Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[WallaceWackedHer]

You make some interesting points - but this is perhaps most interesting. Is it right that your research identifies the murder weapon as a spanner like object rather than a iron bar? If so, this would be another reason to doubt Parkes.

Yes. Something notably pronged or patterned with DISTINCT patterning not just roughness, would be preferable. I think the preference is that the attacker didn't hit Julia super hard once then lightly, but rather the main gaping hole is a result of multiple hits to the area with that end result. Which makes more sense in a frenzied attack (the person is hardly thinking about moderating the strength of his strikes- or, throwing her feet over to the wrong side of the fireplace).

The old school pry bars (without that big hook over) I think would be a good shout, and also the specific type of spanner that is a bit more weighty with the adjustment dial thing. William suggested a spanner which is why I brought it up.

The issue had is that all photos are too low resolution (the morgue photos). But the repeating tramline injuries (which actually break skin, rather than being bruises which is the usual form the injuries take) are difficult to get around when suggesting a typical straight piece of iron.

An example of a threaded pipe was given to me with the specification it was NOT a threaded pipe. But as an example of something with clear repeating patterning like that, to produce those parallel marks seen.

It would be a good number of wacks yes.

It is hard to get further opinion because the man REALLY wants higher res images which I am unable to source or find. Essentially to enable him to zoom in and see fine detail without the detail becoming lost.

But she is coming from the right. The spray McFall and the other forensic has focused on is the subsequent strike while the head is on the ground. I am told it would be nearly impossible for the head to smash open like that in one blow unsupported by something. So for example, with the head against the ground the head is then supported so more impact is absorbed by the head as opposed to it having backwards movement from the force to diminish it... Probably overexplained but I'm sure you can imagine a watermelon being smashed with a bar while against a concrere floor rather than hit while held up in the air.

So if you reconstruct the events, then at some stage the fire has been lit and the sofa apparently sat on after the box of matches was put up on the side (or blinds drawn, something to get her over on the right there). She's been facing in to the room and got up when hit and, by appearances gone into the fire. Then has been pulled out and dumped down so if you look on the blueprint showing the pooling she's faceplanted down there.

THEN the strike which sends blood up the wall on the left happens.

She is hit multiple times until the skull caves.

She's not sitting in the chair with the violin across the arms, and has no reason to be crouched down in front of it (the gas tap is on the RIGHT, but the burning would require the fire to have been on already for at least a little while to reach the temps required to burn the garments). She may have in fact turned it off and the radiants then immediately still retaining the heat would do it like that.

I rather think that she was reclining on the easy lounger as Gannon and the people I have been in contact with suggested by appearances of the sofa... Also Parry's piece where he says the woman reclined on the sofa there... I think of note the nurse who attended them said the woman had slept downstairs on the sofa in the kitchen as opposed to in the spare front room during periods of her husband's illness. There does not appear to be any sofa in the kitchen at the time of the crime (but the photographer is incompetent so we can't see behind him)... But in Gordon's piece which, btw, on the surface seems actually exonerating for both men if all is accepted as truth, it does appear that she was in the habit of lying down on that sofa. At the time Gordon was a stranger to her so she seems to feel no ladylike obligation to be sitting in chairs with guests or acting formal.

Gannon uses the blood pools to have the woman rolled over. I really am in no position to be giving any opinion on this as there may well be another clear interpretation but it does look that she has been moved round, top side (hence she's found kind of skewed off center with her torso being more curled across than the bottom).

Apparently all of this is done in silence which is a difficult buy if the truth of the situation is that she has been chatting, smashed against the floor, rolled around, fires stomped out etc. And certainly any extinguishing of flames would not have been accounted for by anyone hoping to slay her in the time they're giving themselves.

People are missing the significance that a man literally lives day and night in the front parlour directly adjacent. A statement from him should have been of the utmost importance. All neighbours should have been interviewed about sound... I cannot believe they weren't. You'd actually think only John and Flo lived in that house if you simply glanced at it. Seemingly John moved without his wife, as he says he moved to his daughter's (Townsend Avenue) in January, while Flo says she moved February.

The Holmes seemingly gave no formal statement but what they stated I think is to the Press. The Johnstons also gave Press statements I ought to add. The claim there is that Wallace had come to him as opposed to a chance encounter, and pushed the door very hard to force it open.

