Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Amy Wallace, was she involved?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • WallaceWackedHer
    replied
    I also found more thefts by Parry. He didn't only commit two carjackings... He committed over three (sounds like 6 in total). Some he did because he was SO broke and in debt he couldn't afford a tram fare. So he'd steal cars to drive to where he had to go, then leave them (not keep them).

    Anyone know precisely why he's SO in debt?

    he also thieved from 6 kiosks at the beginning of 1932 along with these carjackings.
    Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; Today, 08:35 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • WallaceWackedHer
    replied
    Also just noticed something about the chess schedule... If there is a number there without a letter people are saying it means he didn't turn up.

    That's not necessarily true. It might also mean that his partner didn't show up while he himself did.

    Look at the 19th. We know Wallace turned up and played a match, but by the column it just says 1 with no letter because CHANDLER didn't turn up.

    I should also correct my previous post, it's possible Parry saw Wallace at the chess club on BOTH Thursdays at the beginning of November, both the 6th and 13th. But at least one of those for definite.

    Glayde's Honour was performed on the 17th of November and Parry says he had seen Wallace at the chess club about 3 times before that performance during rehearsals, including in that November.

    Parry's club rehearsed every Tuesday and Thursday. Wallace's club met Mondays and Thursdays. So it would have been only Thursdays that Parry could have seen him there.

    Parry says prior to these three sightings during rehearsals for Glayde's Honour he did not know Wallace was a member of the chess club there.
    Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; Yesterday, 10:13 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • WallaceWackedHer
    replied
    I have now written two biographies and life timelines for both Julia and William. These are far more organized than Gannon's since he has information spreadeagled all through the book in random spots. I am currently working on Parry's, which I suspect will take a little more time... There is quite a bit more to be written about such a devilish young lad with multiple criminal exploits.

    Julia Biography and Timeline:

    https://www.williamherbertwallace.co...life-timeline/

    William Biography and Timeline:

    https://www.williamherbertwallace.co...life-timeline/

    Included are images of census forms, marriage certificates, death certificates, and the homes which they resided at.

    Please aware me if any information is off. I sourced the information from various books and books on this case are notorious for false information.

    I also think I was right earlier about Rod Crosby's theory being previously invented by Robert F. Hussey. On a re-read it does seem that he is NOT saying Parry is the man attempting to sneakily thieve from the home, but someone else known to Parry.

    Here on these pages he briefly touches upon the idea that any man giving the name "Qualtrough" would be admitted. I consider the idea of the "Qualtrough" name being used to be invented by Roland Oliver in any case, as well as William himself in his ghostwritten articles, so it was a rather common idea floating around:

    http://www.williamherbertwallace.com...e-92-93-94.jpg

    And here is his recreation of the sneak thieving events he believe took place:

    http://www.williamherbertwallace.com...e-86-87-88.jpg

    The images are very large hence I have provided links rather than pasting the images here.

    ---

    I have looked more into the housebreaking gang I had brought up and I missed information in my very own newspaper findings... I can now confirm with almost complete certainty that at least 5 of the boys were, at the time of the murder, out on bail awaiting trial.

    And I missed, which I have now seen, that the boys committed a housebreaking on the 19th of January 1931, the same night the call was made: They broke into 28 Ranelagh Drive, and stole over £50 in cash and jewelry. They were not caught for this until the 23rd of January when one of the boys was confronted at his home, upon which he immediately confessed to the crime and gave up his friends. His friends when questioned in turn did the same.

    Considering they were going to burgle that home on the 19th, it is simply not possible that they would be able to rob 29 Wolverton Street on the Monday when Wallace was out at chess. It may be for this extremely mundane reason that the Monday night was not chosen - simply put the intended burglars were busy that night, breaking into a house which was COMPLETELY unoccupied and getting a handsome haul of loot.

    I have ALSO noticed something else which I did not see before... The chess club does not meet every two weeks. It is USUALLY every two weeks but look at the dates on the chart, on December it runs two weeks in a row. On the 19th of January, the match to be played next is over a month later.

    By the statements of both Wallace and Parry, I can confirm that on one of the Thursdays in November (the 6th or 13th of November 1930), Wallace attended the chess club and was seen there by Parry. Parry saw him on two prior occasions as well although Wallace does not mention that. Parry claims that prior to these sightings he was not aware that Wallace was a member of the chess club there.

