Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have re-read Robert Carr's letter, written post Wallace's death. He says he recognised Wallace from a photograph in Empire News and then later Amy from a photograph printed with Wallace's article in John Bull (women are my worst enemies). I had forgotten how rambling his statement was and how self important he sounded. Also the sighting seems most unlikely given that Wallace was in the newsagents until 8.00pm and back home by 8.45pm. Why would Amy go all that way for a few minutes with Wallace, at most.

I just checked my printouts of the John Bull articles and there’s definitely no photograph of Amy.

[etenguy]

I just checked my printouts of the John Bull articles and there’s definitely no photograph of Amy.

Then another reason to doubt Robert Carr's statement - he definitely says in his statement he recognised Amy from the photograph accompanying the article.

[etenguy]

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.

As you know, I find it unlikely Julia would venture out into a cold January night, on her own, while she was unwell - even to search for the cat. However, I notice on the scene of crime photograph that Julia is wearing outdoor shoes.

[WallaceWackedHer]

It’s been ages since I read Bartle and only the once. He made a few errors I seem to remember though I can’t specifically recall them. He got the killer right though

I haven’t got the Wilson book. What’s it called?

I remember you mentioning the flagellation thing. I wonder how he got that info?

The problem with suggesting Amy as an accomplice is the question: why would she? They went their separate ways after the trial.

Check true crimes committed by lovers having affairs. They generally rat each other out if caught, there seems to be very little loyalty there. They never stay together.

The motivation would be an affair. I think an affair of any kind is the best motive because of the suddenness of it. To suddenly want your wife dead when you were freaked about her safety a month earlier shows something recently happened probably.

Unfortunately I peg William as gay so then not Amy. You can't not at least be suspicious of the circumstances of his marriage, lack of kids, etc. then Parry (albeit a sociopath) calls him gay. I know for a fact Gannon received "William's gay" tip offs but he has not told me about them so far when I asked. Allegedly homosexuality was common in the Pru.

I'd disregard the bedroom disarray. Have you read the details of it? It is literally the bedsheets half off and two pillows on the floor. To call it disarray is ridiculous. I cannot believe it was described as such.

Looks to me like she was interrupted while changing the bed, like she was making it then went off to do something else. Maybe Amy knocked who knows... It was always kept made. They sometimes slept apart when one of them was poorly. I did not yet check this again but I think one doctor or nurse said when William was ill Julia slept on the downstairs sofa.

I feel the most sus elements against William are consistently overlooked or not mentioned. It's not the stranger remarks because there is arguable explanation there. In my view a few things stand out... Firstly the expectation of West when told East, the nerves when talking to Serjeant, also that he stayed alone at the house before many items were seized which isn't as sus as it is ridiculous. It is why being inspected that night was important info.

Now that fire they had in the front has a grill at the bottom. I think it can be removed. Clothing could be put into there.

...

If I were to tell you what I think happened ASSUMING William is SOLELY guilty, then what I would auggest is this. And first of all I have it in mind that he has very bad planning abilities, I can easily show many ways in which the plan sucks so I work from that base:

After December 15th the person William is having a secret affair with gets more serious, and they agree killing her off is a good idea so they can be together (this motive because of the lack of arguing which would be the first expected action in a discovered affair).

When he gets the message, there's been a screw up. It was supposed to be West so he automatically goes to write West when taking the message from Beattie due to pre-emptive knowledge of what it should be.

The alias is chosen to frame Marsden or Gordon, he doesn't have the foresight to consider alibis. We are accepting the plan is bad as can be shown and here then is one mistake.

Ater their meal William asks his wife to set up the parlour. I expect during this meal William is very short wifh her in conversation.

The parlour setup iitself is dodgy because the milk boy was at the atep with the door wide open to the home, we assume the parlour door blocks out light okay?

William doesn't even remember or know the milk boy is coming. He knows only about the newspaper. He doesn't know the milk boy came because he's too busy upstairs preparing clothes and such. That is why he mentions the paper boy and not Alan.