[harry]

I too once believed the fire in the front room was the cause of the burning to the clothing,but the lack of any evidence from witnesses that a smell of burnt clothing was present in that room,decided me against it.It is an element of the case that has not been explained.So no,I do not believe that Julia would have been in that room for any length of time before she was struck,nor do i believe she would have taken a visitor there.She was enticed there by William,but why kill her there ,and not in the kitchen?
The same question might also be asked if the killer was a visitor,except that it would be hard to find a reason for a visitor to entice her out of the kitchen,and I see no reason why a visitor would not have been invited into the kitchen on entering the house.
Robbery has been put forward as a motive,but as that seems to entail more than one robber, and therefor a sharing of the proceeds,would the Wallace household have been expected to produce enough money to make a shareout worthwhile?

[WallaceWackedHer]

I too once believed the fire in the front room was the cause of the burning to the clothing,but the lack of any evidence from witnesses that a smell of burnt clothing was present in that room,decided me against it.It is an element of the case that has not been explained.So no,I do not believe that Julia would have been in that room for any length of time before she was struck,nor do i believe she would have taken a visitor there.She was enticed there by William,but why kill her there ,and not in the kitchen?
The same question might also be asked if the killer was a visitor,except that it would be hard to find a reason for a visitor to entice her out of the kitchen,and I see no reason why a visitor would not have been invited into the kitchen on entering the house.
Robbery has been put forward as a motive,but as that seems to entail more than one robber, and therefor a sharing of the proceeds,would the Wallace household have been expected to produce enough money to make a shareout worthwhile?

There are literally witness statements saying very explicitly that when they visited her in winter they were taken into the parlour.

There is literal evidence of the particles from the garment being confined to that room and the fragments scattered in front of the parlour fire. The cushion the blood and particles were on is assumed by gannon but absolutely not known as far as I can discern. McFall examined that seat closely, noting no blood on the seat. He would really need to be grossly incompetent beyond any reasonable measure to actually have been specifically inspecting the seat and not notice blood specked over it.

It is awful he missed blood stains anyway, but to actually have been down inspecting the very same thing he says is clean had it not been, would be unbelievable almost.

Because the brown paper music stuff near the foreground of the "famous" crime scene photo looking into that room, I imagine the cushion might be the one in the ABSOLUTE foreground. Just in view. But maybe one of the sofa ones.

The house would be expected to have vastly large sums of actual physical cash which isn't traceable like trying to flog off someone's jewelry. These sums would be expected to range from £20 up to £100....... In cash...... People at the time knew insurance men would be likely to have money, they were good targets. So were market stall owners and store owners etc but the scene of robbery would be at their place of business. Often getting in through fanlights or dupe keys or stuff of that nature.

Considering this is 1931 even just by equivalency it is at least £1300 in cash, up to five times the amount. And then factor in depression era and the cost of actual living in comparison. Wallace rented that house for something stupid like 16 shillings a week as I recall. I remember thinking Parkes' claimed 5 shilling payment sounded like hush money based on that.

I think it's strongly evident the burning of the jacket took place in that room unless these people are all incompetent to such a monumental degree, and that evidently if William wanted to kill his wife he took her to the parlour so it would look like she'd had a visitor come. Hit her. Then go rob the money and leave... Very specifically it seems, he wanted Gordon to be executed for the crime, and may have done so then due to suspecting an affair because he's clearly bizarre and irrational, and Gordon's piece in Empire News states this is what William seemed to think.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes - with friends like Parry...