    Based on the dates on which the boys would have been in custody, if the boy "Stonehouse" is in any way needed for such a scheme, then the chess match on the 24th of November would not be possible, because he was in custody. For the other boys involved in the robebry at Ranelagh Drive - James Stephen Hall, James Herbert King, Robert James Fisher, John James Hughes, and Harold Charles Paine - Based on the times they were in custody the 5th of January would also not be possible.

    Therefore the only dates they could use would be:

    The 10th of November, 8th of December, 15th of December, 19th of January, and 21st of February…

    However considering that by the 19th of January the boys were out on bail but “awaiting” trial (feeling certain they would be sent to prison for three years), if they were involved, it is possible the 21st of February would have been out of the question too.

    ---

    Wallace and Parry had seen each other twice in December. The dates of which are unclear, but Parry states "about three weeks ago" which would mean the very end of December, where he saw Wallace on a bus from Victoria Street.

    Wallace saw Parry in his car at Missouri Road at some point in December, and it is then that Parry gave him the gift of the calendar.

    The contents of these conversations could be vital if (for example) Parry had brought up chess in any sort of casual manner and managed to gain some useable information. Not only for those reasons of course, there could be many things in those conversations that would be very much telling.

    ---

    I have commissioned colourization of ALL crime scene photos, and those will be up in the coming month or so as my colourizer completes them. For fun I am also having Parry, Julia, and the Johnstons colourized. I realize just now that I ought to include William.

    I have also reached out to private detectives requesting they look into the Anfield housebreakings - particular the burglary at 19 Wolverton Street in December 1930 - and the youths in the gang I have mentioned, as well as any possible links Parry may have had to criminals active in the area at the time.
    Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 04-08-2020, 11:23 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • WallaceWackedHer
    replied
    Originally posted by moste View Post

    And so as a result of all this, it’s looking more and more like Wallace was not the killer is it?

    And it’s beginning to emerge that Parry with assistance(s) was the more likely culprit?
    Almost certainly not the killer, but not guilty is a different matter which I think falls upon Lily Hall to a reasonable extent.

    Gannon only provided excerpts from the committal trial regarding Lily. He didn't include the actual trial, which is obvious BS on his part since it sounds like she clearly says he goes down the entry towards Sedley Street.

    He would have known this and must have purposefully omitted it to force his solution. Which makes me keen to see the committal trial in case there's more he's hiding. This is what I got from her statements see if you can make anything of it:

    https://www.williamherbertwallace.co...alls-sighting/

    I THINK that's what she's saying with those maps I drew with the markers.

    Her original statement makes no mention of the way Wallace was dressed (only the short guy) nor of seeing the two men part company. This only came during the trials from what I understand.

    Reading the trial it is also confirmed to me I was right about the gas valve on the fire, it's to the right of the fireplace - in other words whatever she's doing down there is unlikely to do with regulating the gas as she's in the wrong position for that.

    If you look on the mantlepiece there seems to be a strong collection of splatter marks behind and to the left of the photo frame furthest left. If she was positioned in front of that photo more towards the fireplace I think (but I will need to ask an expert about this) the frame would block the splatter from hitting that point.

    The full trial goes into a lot of detail with McFall. Wyndham-Brown left a lot out. McFall thinks the first strike would soak the attacker, it's the subsequent blows that shouldn't be quite as bad in that regard... Though it would get on the ankles/trousers in any case.

    Had he been kneeling there would be obvious patterning on the jacket to show that.

    I'm tempted to disregad it just for now because it was very very unlikely worn or held up like a shield and therefore seems Red Herring-ish.

    ---

    The removal of a weapon if you believe it is something from the home makes me think whoever did this crime was not wearing gloves and thus was afraid of fingerprints. Or the bar bent if it was William himself.

    If William has a hitman which is what Lily Hall's testimony implies, it would be quite peculiar for a hitman to not bring a weapon. And also to pick something so long and bulky. I'd expect him to bring a hammer or something of that nature and remove it, and also expect him to strike her on the back of her head rather than waiting for her to light the fire and sit down then attacking.

    If the bar and poker are missing from the house it's a strong implication someone for William (or William himself) bent the items while attacking Julia, or that he's entirely innocent.

    If he is taking such levels of precaution, I should imagine it's far more trivial to avoid a weapon being covered in blood than yourself as you can actually cover it completely. If the weapon is not bent there would be no indication at all that it had even been used, so no need to take it away.