His weapon is a spanner, not the crappy little Ikea ones, the heavier duty car mechanic-ish types which are adjustable at the end. The John Bull article mentioned it and it could cause the parallel tram lines. It was dismissed on the shield grounds but the weapon suggestion was exciting.

While he's still upstairs his wife reclines by the sofa with the fire.

When he comes down he goes in. He doesn't have the foresight to be wearing balaclavas. What he actually does is that his wife has it for some reason.

It may be said that he told her he was going to go out to meet the guy. And she's holding it to give to him. I have no idea why she has it but that is what matches more right? Or it was drying hung up there but I think the kitchen one would do that and I can show why.

So now he comes in the room, shirt and trousers, she gets off the sofa and walks to him and he hits her with the spanner. The radiants are hot enough to burn. The jacket and skirt burn. The woman is pulled out by her hair, blood pools in position one nearest the armchair while the jacket fire is extinguished.

Because he wasn't wearing it he don't even realize how dodgy it looks (he has bad foresight) so just leaves it with the body.

Yeah he is spattered with specks of blood. It's inevitable. Everything he is wearing he takes off and finds a means to dispose them by. He changes into fresh clothing.

He must be wearing gloves because the hair grab yet lack of fingernail blood.

He is not even really thinking of time much right now he's in a homicidal frenzy.

He goes out in his completely new outfit.

When he talks to conductors he says bizarre things because he is nervy and on edge. As per the night prior he explicitly says he knows how to get to Menlove Avenue and can inquire etc. He's acting OTT because he's a bit frazzled.

When he returns he doesn't do stupid door knocking to himself. If you've ever walked down a very quiet street you can hear into houses. Take it from me, my hairdresser lives in a terrace in a quiet side part of a small town. I can hear her talking or calling for her kid from outside.

Do not forget all windows are single glazed too.

John is calling to his wife saying they're going out. This is why he plays pantomime acts perhaps. Then the coincidental meeting is switched 180 because he himself is waiting to hear a gate open to round the corner and intercept them which he does.

When he enters he is ******* around with evidence surely? He has time to look in every room for any briefly. Mackintosh position perhaps contrived... To suggest entry of someone at the door, which I can support including with the body position (it is sort of weirdly on its side, unnatural position, might end up there if pushed up by her shoulder).

...

I am leaving out the strong reasons why I don't think it's him because it will not matter to anyone. I would rather provide a more legitimate series of guilt.

The change of clothes is not forensically verified by myself. It just seems more obviois that the clothes are simply fresh rather than magical luck of spray avoidance and zero burning (the former considered) by pros extremely unlikely. I cannot really think of anyone who wouldn't be mega paranoid going out in the same outfit. It'd always be constant anxiety like maybe I didn't see anything in my shitty home gas lit rooms but maybe under this fluorescent street lamp... Maybe I missed something... Etc.

I have also ommited typical "sus" evidence you know... "He's going out on biz where's his briefcase!" stuff. That's my own thought but there are many.

[WallaceWackedHer]

As you know, I find it unlikely Julia would venture out into a cold January night, on her own, while she was unwell - even to search for the cat. However, I notice on the scene of crime photograph that Julia is wearing outdoor shoes.

Did people of that era have both indoor and outdoor shoes? If the photographer was competent perhaps we would know. No shot of the porch or hall.

The photographer should be sacked.

[caz]

A question to all on the Prank Theory. You all know mine and WWH’s thoughts so what does everyone think? So from my point of view....

Id have thought that we could all agree that there’s a basic reason for a prank? That you get to see the result. The look on the victims face when they realise they’ve been had. Without that it’s not really much of a prank is it?

How could Parry have done this? He no longer saw William and he had no plans for a visit. He couldn’t even have watched him set of on his journey then seen the furious look
on his face when he got back due to him being elsewhere (remember the inconvenient alibi?)

So every Tuesday night of the year would have found William at home with his wife but on this particular night he goes out because of a strange phone call related to business. While he’s away Julia, a retiring, stay-at-home type (hardly the type to inspire such vicious anger) is bludgeoned to death at the scene of an unconvincing robbery.

So what is the likelihood of a brutal murder and a weird robbery occurring on the only Tuesday of the year that William
is away from home due to a mysterious phone call.