It’s also worth recalling that Parkes said that he’d told Parry to his face that he didn’t trust him which makes the choice of that garage difficult to understand or justify. Especially when we consider that by the time that the killer supposedly had met up with Parkes surely any blood would have been dried so there wouldn’t have been any desperation to clean a car drenched in blood. Parry and his mate would have had no problem scrubbing the car down in private.
Other very obvious questions are, why didn’t they dispose of the mitten when they disposed of the weapon? With only two items to dispose of (unless you suggest clothing of course) it’s pretty much impossible to believe that he’d forgotten about the presence of the mitten.
It’s also difficult to see why anyone would choose a mitten over a glove? Parkes specifically described a mitten but he also described it as having a small tear. Is this an over-compensation of detail or does it indicate that Parkes might, at some point, have seen such a mitten in Parry’s car? Maybe it was something that he kept to use when doing minor car repairs?
However kind or unkind we are to Parkes or how much benefit of the doubt we allow him, for me theres little doubt that he lied. I don’t think we’ll ever properly solve the Parkes riddle but it’s possible that he genuinely thought Parry was suspicious (perhaps if he saw him the next day) and that he saw a mitten, either then or previously. Maybe he mentioned this to the Atkinson’s who said something along the lines of “best not get involved” The alleged confession got added at a later stage, perhaps as Parkes related the story and wanted to make it more incriminating for Parry.

[etenguy]

It’s also worth recalling that Parkes said that he’d told Parry to his face that he didn’t trust him which makes the choice of that garage difficult to understand or justify. Especially when we consider that by the time that the killer supposedly had met up with Parkes surely any blood would have been dried so there wouldn’t have been any desperation to clean a car drenched in blood. Parry and his mate would have had no problem scrubbing the car down in private.
Other very obvious questions are, why didn’t they dispose of the mitten when they disposed of the weapon? With only two items to dispose of (unless you suggest clothing of course) it’s pretty much impossible to believe that he’d forgotten about the presence of the mitten.
It’s also difficult to see why anyone would choose a mitten over a glove? Parkes specifically described a mitten but he also described it as having a small tear. Is this an over-compensation of detail or does it indicate that Parkes might, at some point, have seen such a mitten in Parry’s car? Maybe it was something that he kept to use when doing minor car repairs?
However kind or unkind we are to Parkes or how much benefit of the doubt we allow him, for me theres little doubt that he lied. I don’t think we’ll ever properly solve the Parkes riddle but it’s possible that he genuinely thought Parry was suspicious (perhaps if he saw him the next day) and that he saw a mitten, either then or previously. Maybe he mentioned this to the Atkinson’s who said something along the lines of “best not get involved” The alleged confession got added at a later stage, perhaps as Parkes related the story and wanted to make it more incriminating for Parry.

Absolutely agree. Even giving Parkes as much of the benefit of the doubt as reasonableness will allow, which I tried to do, it is difficult to believe his statement is accurate. You and I both favour Wallace as the killer, but even so, when I was more inclined to believe Parry was involved in the murder, I was still inclined to consider Parkes story as incredulous.

[etenguy]

There are literally witness statements saying very explicitly that when they visited her in winter they were taken into the parlour.

There is literal evidence of the particles from the garment being confined to that room and the fragments scattered in front of the parlour fire. The cushion the blood and particles were on is assumed by gannon but absolutely not known as far as I can discern. McFall examined that seat closely, noting no blood on the seat. He would really need to be grossly incompetent beyond any reasonable measure to actually have been specifically inspecting the seat and not notice blood specked over it.

It is awful he missed blood stains anyway, but to actually have been down inspecting the very same thing he says is clean had it not been, would be unbelievable almost.

Because the brown paper music stuff near the foreground of the "famous" crime scene photo looking into that room, I imagine the cushion might be the one in the ABSOLUTE foreground. Just in view. But maybe one of the sofa ones.

The house would be expected to have vastly large sums of actual physical cash which isn't traceable like trying to flog off someone's jewelry. These sums would be expected to range from £20 up to £100....... In cash...... People at the time knew insurance men would be likely to have money, they were good targets. So were market stall owners and store owners etc but the scene of robbery would be at their place of business. Often getting in through fanlights or dupe keys or stuff of that nature.

Considering this is 1931 even just by equivalency it is at least £1300 in cash, up to five times the amount. And then factor in depression era and the cost of actual living in comparison. Wallace rented that house for something stupid like 16 shillings a week as I recall. I remember thinking Parkes' claimed 5 shilling payment sounded like hush money based on that.

I think it's strongly evident the burning of the jacket took place in that room unless these people are all incompetent to such a monumental degree, and that evidently if William wanted to kill his wife he took her to the parlour so it would look like she'd had a visitor come. Hit her. Then go rob the money and leave... Very specifically it seems, he wanted Gordon to be executed for the crime, and may have done so then due to suspecting an affair because he's clearly bizarre and irrational, and Gordon's piece in Empire News states this is what William seemed to think.