    You have to think of the risk vs. reward because taking it requires risk and therefore to do so anyway must mean it was so incriminating as to be worth it... Taking a long iron bar out with you walking around in public is risky, Hemmerde suggests William hid it up his sleeve on his trip (so he would have zero use of that arm).

    The whole route he took was covered and searched, turning up nothing. They didn't search anywhere he didn't go (such was their conviction they had their man). Which means they didn't check Priory Road.

    If the bar/poker is the weapon I think there's a fear of fingerprinting which suggests whoever went in there did not plan to commit a murder (hence no gloves) or was simply very careless.

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
    Well I think I've exhausted what I can do with that. I played with the photo contrast, brightness, everything, but nothing new jumped out at me.

    I'll just have to go into more files and stuff.

    I can just kind of pin down the positioning of the killer and Julia etc. thanks to forensics.

    Julia in the armchair (roughly, somewhere in that region). The killer if we're looking at the main crime scene photo is on the right of her in front of the fireplace.

    I can't say she's doing anything with the fireplace because I believe the gas valve is on the opposite side. She can't be in the middle of the fireplace because of where the blood is and isn't. She's closer to the armchair.

    The weapon is probably something long-ish, due to the extent of the injury. Like the iron bar or poker whichever is longer and heavier. Maybe both were used (the bar on the front, poker on the back).

    The strike hits the front-ISH part of her head. Put your finger in front of your left ear a couple of inches and up about 5 inches. The wound starts roughly at the temple points of her hair. That's the first strike.

    The jacket is unlikely used as a shield or worn.

    Her body is moved and some sort of fire is put out, and she's now in the position she's found in. Then multiple blows after the first one (now she's moved) are rained down onto the back of her head pushing brain matter out of the hole in her head.

    The fact the first strike is frontal-ish rather than more to the back is strange. The burning is strange. The movement of the body is strange. The jacket is strange. I don't understand it. Does anyone else?
    And so as a result of all this, it’s looking more and more like Wallace was not the killer is it?

    And it’s beginning to emerge that Parry with assistance(s) was the more likely culprit?

    Leave a comment:


  • WallaceWackedHer
    replied
    Well I think I've exhausted what I can do with that. I played with the photo contrast, brightness, everything, but nothing new jumped out at me.

    I'll just have to go into more files and stuff.

    I can just kind of pin down the positioning of the killer and Julia etc. thanks to forensics.

    Julia in the armchair (roughly, somewhere in that region). The killer if we're looking at the main crime scene photo is on the right of her in front of the fireplace.

    I can't say she's doing anything with the fireplace because I believe the gas valve is on the opposite side. She can't be in the middle of the fireplace because of where the blood is and isn't. She's closer to the armchair.

    The weapon is probably something long-ish, due to the extent of the injury. Like the iron bar or poker whichever is longer and heavier. Maybe both were used (the bar on the front, poker on the back).

    The strike hits the front-ISH part of her head. Put your finger in front of your left ear a couple of inches and up about 5 inches. The wound starts roughly at the temple points of her hair. That's the first strike.

    The jacket is unlikely used as a shield or worn.

    Her body is moved and some sort of fire is put out, and she's now in the position she's found in. Then multiple blows after the first one (now she's moved) are rained down onto the back of her head pushing brain matter out of the hole in her head.

    The fact the first strike is frontal-ish rather than more to the back is strange. The burning is strange. The movement of the body is strange. The jacket is strange. I don't understand it. Does anyone else?

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

    Just to preface I am currently indulging in LSD detective work, I am basically having to phone in this message to you via ****in' NASA satellite I'm so far up in the stratosphere.

    However, what you said is indeed a matter of some importance. As you rightly indicated I don't think Wallace's trip to Crewe's would have taken him up Menlove Avenue, but rather quite naturally along Allerton Road, but also what you said RE: the route to get to Calderstones. That is important too. But right now I think I will utilize the moment to stare at the crime scene photos (which tends to help - the sort of thing you're discussing is more of a matter for a sober mind to ponder).

    Though for your amusement (before I get back to work staring at the crime scene and morgue photos) it might entertain you to know that my Wallace avatar is dancing around a little for me. The face is becoming obscured like that famous painting where the guy's holding an apple in front of the businessman's face or w.e. you know the one I mean... It's super famous.

