Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[WallaceWackedHer]

A real address would only be a necessity for someone other than William. It doesn’t make the slightest difference to him.

If William was guilty then he knew that he was always going to be a suspect. As I said earlier, even with Parry and Marsden having alibis it might still have been an unknown associate of theirs.

William might simply believed Parry was an ideal suspect or, for whatever reason’ or he might have harboured some grudge or dislike. The fact that he accused him after the acquittal might point to the latter or that he was just pissed off that Parry had an alibi.

I don’t understand your suggestion about the possibility of a genuine caller? There was no Qualtrough.

With a false address it raises suspect questions such as map checks, and introduces failpoints like someone very quickly (e.g. Deyes) saying the message is bogus because he lives right there.

There's more than that.

The ONLY element that is removed as a failpoint is that he actually goes. All the rest remain. The name is worse for the murder plan and SLIGHTLY removed for a robbery if they're banking on him knowing the man and accepting the message.

It's unnecessary, convoluted, and easily avoidable.

By genuine call I mean specifically anything other than a prank call.

[WallaceWackedHer]

If Alan Close hadn’t come forward what would have prevented William saying to the police “I’ve just remembered. The milk boy came while I was upstairs getting ready to go out.”

It's THE critical element of a time based alibi existing, and no mention. It's alleged he's asking the officer for the time at 19:45 purely to show he's away from home at that time.

19:45 is irrelevant to the time alibi, the time alibi hinges on him being out of the house very shortly after his wife is slaughtered. The crucial time to establish is directly after the murder as soon as you feasibly can. Not 19:45 unless that's when his hitman is there bashing her face in.

A smart man would "start the clock" ASAP with an easily traceable and definable timestamp. Not rely on chance that a fallible witness comes forward voluntarily.

I'd probably recommend keeping the tram ticket stubs personally, and knocking a bit off the time you left your home to a plausibly deniable level.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It doesn't work very well, it literally looks like he's trying to frame Gordon, but you can't successfully frame someone unless you know they won't have an alibi. And then if they do you're left with nothing because the suspect pool is stupidly narrow.

By sheer chance he doesn't (for the call). But did for the murder so instantly they're after William.

It's a stupid plan for anyone. A smart person would cast a wide net unless there's a dual motive to actively take down Gordon as well. A smart person would use a real address and random believable name.

The name makes some plausible sense for someone wanting to rob the place but as I said the fake address is STILL stupid.

I suggest a genuine caller (i.e. not a joke) must have made a mistake with the East, when he intended West.

A real address would only be a necessity for someone other than William. It doesn’t make the slightest difference to him.

If William was guilty then he knew that he was always going to be a suspect. As I said earlier, even with Parry and Marsden having alibis it might still have been an unknown associate of theirs.

William might simply believed Parry was an ideal suspect or, for whatever reason’ or he might have harboured some grudge or dislike. The fact that he accused him after the acquittal might point to the latter or that he was just pissed off that Parry had an alibi.

I don’t understand your suggestion about the possibility of a genuine caller? There was no Qualtrough.

[WallaceWackedHer]

The problem is that unless you go for the Prank Call (which I don’t) then someone came up with the phone call plan and for anyone other that Wallace it’s little more than a stab in the dark. And of course you’re right about it pointing to Parry so I’d say:

a) why then would anyone suggest that Parry came up with a plan which points in his own direction? Parry would have had to have been stupid beyond belief to have done so.

b) if Wallace planned this he wasn’t depending on Parry being arrested as of course he couldn’t be sure if he’d have had an alibi or not but he had nothing to lose by pointing the police in the direction of Parry or Marsden. For all the police would have known Parry or Marsden might have given the info about the Wallace’s, their habits and the cash box to one of their dodgy mates who did the ‘robbery.’

It doesn't work very well, it literally looks like he's trying to frame Gordon, but you can't successfully frame someone unless you know they won't have an alibi (if you hate coincidences what do you suppose are the odds that basically the only other person who could have been behind the call has a BS alibi for said call?). And then if they do you're left with nothing because the suspect pool is stupidly narrow.

By sheer chance Gordon apparently decides to lie for kicks about where he was (for the call). But has an alibi for the murder so instantly they're after William.

It's a stupid plan for anyone. A smart person would cast a wide net UNLESS there's a dual motive to actively take down Gordon as well. A smart person would use a real address and random believable name. They could send themselves almost anywhere if they called themselves.

The name makes some plausible sense for someone wanting to rob the place but as I said the fake address is STILL stupid.

I suggest a genuine caller (i.e. not a joke) must have made a mistake with the East, when he intended West. Unless he's an idiot and poor planner which he may be. This is not a plan an intelligent person would dream up. It's convoluted, unnecessary, and full of fail points even on the night the message is received if another club member knows it's bogus. Not to mention the many other ridiculous yet easily avoidable failpoints.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I remember the absent mention of the milk boy who only came forward of his own volition as a genesis for the crumbling of the time-based alibi upon which many ideas are built. It doesn't matter when the tram drivers say he was on the tram if no milk boy comes and says the woman was alive at 6.35 or w.e. she could very well then have been dead from moments after he walked through his own door which is why Alan's friends urged him to come forward.