WWH thinks likely. I think off-the-scale unlikely.

Opinions?

Yep, Herlock - completely unlikely IMHO. There had to be a connection between the two events, or Wallace was the unluckiest man on the planet to fall for the prank, come back to find his wife murdered, and then very nearly hang for it.

If Wallace killed his wife, he made that call and he acted alone, hoping that a robbery gone wrong - by the Anfield Housebreaker or similar - could not be ruled out. He knew the police would focus on him as the prime suspect, so his aim would have been to make sure the prosecution did not have sufficient evidence to prove him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If some unknown person could have made that call, and committed the crime in Wallace's absence, he'd have gambled on that being enough to save his neck. He gambled and won, but only just, because the law isn't perfect.

Oh, and once again about the blood, Wallace would have had no more blood on him, and arguably less than a burglar caught on the hop, who never meant to kill Julia. If Wallace would have left a trail through the house and on his way to the tram stop, so should a burglar have done as he made his escape, whether it was only to the house next door, or to a waiting vehicle. If Parry, knowing about the murder and seeing Julia's blood in his car, took it to a garage and asked the likes of Parkes to clean it for him, he must have been insane. WWH argues that Wallace would have had to be an idiot to come up with a murder plan which would inevitably make him look suspicious, yet finds it credible that Parry would have hung a guilty sign round his neck by having someone else clean his car to get rid of a murder victim's blood.

A husband knows he will always be the first and last to be suspected if his wife is found murdered and there is no direct evidence against anyone else. Yet husbands still make plans to murder their wives, even though the chances of making a mistake are high, and the chances of getting away with it are slim. So Parry need have done nothing but sit tight, since he had an alibi for the murder night and didn't need one for the previous night because there was no direct evidence to place him in that call box at the right time.

It can sometimes be forgotten that a suspect - whether it's Wallace, Parry or A.N. Other - does not need to prove they were elsewhere when an offence was committed. They have to be placed at the scene by the evidence. Wallace banked on the prosecution failing to do so, and it would have been the same for Parry, had he been in the dock.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

It can be proven that if he did it he's a bad planner so the odds he has the perfect plan for the killing itself that actually works out for him is a bit ridic.

Well murderers can be bad planners, WWH, and that's why many are suspected, charged and then convicted. It very nearly didn't work out for Wallace, because the jury believed they could see through his plan to murder his wife and found him guilty. If there had been no right of appeal, he'd have hanged, despite the evidence not proving him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It shouldn't have needed to be a perfect plan - just one that gave him the benefit of the doubt. On appeal that was put right, but 'not guilty' does not equate to 'innocent beyond doubt'.

The time alibi is hinging on something very unreliable as well as obviously the witness being unreliable, he could be as late as 7 PM and had recently been very late. Obv I have statements regarding this. 6.10 to 7.00 pm is the times he could come between. I'd pick a later appointment time and leave the house early and establish a legitimate timestamped alibi at the newsagents nearby and go to see Crewe first for help with directions and a chit chat. I wouldn't know he's out would I? That'd be my excuse. I can't rely on Alan's arrival time so it must be circumvented.

But Wallace could not have waited forever, could he? He could have aborted his plans if Close had arrived any later, or not come at all. The worst case scenario was not Close arriving and seeing no sign of Julia. She was unwell after all, and could have taken to her bed for an hour or so. It was Close arriving while Wallace was busy whacking her, or had just whacked her and was in a rush to leave the house. He didn't know what time Close would turn up, but if Wallace didn't kill his wife it wouldn't have mattered, and he could have left in better time for his 7.30 appointment. I still think he left it fine, for an appointment with a stranger at an address where he himself claimed to be a stranger. Why did he need to hang around, if Julia was there to take in the milk, whenever Close showed up to deliver it? Again, Wallace was terribly unlucky if innocent. If only he'd left for MGE just 30 seconds before Close arrived and spoke to Julia, he'd have been totally in the clear.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

A quick point as I’m just heading out. Look at the photograph of Wallace shaking Munro’s hand. William’s brother is there so I wonder if the woman in the background, over Munro’s shoulder, is Amy? We’ve no way of knowing of course.