    You know, no joke but that would make for GREAT "blotter art". That painting but with Wallace as the businessman. Or even just my Wallace avatar, that's damn good artwork.

    Anyway okay okay okay enough messing around back to work.
    No No NO ! If it’s going to be one of those evenings, I’m going to crack open my first of a half dozen pints of Boddingtons cream ale .

    So talk tomorrow . It’s only 8 30 pm here on the west coast.

    Leave a comment:


  • WallaceWackedHer
    replied
    Originally posted by moste View Post

    Actually for the purpose of clarification. Leaving Penny Lane roundabout heading south , the tram , depending on which one your on, goes a couple or 3 stops then either branches left up Menlove Ave. Or branches right up Allerton rd. Travelling along Menlove Ave.the route Wallace took, After a few stops the tram would have a stop at Menlove Gds.west. Then, after a couple more stops it would arrive at Menlove Gds North. This is also the east end of Green Lane. The west end of Green Lane(Allerton Rd.) would have been where Wallace alighted a couple of years back I believe ,for his few visits to Mr. Crewes house. Consequently ,he could claim no knowledge of ‘the Gardens’
    Interestingly though I think, for his visits with Julia over the years to Calderstones park, it would appear that the tramcar route most likely to have been used would in fact be the Menlove Gds. Route taking them past stops Menlove Gardens West and Menlove Gardens North.
    Just to preface I am currently indulging in LSD detective work, I am basically having to phone in this message to you via ****in' NASA satellite I'm so far up in the stratosphere.

    However, what you said is indeed a matter of some importance. As you rightly indicated I don't think Wallace's trip to Crewe's would have taken him up Menlove Avenue, but rather quite naturally along Allerton Road, but also what you said RE: the route to get to Calderstones. That is important too. But right now I think I will utilize the moment to stare at the crime scene photos (which tends to help - the sort of thing you're discussing is more of a matter for a sober mind to ponder).

    Though for your amusement (before I get back to work staring at the crime scene and morgue photos) it might entertain you to know that my Wallace avatar is dancing around a little for me. The face is becoming obscured like that famous painting where the guy's holding an apple in front of the businessman's face or w.e. you know the one I mean... It's super famous.

    You know, no joke but that would make for GREAT "blotter art". That painting but with Wallace as the businessman. Or even just my Wallace avatar, that's damn good artwork.

    Anyway okay okay okay enough messing around back to work.
    Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 03-14-2020, 03:30 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    Menlove Gardens West should/would naturally then, have been the stop indicated by a conductor,alert to Wallace’s appeal .

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
    You should link your document again. I don't have that anymore. As I recall, moste's route given somewhat recently was the one William claimed to have taken. Not getting off at Menlove Gardens North.
    Actually for the purpose of clarification. Leaving Penny Lane roundabout heading south , the tram , depending on which one your on, goes a couple or 3 stops then either branches left up Menlove Ave. Or branches right up Allerton rd. Travelling along Menlove Ave.the route Wallace took, After a few stops the tram would have a stop at Menlove Gds.west. Then, after a couple more stops it would arrive at Menlove Gds North. This is also the east end of Green Lane. The west end of Green Lane(Allerton Rd.) would have been where Wallace alighted a couple of years back I believe ,for his few visits to Mr. Crewes house. Consequently ,he could claim no knowledge of ‘the Gardens’
    Interestingly though I think, for his visits with Julia over the years to Calderstones park, it would appear that the tramcar route most likely to have been used would in fact be the Menlove Gds. Route taking them past stops Menlove Gardens West and Menlove Gardens North.

    Leave a comment:


  • WallaceWackedHer
    replied
    You know what's strange about Julia's body position. If she was bending down from the chair (or just kneeling in that general area to do something with the fireplace) it doesn't make any sense because the gas valve as far as I can tell from advertisements would have been on the opposite side of the fireplace, which she would not be able to reach from there.

    As it's a gas fire she doesn't need to stoke it or add wood etc. anything involving the fire requires only the gas valve and a match. The part you strike the match at may have been reachable.

    If the valve is on the left I will be able to retract this entirely. Just one advert in a newspaper for the brand of fireplacd they owned showed a black knob looking thing on the right side.

    The position of her body and the subsequent burning makes little sense. If she has fallen against the fire itself I think perhaps we might have seen at least some blood on the fireplace itself. We do not. I am not a forensic expert though so I will need to have this checked.

