Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m struggling with this phone when trying to reply within a quote.

Slemen makes a point about the lateness of the visit with John having to be up earlier for work but this surely wouldn’t have been the case if he was moving house next day?

Is it a fact that Close had been late regularly? I knew that he was late on the Tuesday due to issues with his bike.

On your ‘burning hatred’ point it’s worth mentioning the Nurse Wilson made her comments on the Wallace’s marriage based on her 3 weeks in the house something like 8 years earlier.

I understand your point about West or East and whether William would have needed to have pretended to be a stranger or not but, at the risk of sounding like a scratched record, he did lie about this. By using East this gave William an excuse to keep looking and create the impression that he was genuinely looking for this address.

Yes I do see your point about talking to the operators in his own voice but perhaps it wasn’t his own voice exactly? As the operators weren’t familiar with his voice and Gladys Harley wouldn’t have heard it that often or for long unlike Beattie so I’d suspect that he exaggerated his disguised voice more for Beattie. I’ve always found it interesting that Beattie was the only one to describe the voice as gruff.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Letter 1:





Response 1:





Letter 2:





Response 2:

[WallaceWackedHer]

This also really should be added:



Admitted into the front room (parlour) in the winter. There's a few, but I mean I just wanted to add a corroboration for this because of the recent adamant claim a visitor would be taken into the kitchen.

Therein lies also the first corroboration of the Southport event, the second being here:

"They were a very devoted couple and I remember that Mr. Wallace was agitated when his wife did not return in the evening from Southport just before Christmas. Mrs. Wallace told my daughter how worried he had been, and said that when she got in about 1 a.m. they sat up quite a long time talking and having tea together."

Florence Johnston's second statement...

Julia had told her daughter about the event. I see now Amy is not the person named, they had another daughter there Norah. In any case one of the daughters had been told this story. Julia seems to enjoy gossiping about her husband and his business (e.g. telling Amy Wallace about the trip - but I accept actually that this might be a lie lol) and these random unprompted tales about this incident in question.

You see how there is a lot of really buried information, where you can for example conclude stuff about how someone would be in the kitchen during winter, but it's stated otherwise by obscure witness testimonies. I should upload more. I think I might do Munro's Q&A quickly just now but I feel burnt out for perhaps a few weeks or so.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Btw I noticed that Gannon’s ‘mitten’ looks nothing like a mitten in the photo in you’re favourite Murder Casebook mag.

I do believe Phyllis is the daughter they moved in with; Phyllis and her husband Edgar Mann.

Slemen claims a statement from Phyllis where she said she had not expected their visit. And he claims they moved there "the next day", I can't find confirmation of this now. I noticed in their statements that between John and Florence, one claims they moved there in January, the other in February. From Goodman he says they had been planning to move in February... Slemen also claims details about the #17 Wolverton robbery that are very important. Maybe others should try to contact him through his Facebook page too, because a lot of these things are really important if actually verified.

There is the mackintosh in the photos but the photo isn't very close up. The photo quality is not as good as I'd hope.

The milk boy could call any time between 6.10 to 7.00, he had been frequently late recently apparently.

There may well be missing evidence in the case. This is an issue. I happen to know as I was told by the police record holder person (or w.e. their title is) that the file is heavily pruned to save space. If there was an affair it is easy that he would have someone willing to partake because the motive is shared. They both want her out of the picture. I can't provide proof, but I think there are elements which are suggestive it would be a good shout. Similarly you can't prove William is a gay man, but there are suggestive details.

Given the now double corroboration of the 15th December incident, this is apparently not some decades of building hatred, something "broke the camels back" or happened in what must have been the span of around a month.

My suggestion regarding the details is not that Beattie got them wrong (he might though, lol), but that the caller did. And therefore William got the message, and possibly wrote out "West" because he completely expected it due to pre-emptive knowledge that West is what it was MEANT to be.

This would work far better as a plan. I don't think he needed to pretend he didn't know the area or place in order to establish he had been away from home. I don't think you need so many alibis, especially from witnesses who may well never come forward because they're just randoms off the street, and they certainly couldn't be expected to get the timings bang on accurate. And nor would Alan. William did mention the paper boy, he arrived earlier.

...

I would deep dive specific topics but I wouldn't know where to start. I may just be totally burned out anyway for a short period.