[caz]

I agree that it seems suspicious if Wallace came back from the bogus appointment, not expecting Julia to have bolted either the back gate or back kitchen door from the inside. Our back gate is permanently bolted except for during the day when the gardener or other workmen need access. Our back door is also kept locked when neither of us is using it, and always locked on winter evenings.

I'd have expected Wallace to try the front door first, using his key, and when that didn't work he'd have assumed Julia had sensibly bolted it and would have knocked hard, or called through the letter box, for her to come and open up for him. Only when he got no answer would he have gone round the back, but he should then have been alarmed to find the back gate unbolted, and even more so when he discovered the back door was not locked or bolted against potential intruders, but had just been a bit tricky to open! Yet he couldn't seem to understand why he was initially unable to get in that way. It's almost like that final scene from Dial M For Murder, when Ray Milland's character comes back home with the latch key he planted in his wife's handbag, then can't understand why he can't get in with it, until it slowly dawns on him that he must have taken the wrong key from the pocket of the man he hired to murder her.

Love,

Caz
X

[WallaceWackedHer]

I agree that it seems suspicious if Wallace came back from the bogus appointment, not expecting Julia to have bolted either the back gate or back kitchen door from the inside. Our back gate is permanently bolted except for during the day when the gardener or other workmen need access. Our back door is also kept locked when neither of us is using it, and always locked on winter evenings.

I'd have expected Wallace to try the front door first, using his key, and when that didn't work he'd have assumed Julia had sensibly bolted it and would have knocked hard, or called through the letter box, for her to come and open up for him. Only when he got no answer would he have gone round the back, but he should then have been alarmed to find the back gate unbolted, and even more so when he discovered the back door was not locked or bolted against potential intruders, but had just been a bit tricky to open! Yet he couldn't seem to understand why he was initially unable to get in that way. It's almost like that final scene from Dial M For Murder, when Ray Milland's character comes back home with the latch key he planted in his wife's handbag, then can't understand why he can't get in with it, until it slowly dawns on him that he must have taken the wrong key from the pocket of the man he hired to murder her.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes it goes front door, back door, front door, back door. The neighbours evidently also did not care about the safety of their house as they were very happily leaving late at night without anyone to bolt the gate behind them.

These gates can't be locked or bolted from the outside.

Most of the time until night it would be left undone and the back used for access. Sometimes Julia would go out to post a letter, I am not sure which door would be used when she went to visit Curwen. I don't know exactly what time that was either.

I will not bother to post anything other than William guilt scenarios and speculations from now. I would otherwise be discussing the apppointment time combo'd with the fact Alan could arrive as late as 7 (or as early as 6.10) and was recently frequently "very very late" (Florence) which should be of significance.

I would rather strengthen the William guilt theory that makes people happy because the current iterations are very, very bad and do not properly do the idea justice, and also because everything alternate is distorted in some way so a waste of time to mention at all.

I think even Wallace + Another ideas are distorted and therefore I will stick only to solo Wallace.

Here is where killer Wallace has missed an opportunity and another pointer to his poor foresight which he showed since the inception of his plan until the end. The same lacking skills that cause him to be a chess failure. If he truly wants a neighbour to come out or to rouse attention I think he would be more obvious in his knocking etc (if it's so quiet you aren't even sure anyone can hear it serves no purpose). MAYBE he didn't actually want anyone to come out, just a corroboration he knocked; or he did knock louder than reported but neighbours heard it quietly as you well might when inside a home... IMO I don't like the suggestion he's doing it in case anyone is looking out the window...

He may also have heard John calling his wife to hurry her ass up because they're late and then exploited that, knowing they're about to come out, but had never actually originally intended to use witnesses in this way. You can hear people inside their houses on very quiet streets if they're say, yelling for their kid upstairs to come down for dinner or w.e... We live in a world of strong noise pollution now due to televisions, cars, double glazed windows and better insulation etc, so we don't so much get that these days except on old fashioned streets on the outskirts of posh country clubbish towns.