    What if the burning isn't from the fireplace? I don't know what else it could be, at all, and the movement of the body to where it ended up is also quite unusual. But falling into the fire from the chair also doesn't make sense considering the distance and yet the position of her body when struck suggests something of that type of nature.

    I also want clarification on the marks to the LEFT of the chair (the wall beside the sideboard) and how they got there. They are different markings to the "direct" blood impact we see in the classic parlour photo, and can only be seen in very high quality images of the other view (that shows the piano), which is why I took close ups.

    The fact she is sitting in the armchair with the violin case across the arms suggests she was perched on the front, which probably implies she was not expecting to stay there very long. If she was expecting to spend a considerable time with someone while she sat in the chair, I feel she would move it so she could relax.

    For an evening of music I expect she would light the fire and either then wait for the room to warm up while sitting in the living kitchen for a bit, or move to the piano rather than the armchair.

    Sitting upon the armchair is suggestive of a visitor moreso.

    The jacket WAS in the hallway we are told - I see no reason to distrust that. So it was most definitely taken into that room. But we know from more up to date forensics that its use by the assailant is extremely unlikely.

    If the use of it as a shield is ruled out then it leaves only Florence's idea, on-the-spot quick thinking framing, the use of the jacket to douse flames, or the idea that Julia had brought it in to someone (which would suggest William). He would then get rid of all the clothing he was wearing of course, I should imagine gloves and socks would be removed immediately.

    If OTHER items were successfully incinerated, perhaps there's a possibility they had slipped off the fire if it was on and the jacket caught from that.

    Given the lack of defensive wounding DESPITE the blow being frontal, I expect it was extremely fast and she was struck before she even had time to react.

    Can anyone think of anything OTHER than the fireplace that might have caused the burning? The precise movements of the body after the strike is very confounding. We can place her at the first strike (at least in the general area of that corner by the chair to the left of the fire), but the movement is incredibly difficult.

    The followup blows definitely happened when Julia was roughly in her final resting position.

    So it's:

    1. Julia in or near the armchair to the left of the fire. Attacker in front of the fireplace. In other words in the classic parlour photo he's to the right more than she is.

    2. Frontal strike likely with a longish instrument. Draper said the iron bar was kept beside the fireplace, which would be in easy reach of any attacker in that position. Keep that in mind.

    3. [ Weird period in which burning and movement of the body occurs. Due to the photo quality literally not showing some blood marks (this was even mentioned on trial by McFall, that many didn't show up in the photos) they cannot help me with this much. ]

    4. Julia in the position she was found in is struck several more times on the back(ish) of the head causing brain matter to be pushed out from the frontal wound in her head onto the rug.

    5. The assailant removes his socks or shoes hence a lack of footprints. Though forensics suggested to me the feet may have been wiped there.

    I find it difficult to imagine anyone being able to completely wipe all blood off of their feet on a rug or w.e., but the suggestion was made both at the time and by my modern analyst, and I must defer to expertise.

    But of course either suggestion is a possibility still as both would lead to a lack of footprints.

    Leave a comment:


  • WallaceWackedHer
    replied
    Visitors who knocked wouldn't even expect the front parlour lights or bedroom lights to be on if they knocked. Neither room was even used, nobody would actually expect them to be in the front room unless they were playing music or had company. And the front door is solid, it has no glass which would show light.

    If light would have shown they were never put on or they'd be seen by the delivery boys etc. still milling about.

    This is why if that was a fear in a premeditated killing by William then they would have not been turned on to begin with.

    Though of course if anyone would prefer to believe things happened in a certain way because it's mysterious etc. then that's cool. I'm not really that way inclined lol. I like answers... I remember reading threads on YoLiverpool I was sent by my friend from when books came out over the years like Gannons... And people were literally saying thank God it's not definitely solved... Some people legitimately don't want the case to ever be solved so they can maintain the mystery or keep speculating fine points... But I'm not like that lol.

    I want to literally close the case and then probably I'd move onto Maddie McCann. This is like the greatest mystery ever and it would sadden me to solve like when a great TV series ends. But I'm gunning for the real answers despite that, I'm just that way inclined.

    If I hired people who said the jacket was and could be used etc. I would have posted what they said here anyway. I'd never hold cards close to my chest etc. or hide things to make me look right... In Antony's book he says Murphy has edited the forensic statement, left out certain parts and made up paragraphs which aren't in the report.