I am talking to Gannon about the case via email.

It seems as for Beattie, he never had any doubt that the man he spoke to on the telephone that night was not William, because he seems to desire to stay in contact:





A person can of course disguise their voice, but for a person to remain convinced even when the suggestion is made that William called himself should be noted. He must have spent a lot of time thinking back on that message and trying to envision the voice being disguised-William given the suggestion and even conviction.

But in any case as I did say, I think it is undeniably strange that a man hellbent on murder is going to faff about with operators for a long time in a real voice. Do you see that?

Murder Casebook is invaluable for the photos. I don't think there's a mitten there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's not only the idea of the jacket in and of itself but also the written descriptions and reports of the patterning upon it, even taking into account that one side has been in the pooling and therefore ruining potentially useful marks on that side.

I looked carefully at the statements and the police are contradictory about the burning. Bailey (or Gold?) for example states one time that it's the left side, then says it's the right side in a different statement. No specifics as to whether it's left/right from the perspective of the wearer or the viewer... I like the suggestion the burning took place in the kitchen earlier in the day but it doesn't work because the fragments and such of that jacket were not found in any other place but the parlour and the skirt burns are patterned.

As you’ve found since becoming interested in this case, it’s a constant source of frustration with: why did they ask this question or why didn’t they do this or that? Why no photo of the mackintosh for eg (I wonder if they were thinking about budgets too much?) Why no check of the Monday trams. All lost opportunities.

I would think any motive that developed since the 15th of December is likely to have involved another person. I think so also on the basis of the reports of no arguing, though I think and also can show definitely that the neighbours (as in the Johnstons) can't really be trusted as per Moore and their changing statements; so you might choose to not believe that claim. The family the opposite side did not give a police statement AFAIK I think they just spoke to the Press? I can't see a police statement from them.

I meant to ask you as I have no books available at the moment- can you remember if the daughter that the Johnston’s were visiting that night the same one that they were moving in with?

It is easy to logically interpret William's behavior as the basis of convicting him of course. I could list out probably every single thing. IMO he is the most guilty-seeming innocent person in human history if he has nothing to do with this.

True. This is why I find it difficult to understand why some dismiss him out of hand.

Much though, makes more sense with deeper diving and isn't as sinister or condemning as it seems. A lot of that info is somewhat hidden though, and I do believe a number of authors on the case have purposefully omitted things (or doctored official statements like Murphy). Regarding those things, it is a disgraceful failing by the Defence because so many times they just allow total misstatements of fact through when they literally have official statements stating the opposite.

I once wrote a list of points that I felt Hemmerde failed on but I can’t find it. It was quite a lengthy one.

I don't think the milk boy is part of a contrived alibi otherwise he would have mentioned the boy to police and not relied on chance that the boy himself would come forward. He couldn't rely on any of these witnesses or the boy accurately fixing the time. Sidney Green got the time wrong, Lily Pinches got the time wrong, a number of them did. It was suggested by caz that in fact he wasn't using time as an alibi - and the boy was just an obstacle... But then it ruins the idea of a time-based alibi which changes the behaviors you might expect.

He might have been aware that the milk boy was due though.

The visit to Crewe might be considered a failpoint in a plan by the way, if he was hoping to extend his time away from the house by visiting Crewe for a little while and then knocked to find no answer meaning he returned home earlier than anticipated. The idea then being, I would suppose, that whoever is doing this thing with him is meant to have done it at around 8 pm or something, and William has had to come home early because of that unforeseen mishap.

I still interesting though that he doesn’t mention Crewe in his interview on the 22nd.

...

I think William is high functioning autistic, and I think that is why the man comes across as so strange. Based on the description of his personality, weird love of stoic philosophies (an ideology which would be ESPECIALLY comforting to an autist), somebody saying he's listed his hat and glove size on every diary, regimented lifestyle, constant timechecks (per a Pru client), things like that and more... So I think he's a slightly autistic man, and also a likely homosexual for reasons I gave before.

Possibly but we can’t know this of course.

I think a person could pursue an angle of guilt where the motive is something like an affair very successfully. Much more successfully than the angle of him doing it alone and just being tired of her or something.

To be honest I’ve never seen motive as a issue and the problem is finding proper evidence for some kind affair in a case that’s rife with rumour. That’s not to say that some rumour might not have at least a kernel of truth.