Agree WWH except for the value - I believe it would normally be expected to be at least £100 in the cash box which is equivalent to, according to the Office for National Statistics, about £6,856.89 in 2020 - which strengthens the point you were making.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Absolutely agree. Even giving Parkes as much of the benefit of the doubt as reasonableness will allow, which I tried to do, it is difficult to believe his statement is accurate. You and I both favour Wallace as the killer, but even so, when I was more inclined to believe Parry was involved in the murder, I was still inclined to consider Parkes story as incredulous.

It's relatively reasonable but the unaired statements don't add up. The glove box would be on the passenger's side? So very well his friend may have chucked it there in the escape and not really been noticed by Gordon as their minds are going to be racing. Guilt, fear, all sorts of emotions. I can see something like this being chucked aside like that and forgotten.

"Iron bar" is an undescriptive term. If the ****** had been more specific and said "the iron bar from the parlour" I could say it is not true. But I feel he intended and meant that bar because that's the popular idea of the weapon...

You could argue Gordon did not explicitly say these words, etc. You could argue he said weapon, or w.e. and that he saw Parkes as a good friend he could trust.

It is the unaired portions of the interview that become odd, where he seems to place himself in the middle of a Bond film. The stakeouts could be legitimate, I mean I don't think I'd have done a better job interviewing these people but you'd imagine you'd ask Dolly about this, since she lived in the flat above or behind the garage.

Is it sus Gordon went there that night for a powerclean? I would assume not too much. He was there often and as I understand very fond and prideful of his appearance, car, and all material possessions. Scrubbing though I do not agree with much, you would probably do it and still want the extra safety afforded by a proper clean, or you'd surely be super paranoid about whether you got every tiny little speck.

Julia's blood was heavily clotted by was it 11 PM? Whenever that toilet pan one was found. It could be scooped up on paper such as it was. I would think certainly the blood in the car would be congealed too. The extent may depend on the size of the pooling as I recall, but I may be wrong there.

Now if Parkes said Julia's been killed, naturally Gordon will react a bit in some capacity. He visits and likes this woman, he believes he is close to her husband as a friend. If this is where he first heard the news I think he'd be a bit affected and then this may be interpreted as suspicious.

It is a little suspicious he never mentioned the garage visit if he really went that night, to omit it from the statement like that.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Agree WWH except for the value - I believe it would normally be expected to be at least £100 in the cash box which is equivalent to, according to the Office for National Statistics, about £6,856.89 in 2020 - which strengthens the point you were making.

£80 to £100 would be on a peak takings week. These were every 4 weeks (not on a set date each month, a month is not quite 4 weeks so you see the days change with time).

£20 would be roughly the minimum expected amount which is still very substantial, especially when it's cash and not merchandise, and the actual cost of living, average salaries, etc. of the period.

Robbers have been known to break into places for much less (say car radios) and we're not even living in the depression era where people had serious money problems. It was also far easier to get away with crimes then due to the lack of CCTV and whatever else.

I think any decent amount of cash could be incredibly tempting for someone in that time period who was hard up and knew quite well where they could find sizeable chunks of cash.

[etenguy]

Nothing new here but I could have titled it: There’s Something Not Right About Julia Wallace.

At the age of 40 she gave her age as 30

On her wedding certificate she describes her father as a ‘Veterinary Surgeon’ when he was a Farmer then a Publican.

She describes her mother as Aimée and of French descent but she wasn’t.

In the 1911 census Julia calls herself Jane - she takes 18 years off her age! - and she said that she was born in Hexham, Sussex when she was born in North Yorkshire.

At the wedding, despite her having 2 sisters, her bridesmaid is Williams sister Jessie

Its interesting that the reclusive Julia had once upped sticks and moved, on her own, from Yorkshire to London to work as an Assistant Governess. This was no mean step for a young woman on her own. Does this show that Julia went from a feisty, confident younger woman to a reclusive older one described variously as dirty and disinclined to keep the house clean? A woman who wore homemade clothes?