If Alan Close hadn’t come forward what would have prevented William saying to the police “I’ve just remembered. The milk boy came while I was upstairs getting ready to go out.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
The plan is just stupid. The alias links back to Pru workers with little detective work, and in conjunction the seeming targeted attack on the box narrows it down more. Looks like it to be someone who knows his business, knows his address, knows he goes to the chess club there, knows where the cash box is, would be admitted by his wife, pretty much saying "it must be Gordon".

The problem is that unless you go for the Prank Call (which I don’t) then someone came up with the phone call plan and for anyone other that Wallace it’s little more than a stab in the dark. And of course you’re right about it pointing to Parry so I’d say:

a) why then would anyone suggest that Parry came up with a plan which points in his own direction? Parry would have had to have been stupid beyond belief to have done so.

b) if Wallace planned this he wasn’t depending on Parry being arrested as of course he couldn’t be sure if he’d have had an alibi or not but he had nothing to lose by pointing the police in the direction of Parry or Marsden. For all the police would have known Parry or Marsden might have given the info about the Wallace’s, their habits and the cash box to one of their dodgy mates who did the ‘robbery.’

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hello Ven,

Id suggest that for Wallace the more people that could recall him on his travels the better? If might have gone to an existent address and found no one at home which would have left him relying solely on the tram drivers who, even if they had remembered him, could have said what he’d done after he’d gotten of the last tram. A false address allowed him to wander around asking people about MGE.