    That's why I refuse to read Murphy's book now. Because he's apparently quite literally making things up. The man is a complete liar and can't be trusted, disgraceful because at the time nobody else saw those files so trusted him. He should be ashamed.
    Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 03-12-2020, 03:40 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • WallaceWackedHer
    replied
    Actually yes the parlour would be left in darkness was my suggestion, because I was being told he turned out the lights so people outside wouldn't see, and there is evidence multiple matches were lit and dropped. They were in the folds of the jacket.

    As you know, a murderer also has reason to delay the discovery of their crime for as long as possible.

    I said he would pretend he WOULD light the lamps so she'd go for the fire. Because I thought they were positioned the exact opposite way.

    He couldn't avoid the spray like I said. This has been confirmed to me. The use of the jacket was the only way he could avoid it while wearing the same clothes he's about to go out in. If the jacket wasn't worn he either disposed of ALL the clothes he was wearing and changed, was nude and bathed (etc.) or he didn't do it himself.

    I agree the jacket may have been draped near the fireplace but overall it seems least likely. But I agree. It seems least likely because by any means it should be dry enough by now.

    The clot on the pan I've been told to disregard as transfer.

    NOT seeing the fact that putting your own jacket under a corpse incriminates you shows incredible prejudice as even people unfamiliar with the case think it does, as did the police and prosecution. As do I. Hence why I list it as one of the only real pieces of actual evidence along with Lily Hall's testimony against the man.

    The specific injury would cause blowback spray in significant amounts and the fact it is not on one part of the wall that was indicated to me (hence the positioning of the attacker given to me by the expert) suggests the assailants body blocked it.

    Gordon's clothing we are told was taken apart TO THE SEAMS. If he wore the same clothes he would not get away with it. And the jacket was not used by the attacker as a shield.

    Housebreaking gangs at the time (including the onetI very tenuously fingered) were in the habit of literally bringing spare shoes with them. Did you know that? They would enter homes either barefoot or wearing a type of rubber shoe known as galoshes.

    According to 21st century experts, William did not kill his wife and then walk out in the same outfit, and it's very unlikely the jacket was used. Work around that and you'll come closer to an idea that fits the facts.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Chairs can also be moved, WWH... just saying.

    I read a post of yours from a while back, in which you suggested that all Wallace had to do, if he killed his wife, was to pretend he was going to light the gas lamps in the parlour as she was going to the fireplace, then ‘kill her in total darkness, and use the same matches for a source of light’. I got this image in my head of Wallace battering her with the blunt instrument in one hand, while using a lit match in the other to see what he was doing and make sure he was avoiding all the blood! What did he do, light another match just before each new blow? I think you’d better think it out again.

    If Wallace killed her, he managed not to get any visible blood on himself, so I suggest it would have been done with the lights on. The older generations, as I remember them, were all totally obsessed with turning off lights and gas or electric fires when leaving a room empty for any length of time, unless there was a specific reason for leaving them on. It was so automatic that my late mother-in-law would exasperate us by turning off our kitchen lights or oven when hubby or I were still in there or about to cook! My Dad would tick us kids off for leaving lights on anywhere, or not turning the gas fires down or off whenever possible. A younger man, committing a crime in someone else’s home, would not have had that instinct to turn out the fire in the parlour, or the lights anywhere, after beating Julia to death, and would not have been overly concerned if the house had caught fire after he had scarpered, destroying any evidence of his presence. Wallace, on the other hand, would have instinctively turned everything off after moving Julia, her skirt and the mac away from the fire, for all the obvious reasons, but also so that if anyone knocked at the front door while he was pretending to look for MGE, the total darkness of the parlour and most of the house would help give the impression that the Wallaces were not ‘at home’ to visitors, or that Julia had gone up to bed early with that bad cold.

    I wonder if Julia had turned on the parlour gas fire earlier, to dry the mac her husband had worn in the morning. It might have been draped over a chair which she had moved nearer the fire for the purpose. Immediately after the milk boy had buggered off, Wallace could have asked his wife to turn off the fire and retrieve the mac in case he needed it again for his bogus business trip. As she bent down to see to the fire, he came up behind her, whipping up his mac from the chair and giving her a hefty whack with a blunt instrument, which landed on the front side of her head as she heard his approach and was turning to face him. The gas fire would still be alight, or at least hot enough to scorch anything falling too close to it. Wallace managed to avoid getting covered in blood, helped by the mac, then he only had to move the chair back to its normal place, make sure the fire was now off and nothing was in danger of burning the house down, put on his coat, then extinguish the lights before leaving by the back door with his briefcase.