It’s easy to read too much of course but Julia gives the impression of a woman with something to hide.

~~~

Its also worth noting that although William talks of a life with Julia of perfect contentment he apparent mentioned in his diaries about suffering from depression.

~~~

As I said in an earlier post: why did Julia go to Southport? Was she visiting someone? William doesn't say why she went.

The police never looked into Julia's background for anyone who might have wanted her killed and yet (like Stride and Kelly) she had invented her past. No idea why, but if it wasn't just vanity, was there something or someone she was hiding or hiding from? Was the motive for her murder linked to her history? Did Wallace uncover something? We currently have no way of knowing, but even if not linked to her murder, the mystery of why she lied about her life is as baffling as the mystery surrounding her death.

[etenguy]

It's relatively reasonable but the unaired statements don't add up. The glove box would be on the passenger's side? So very well his friend may have chucked it there in the escape and not really been noticed by Gordon as their minds are going to be racing. Guilt, fear, all sorts of emotions. I can see something like this being chucked aside like that and forgotten.

"Iron bar" is an undescriptive term. If the ****** had been more specific and said "the iron bar from the parlour" I could say it is not true. But I feel he intended and meant that bar because that's the popular idea of the weapon...

You could argue Gordon did not explicitly say these words, etc. You could argue he said weapon, or w.e. and that he saw Parkes as a good friend he could trust.

It is the unaired portions of the interview that become odd, where he seems to place himself in the middle of a Bond film. The stakeouts could be legitimate, I mean I don't think I'd have done a better job interviewing these people but you'd imagine you'd ask Dolly about this, since she lived in the flat above or behind the garage.

Is it sus Gordon went there that night for a powerclean? I would assume not too much. He was there often and as I understand very fond and prideful of his appearance, car, and all material possessions. Scrubbing though I do not agree with much, you would probably do it and still want the extra safety afforded by a proper clean, or you'd surely be super paranoid about whether you got every tiny little speck.

Julia's blood was heavily clotted by was it 11 PM? Whenever that toilet pan one was found. It could be scooped up on paper such as it was. I would think certainly the blood in the car would be congealed too. The extent may depend on the size of the pooling as I recall, but I may be wrong there.

Now if Parkes said Julia's been killed, naturally Gordon will react a bit in some capacity. He visits and likes this woman, he believes he is close to her husband as a friend. If this is where he first heard the news I think he'd be a bit affected and then this may be interpreted as suspicious.

It is a little suspicious he never mentioned the garage visit if he really went that night, to omit it from the statement like that.

Hi WWH - we can try to rationalise some of Parkes' statement, in the way you have - but you're right, the police stakeouts that were claimed by Parkes (who also said in a previous interview that the police ignored him and he had to push to get them to listen to him) are clearly an outright lie. No-one mentioned stake-outs apart from Parkes, and surely Dolly or her son Gordon would have. I guess that is why that statement was left out of the broadcast.

[etenguy]

£80 to £100 would be on a peak takings week. These were every 4 weeks (not on a set date each month, a month is not quite 4 weeks so you see the days change with time).

Maybe I should have checked, but some of those that suggest burglary by someone who knew Wallace's routine also suggest that the day was picked particularly because it was expected to be a peak weeks takings. Clearly it wasn't on this occasion in any case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the subject of cash, this is a curious exchange at the trial:

The emboldening is my own

Crewe: The 19th January only £10 11s 0d was paid in, for the simple reason either the police or someone else had taken the cash and the police have a portion of that cash yet.
The 19th was Monday!
Hemmerde: What makes you say that?

Crewe: Well, I understand the police have at least £18 cash and I have asked for it.

Hemmerde: What makes you say that; where did you get it from?

Crewe: Because they took it and I have asked for it.
What kind of answer is this?
Wright: When was the £10 11s 0d paid in? Was it paid in in cash?

Crewe: No, the £10 11s 0d was paid in on the Thursday, 21st January.
It was actually Wednesday 21st
Hemmerde: Paid in by whom?