If it was a robbery plan by someone else how could they have known that Wallace would decide to go to chess? How could they know that someone at the club wouldn’t say: “I live in MGW and I can tell you there’s no MGE?” How could they know that during the day Wallace wouldn’t consult a map or directory and find no MGE? The plan to get Wallace out of the house is only certain of working if Wallace himself planned it.

~~~

I cant read up on the statements at the moment but your point about when Wallace mentioned his evening plan is an interesting one.

A fake address means he wanders around relying on fallible witnesses who he doesn't know and who the police can't track down unless they actually come forward voluntarily. One person he spoke to there did not come forward. Two in fact (the other one being one of the other residents there IIRC).

None of the witnesses really fixed an accurate time. The first tram driver didn't fix an accurate time either, he had to be proven wrong because he thought they departed at 19:10 when it was 19:06.

The witness being traceable is quite important. The homeowners if not present could be traced and testify that they were indeed not home at the time which would be good evidence he'd actually tried their door to have known that.

I'd suggest knocking at a real address, maybe trying 25 Menlove Avenue, buying some cigs, checking a directory for the name in case there's an error, or visiting Crewe who is unforseeably absent.

None of that extra stuff is actually important because you're already away from the house long enough even to just step off the tram and immediately board one home. I'd want a good traceable witness though so might stop off at the Post Office/newsagents and buy some stuff.

I'd keep the ticket stubs from my tram journies.

The most important element in any time based alibi is that Alan Close comes forward and accurately fixes the time. Therefore should have been mentioned. Without Alan there IS no time-based alibi at all. I'd probably recommend fudging the time you'd left your house by 5 or 10 minutes as well, plausible deniability to be wrong, tighter timeframe.

The plan is just stupid. The alias links back to Pru workers with little detective work, and in conjunction the seeming targeted attack on the box narrows it down more. Looks like it to be someone who knows his business, knows his address, knows he goes to the chess club there, knows where the cash box is, would be admitted by his wife, pretty much saying "it must be Gordon".

Very unwise. Just sheer luck he falsified his alibi.

A burglar might pick the dumb nuisance client name hoping he recognizes the name (so as to accept the message as real) but it's still pretty dumb overall and has different failpoints. Though receipt of the message isn't one of them if there's an accomplice because anyone could be sitting over in the cafe realistically.

...

My skills at being convincing of overall ideas are completely crap because I forget really what actually changed my own mind and just machine gun out a load of side points. Just saying Denison did it or Johnston did it sounds like a crazy person because I'm not showing any process of getting there except usually one or two random elements.

I did write out more in depth to Antony and FB glitched out because the message was so long. I had to split it into multiple parts just to actually post.

To actually write down my own mental debates and major turning points of over a year of obsessively deep diving every avenue would definitely fill a book and I cba to write one. It doesn't make money and it's boring to do.

I remember the absent mention of the milk boy who only came forward of his own volition as a genesis for the crumbling of the time-based alibi upon which many ideas are built. It doesn't matter when the tram drivers say he was on the tram if no milk boy comes and says the woman was alive at 6.35 or w.e. she could very well then have been dead from moments after he walked through his own door which is why Alan's friends urged him to come forward.

And I remember William STILL going after Gordon after successful acquittal in combo with the apparent tightening of the suspect pool initially threw shade at the idea these men are accomplices. Of course a man does not want their accomplices to be caught ideally because they will rat him out. Strange to basically create a kid's McDonald's Happy Meal tier treasure map leading DIRECTLY to his accomplices with about 5 seconds of detective work.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I doubt the general public would know this type of attempt to scam a free call would cause a call to be logged. However I also doubt the public would think the police COULDN'T trace them in any case... Like I'd assume they'd just go interview the operators, I'd assume the cops could find the box personally even if it wasn't within the public knowledge.

The first operator claims to have heard a voice on the other end, so the call was put through successfully the first time. The "technical glitch" is the caller pressing B to get a refund and cutting the call off. Whoever picked up at the cafe that first time wasn't Gladys. Then he calls back saying he's deposited his coins (already paid for the call and it didn't work) when the switchboard proves he's lying.
No, the operator only heard the voice on the last attempt to put the call through. There was a fault at the Cafe end as the staff there said the phone did not ring. The caller still had to put the pennies in when the call finally got through. Gannon describes how these phones worked in his book. The Operators could tell if the pennies dropped or were returned.

He just wants a freebie. Gordon was known to fiddle telephone kiosks by the way.

The first operator is Louisa Alfreds who says on her attempt to put the call through it was done successfully and she heard a voice pick up. Kelly is the second operator. Kelly heard Gladys pick up after the call was put through successfully which would be the second successful connection to a person who picked up the phone.

It should be noted as well, that it is not necessary to press A to "get your correspondent". You don't press it until after that.

Gannon has some errors in his book like the info regarding Lily Hall's sighting for example. I actually said to him about Lily Hall. Antony Brown put the correct interpretation of that sighting. Although I think the man going towards Breck Road is William because his entry is diagonally that way from the institute entry he came out of. The other man went down the entry by the church, chucked a left to Letchworth Street, emerged onto Richmond Park and that's when he crossed the road to accost the other man about 54 Richmond Park.

The fake address and nuisance client name works better for a prank call because it's funny. It's not some vital life or death thing that he falls for it it's just funnier. Nuisance client name + sending the suspected gay off on a wild goose chase for Men Love.

A real address and a regular name works better for a murder or robbery plan because it's more important that he actually goes through with it. The objectives are different.

Various failpoints in an actual plan are present for anyone which make it proveably unreliable and crap. What if Deyes at the club who lives opposite the Gardens said it don't exist I think you've been had? If the caller is really planning this, they have terrible planning skills or the details are in error. The alias narrows the suspect pool considerably - might serve a purpose to a potential burglar but if it's a burglary it also increases the idiocy of using a fake address even moreso.

[etenguy]

and he didn't mention it at TEA time because he already had his plan laid!!
Julia had no notion of his bogus trip... she was preparing the front room for a night in

This is possible, but we have no definitive evidence to support this other than as a possibility.

[etenguy]

lol etenguy, yes it does, he discussed it a TEA time... not any other time... or he would have mentioned DINNER time

Sorry Ven - it doesn't. It would only discount the possibility if he was then asked whether he had discussed it with Julia at any other time and he replied that he hadn't.

[Ven]

and he didn't mention it at TEA time because he already had his plan laid!!
Julia had no notion of his bogus trip... she was preparing the front room for a night in

[Ven]

.. or breakfast... or...

[Ven]

lol etenguy, yes it does, he discussed it a TEA time... not any other time... or he would have mentioned DINNER time

[etenguy]

Post #342
Q. I notice that afterwards in your first statement you say: first of all, when I arrived at my house at 2.10 "my wife was then well and I had DINNER and left the hose", and again afterwards; "I entered my house and had TEA with my wife who was quite well". (This would have been at 6.05pm when he returned home after finishing work for the day)
A. Yes, except for the slight cold.

Then on Page 255 (so only a few minutes later) -
Q. Had you ever told your wife you were going out that night?
A. Certainly, we discussed it.
Q. You discussed it?
A. We discussed it at TEA time.
(NOT the previous night after chess, NOT at breakfast, NOT at DINNER at 2.10 BUT at TEA after work!)

William, in his own words clearly distinguishes between DINNER and TEA.

If he didn't discussed it until TEA time then Amy could not possible have had the discussion she said she did with Julia. (Refer Post #1 in this thread for Amy's statement about her visit to Julia at 3.30pm)

Hi Ven

It is of course possible that tea time was the last time he discussed it with her. It does not preclude that he mentioned it to Julia before then.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
The fake address and fake name is bad in both a murder and a robbery scenario unless they are fake by accident

Hello Ven,

Id suggest that for Wallace the more people that could recall him on his travels the better? If might have gone to an existent address and found no one at home which would have left him relying solely on the tram drivers who, even if they had remembered him, could have said what he’d done after he’d gotten of the last tram. A false address allowed him to wander around asking people about MGE.

If it was a robbery plan by someone else how could they have known that Wallace would decide to go to chess? How could they know that someone at the club wouldn’t say: “I live in MGW and I can tell you there’s no MGE?” How could they know that during the day Wallace wouldn’t consult a map or directory and find no MGE? The plan to get Wallace out of the house is only certain of working if Wallace himself planned it.

~~~

I cant read up on the statements at the moment but your point about when Wallace mentioned his evening plan is an interesting one.