    We know from the practical tv experiment I have described before, which was carried out professionally and objectively with no expected or preferred outcome in mind, that a very similar murder could have been committed without leaving any visible blood on the killer. The white overalls used for the experiment by the ‘murderer’ remained spotless. That has to count for something, despite professional opinions that Julia’s killer would have been covered with blood. The total lack of any blood found downstairs outside the parlour must also count for something. Nobody, not even Wallace, needed to be that fastidious, and Wallace would hardly have had the time anyway. So the fact that all the blood was contained within the parlour [apart from the clot on the loo and smear on the note – both upstairs] would support the result of the experiment in that other case, that the killer could have left the murder room without dripping or treading any blood as he went.

    I don’t begin to understand your argument that the mac automatically incriminated Wallace. He was always going to be the prime suspect regardless, but in theory anyone could have grabbed that mac from a peg in the hall and done exactly the same with it. It would have been infinitely worse for Wallace if the mac hadn’t featured at all, but he’d left a blood trail up to the bathroom for example, or had any visible blood on him as he was asking the world and his wife for directions to MGE!

    I think that’s covered much of what I wanted to say about the gas fire, lights, mac and blood.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Last edited by caz; 03-12-2020, 01:02 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • WallaceWackedHer
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    The point is that no reputable forensic expert would claim that the 'CORRECT' tests would have been able to pin down a time of death that specifically, WWH. In reality, an estimate of anywhere between the last time an independent witness [the milk boy] saw Julia alive and when the Johnstons found her dead, may have been about as much as the best 'expert' in the field should have relied on.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    I was told by the analyst that in terms of time of death it would be better to rely on the witnesses as the estimate would be too broad.

    The information I was given about the attack itself I think is what is important - albeit I was hoping for a time of death of course. Specifically for one thing about the jacket and the potential of its use, but also the position of Julia and her attacker when the blows were struck. As it happens McFall seems to have been right in his estimate regarding the positioning although he never specified or was asked to specify where the attacker was stood.

    All shots to the back of the head I think she is saying took place when Julia was roughly in the position she was found in, which pushed the brain matter out of the gaping hole that the first strike had inflicted.

    So the first strike is frontal (Julia did not have any defensive wounds but this is agreed upon both by modern forensics and the forensics of the time). You can actually see it in the morgue photos if you are so inclined - it is frontal. It's on the side front upper part of the skull, above and just in front of the ear in other words.

    I am getting these photos colourized for the analyst as well, so she can see the wounds better than the black and whites.

    I may hire more analysts to have multiple opinions. But I suspect they are going to agree on the fundamental points of positioning, and the probability of the jacket having being used.

    Thanks to the UTTER INCOMPETENCE of the police force, I was able to get a photo of the jacket since they actually took it out from beneath her body and laid it beside her lmao:



    Yes that is THE shield-jacket. Srs. I made quadrupley sure.

    The position of the attack IS crucially important I can't believe so many people said it's irrelevant... If, for example, she was struck by an attacker by the armchair, it may be suggestive of William pretending to go open his violin case as his wife bends down to the fireplace. I think I made this suggestion recently in fact, as a possible explanation of the scene. But it seems the two are actually reversed in terms of position.

    The FOLLOWUP strikes it appears the attacker was stood near the chair IF the blood on the ceiling I had colourized is actually blood and not a photo glitch.

    Conversely, if she's sitting in the chair it suggests moreso she has or is expecting company, to be there as opposed to at the piano for an evening of music. If the attacker is in front of the fireplace and she's more to the left, I don't think she can be tending the fireplace (maybe getting up from doing so) because the gas valve is on the right side.

    Also the fire has already been on I am told by people here, for the burning to have taken place.

    Can we not begin to look most carefully at the most likely scenarios: That this is either a case of innocence, or something roughly along the lines of what John Gannon suggested? These are the strongest suggestions. You can't discredit Gannon's overall idea just because he wrote something silly about Julia paying boys for sex. Just ignore that part.

    Lily Hall's statements need to be further analyzed.
    Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 03-11-2020, 05:37 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X