I have heard people in their homes (my hairdresser) with an actual driveway bit and hedges call their kids while walking up to the home on the sidewalk. All windows shut. I assume double glazed because it's 2020.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Our back gate is permanently bolted except for during the day when the gardener or other workmen need access.

How does the Butler and the Footman get in to Brown Towers then?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Well murderers can be bad planners, WWH, and that's why many are suspected, charged and then convicted. It very nearly didn't work out for Wallace, because the jury believed they could see through his plan to murder his wife and found him guilty. If there had been no right of appeal, he'd have hanged, despite the evidence not proving him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It shouldn't have needed to be a perfect plan - just one that gave him the benefit of the doubt. On appeal that was put right, but 'not guilty' does not equate to 'innocent beyond doubt'.



But Wallace could not have waited forever, could he? He could have aborted his plans if Close had arrived any later, or not come at all. The worst case scenario was not Close arriving and seeing no sign of Julia. She was unwell after all, and could have taken to her bed for an hour or so. It was Close arriving while Wallace was busy whacking her, or had just whacked her and was in a rush to leave the house. He didn't know what time Close would turn up, but if Wallace didn't kill his wife it wouldn't have mattered, and he could have left in better time for his 7.30 appointment. I still think he left it fine, for an appointment with a stranger at an address where he himself claimed to be a stranger. Why did he need to hang around, if Julia was there to take in the milk, whenever Close showed up to deliver it? Again, Wallace was terribly unlucky if innocent. If only he'd left for MGE just 30 seconds before Close arrived and spoke to Julia, he'd have been totally in the clear.

Love,

Caz
X

Alan is too unreliable as a timestamp and better as an obstacle as you previously suggested.

8 PM is a better time to have chosen, so he can still carry out his plan regardless of when Alan arrives. 7.30 PM could potentially fail.

I prefer it to be an oversight. The plan is bad, he has poor foresight, and this choosing of a time by which he could potentially not be able to kill his wife at all, would then align with those lacking thinking skills.

Because William is stupid, it could be argued he also assumed Alan would provide an alibi precise enough when he's relying on to-the-minute precision to close the window. He doesn't have the ability to foresee Alan might think he got there 5 minutes earlier. He assumes everyone is as regimented as himself.

Forget the idea he is smart from now on he is stupid. He might think he's smart but the base is that he is stupid... Idc to define the term like "ohhh he's smart just forgetful and can't plan ahead well" etc. too much hassle. It's fun to call him stupid, so I will be referring to him as such. But you know what I really mean.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
I would rather strengthen the William guilt theory that makes people happy because the current iterations are very, very bad and do not properly do the idea justice, and also because everything alternate is distorted in some way so a waste of time to mention at all.

I don’t get this at all to be honest. You appear to believe that only your interpretations are valid and that anyone that feels that William might have been guilty is somehow deficient in reasoning. Where are the distortions?
They aren’t distortions they are differing interpretations. Wallace lies, acts suspiciously, does weird things and yet still people bend over backwards to excuse or normalise.
Little is black and white. You say that it’s a bad plan so Wallace is either an idiot or guilty. That’s like saying Mr X is taller than Mr Y therefore either X is a giant or Y is a midget. But as Caz says not all plans are brilliant. The plan isn’t particularly bad just because we can come up with better suggestions now. And as I’ve said killers often think that they’re cleverer than everyone else. Did William have such an ego? Possibly. I recall in his JB articles him saying something like “I who have pitted my mind against the greatest chess brain.” He’s done chess puzzles from a book!

I fail to see how anyone can’t see Wallace as the strongest suspect let alone saying he should be dismissed. Look at PC Williams. He said he heard Florence messing with the lock but no bolt being drawn. If he was correct (and who could say for certain that he wasn’t) then Wallace is guilty.

I can’t tell you what to post WWH but I certainly don’t want to be agreed with just for the sake of it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Because William is stupid,

A distortion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just because someone isn’t good at one particular thing, like planning, for example doesn’t mean that they’re stupid. I don’t drive...I don’t think it makes me an idiot. I’m not good at technical stuff......I don’t think it makes me an idiot.

Wallace wasn’t much of a chess player and not a great crime planner so this makes him an idiot.

How?