong believing in alleged billion to one ideas, then I myself am telling you that I am unintelligent without question. That can be accepted as fact. And then you are trying to convince a proven idiot. If I'm that stupid then it seems a pointless endeavour.

Similarly it would have to be a new and compelling line of thinking to alter my mind because I've already heard every argument ever and assessed them a, even many of my own. I really do not understand how people do not come up with certain things... You know the man has no blood or burning on any of his clothes and he was in fact inspected at the station (mentioned because newcomers do not realize this), why can't he have changed his clothes?

It just seems so obvious, but instead entire books are written (Morland) about him using his jacket like a Toreador cape. Like wtf? Is it literally because anything mundane ruins the "mysteriousness" of it or something? Why would you actually go out in the clothes you just killed your wife wearing? Like wtf? Change clothes rn time yourself and you'll see what I mean... Obv they'd be pre-prepared and laid out ready to go so even faster.

[Ven]

YOU didn't say I'm retarded, I'M saying it

Yes, sorry but i agree... great website though

[Ven]

did Julia bolt the back gate?

[Ven]

if not, how did William get access to the back door?

[Ven]

Love your posts btw Herlock, saves me proving the undeciderble wrong

[WallaceWackedHer]

if not, how did William get access to the back door?

Omg are you joking or serious? It's unbolted because someone LEFT BY THE BACK. Just lol at you.

[Ven]

BTW, nobody has prooved Amy's and Williams OFFICIAL STATEMENTS as wrong... she...

1. Was at the house on the Sunday (the 18th)... for a musical interlude
2. Visited on the 20th to invite her to a play....and asked about that night (apparently)... but refused tea....so she could meet William at 4pm
3. And then went and met with WW (how could this not be a (rendevous?)... no mobile or text messages!... he could have been anywhere!

What do you think of this evidence WWH?

Why would she travel that far.... and further again, after her meeting with Julia,.,.. THESE ARE FACTS!

[Ven]

OHH.. and i repeat...he said in his testimony that he told her at tea time... not DINNER time ... the main meal of the day back then... they had scones at TEA time

[WallaceWackedHer]

BTW, nobody has prooved Amy's and Williams OFFICIAL STATEMENTS as wrong... she...

1. Was at the house on the Sunday (the 18th)... for a musical interlude
2. Visited on the 20th to invite her to a play....and asked about that night (apparently)... but refused tea....so she could meet William at 4pm
3. And then went and met with WW (how could this not be a (rendevous?)... no mobile or text messages!... he could have been anywhere!

What do you think of this evidence WWH?

Why would she travel that far.... and further again, after her meeting with Julia,.,.. THESE ARE FACTS!

I think the evidence is schizophrenic babblings but will reserve judgement on the off chance Amy legit met up with William on the murder day. I definitely missed that. So did everyone else.

Please show this so I can check.

[Ven]

Today, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by Ven View Post
if not, how did William get access to the back door?
Omg are you joking or serious? It's unbolted because someone LEFT BY THE BACK. Just lol at you.

No, you retard... your words... Julia didn't follow him down to the back gate... why would he go around to the back gate if he knew it was bolted...

[WallaceWackedHer]

Today, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by Ven View Post
if not, how did William get access to the back door?
Omg are you joking or serious? It's unbolted because someone LEFT BY THE BACK. Just lol at you.

No, you retard... your words... Julia didn't follow him down to the back gate... why would he go around to the back gate if he knew it was bolted...

She followed him to the back gate. This is common knowledge. Completely embarassing. Just lol.