Crewe: By Mr Wallace.
Wallace handed in a cheque on the Wednesday accompanied by Edwin

Why didn’t Hemmerde pursue this to get to the bottom of it?
~~~

Using rounded up figures Wallace had collected around £14 from his rounds but had paid out around £10 to customers leaving around £4 which was the cash taken from the cash box.

This £4 was all Wallace had outstanding to pay in.

But on the day after the crime (rather strangely focused on business imo) Wallace goes to Crewe’s office with Edwin and gives him a cheque (of his own cash) for £10.

Why £10 when it should have been £4?

Then, to make things more weird, Crewe reckons that Wallace should have paid in £28! But he could only pay £10 because the police (or someone else) had the rest?

Very strange.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Maybe I should have checked, but some of those that suggest burglary by someone who knew Wallace's routine also suggest that the day was picked particularly because it was expected to be a peak weeks takings. Clearly it wasn't on this occasion in any case.

Because Wallace had been away from work with an illness so the takings were much lower than they normally would have been.

[WallaceWackedHer]

The police never looked into Julia's background for anyone who might have wanted her killed and yet (like Stride and Kelly) she had invented her past. No idea why, but if it wasn't just vanity, was there something or someone she was hiding or hiding from? Was the motive for her murder linked to her history? Did Wallace uncover something? We currently have no way of knowing, but even if not linked to her murder, the mystery of why she lied about her life is as baffling as the mystery surrounding her death.

It's not surprising. They did a background check, though her prior address is different than the ones listed by researchers etc linking her back to the old lady. I would like an independent background check using the police background.

The investigation in totality is truly terrible. They seem to think it's a Poirot novel where they come up with some sus evidence gather everyone in a room and go "IT WAS YOU!!!!" and the killer breaks down like "yes yes it's all true!!!"

They have one statement from like, every crucial witness. They're not even trying.

Did they not get a statement from Amy? If Wallace confessed this to anyone who is he likely to have let info slip to? I think Amy would cover for him for sure, but there's not even an attempt made.

They never pull Lily back in and say her boyfriend lied about his whereabouts, never re-interview her and see if anything slipped.

They really did a bad job which is not even close to any level of professional investigation. And you see this case used in law school curriculum for miscarried justice. It is awful.

Anyway if he discovered anything bad, I don't think the unrest in the home would be unnoticed. It is not normal for your first call to be to murder someone without there ever being some kind of dispute which in those houses should be audible.

...

Further to the police investigation, if you work from an assumption of innocent until proven guilty, then you need to consider the two prime suspects have alibis. No matter whether you think they're shitty, one has multiple corroboration for an alibi, the other it is very implausible he did it and then went off on a journey and all this.

To then for them to not even BOTHER to branch out shows these are not a competent force and NO modern investigation, even without DNA existing, would ever be carried out this way.

There was no attempt at recreation of the murder from a physical standpoint of them going in there timing putting on the fire and then the position they feel she was killed in etc.

It is shambolic and a disgrace... So of course the fact they did not bother with proper background checks, never bothered to question her church pals (you know, maybe she told them "hey you know, I feel a bit scared of my husband lately he's acting aggressive"). Just zero effort. Wasted super and opium'd McFall. Even the analyst found more bloodstains which is a disgrace. Three photos in the crime scene. Absolute disgrace. No question.

So we are working with the terrible police work done by a terrible police force.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Maybe I should have checked, but some of those that suggest burglary by someone who knew Wallace's routine also suggest that the day was picked particularly because it was expected to be a peak weeks takings. Clearly it wasn't on this occasion in any case.

I don't necessarily think it was that intricate, maybe more like an opportunity and taking that opportunity while desperate for money.

I was looking at the Florence two thumps. The Johnstons come out shortly after these thumps. John says 8.40 then 8.45 in the next sentence, but it will be around this. Presume them innocent. The stairs are in that general area, they would be in their kitchen as said. When Wallace comes out and says she's dead John immediately asks if she fell down the stairs.

That might align together with the thumps, as if you thought she was alone in there, heard multiple thumps, then hear she's dead, you may think she had fallen down stairs given the sound.

It is probably nothing... But worth consideration...

It's another failure that Florence was never questioned again about the thumps. A failure the other family members were not questioned. They just DON'T CARE about this investigation or are just not competent. Simple as really...

Parkes was not asked the right questions. I think really they wanted to make this documentary about Gordon. And they wanted the story about Gordon. They aren't questioning any element of the story in that program. They just want the story.