I would really heavily recommend a person look at the idea of William leaving and someone else going in through the back (or really just a two person scheme). He leaves his wife in the room saying about a visitor he's just gonna go get or w.e. excuse... Maybe a person known to his wife even... It aligns more with everything including probable motive and removes the element of improbable timeframes.

It would but it’s difficult to envision William a) knowing someone willing , and b) being prepared to trust them.

Also the voice on the phone message then makes better sense. But I think the details of that are then a mistake. Here's what the caller was meant to say in a murder plot IMO:

R. J. Qualtrough
25 Menlove Gardens West

But screwed up... Realistically I'd actually expect a normal name and address that he doesn't pretend not to know.

Didnt Beattie read the name back as he wrote it?

If intentional with the East I do prefer that it's a prank call. And I favor that anyway because of the extended period spent talking in an ordinary voice to operators and fiddling a couple of pennies. I think it can be agreed that this is unexpected behavior in a criminal plan, especially something as serious as murder. Hence why the functioning of the box and operator testimony is CRITICAL.

As it stands the first operator claims a successful pickup at the cafe.

Rather then, I would expect the caller to go straight through to the City Cafe first try using a fake voice throughout and of course not give a **** about his coins. The least exposure = The better.

The prank call isn’t impossible of course WWH but everything about the scenario screams way too unlikely for me at least.

...

I wouldn't bother with a book I'd just write stuff up on the web. Antony probably earns about $2 per week off his book, and idc about the "prestige" of being an author... I write better in this type of way in any case, which is stream of consciousness type writing.

I think I do a very bad job of explaining why I believe in certain things I tend to just touch on the base and not really elaborate, so people don't get my full reasoning. As above and almost all posts I make I basically just give my conclusion and not all the process of elimination and reasonings etc. to get there. Maybe just mention one aspect. Rarely deep dive.

I get it out better when I have conversations with Josh because the line of questions makes me do a better job showing the process of elimination and why certain things don't make sense.

I don’t think that’s down to you WWH it’s an issue on here that we’ve always had imo and I’ve been as guilty as anyone. We tend to jump around a lot from one aspect of the crime to another. Then there’s long posts (definitely me) with 15 different points. We were once going to try and focus more with Antony selecting an aspect then discussing it until it was done. If you wanted to do that I’d be happy to follow a specific point that you chose.

E.g. I should mention that Qualtrough very easily and quickly leads back to Marsden/Parry. If they are involved with him like Gannon claims, it's like he's legitimately trying to frame them if the name is his choosing. Then he names them as prime suspects. And the problem is that in any murder plot nobody wants their helpers to go down or be found/questioned because it puts themselves in danger.

No one asked who Caird’s Qualtrough was?

Also then going after Parry AFTER acquittal. Very off. He'd have to specifically have it in for them and want them to go down in addition to his wife. Doesn't make sense.

Its never made sense to me.

I could go very much further down that line including if they weren't involved with him.

Btw I noticed that Gannon’s ‘mitten’ looks nothing like a mitten in the photo in you’re favourite Murder Casebook mag.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am well Herlock.Today I feel like a twenty year old,but cannot find one.
Things I find odd if it was an intruder killer bent on robbery,is that the intruder was very obliging.The gas fire and lights were turned off,the money box was replaced on the shelf,only one bed was slightly disarranged,and the mackintosh placed in a position to contain the bleeding from the head. Bloodstained footprints and handprints avoided.Only a small quantity of money claimed to be stolen,yet money upstairs was clearly visible,Julia's handbag was accessable,and last but not least,the gas meter was left intact.Younger people may not understand that last,but gas meters alone ,in those days,were by themselves objects of robbery.
For those who may believe the mackintosh and skirt were burned sometime that evening after Wallace left,try a little experiment.Burn similar items of material and experience how long the smell lingers.There were no reports,despite the number of persons being in that room that evening,of any one noticing a smell of burning. My opinion is the fire was not lit by Julia.That,in her state of health, in the middle of winter,she would not use that cold room for any purpose while the kitchen/living room was available,and only William on some pretext could coax her into that front room.
When might the burning have occured.I would guess midday,and it was the reason William wore a different coat in the afternoon.How did it happen.If Julia was airing the mackintosh in front of the kitchen fire,a frequent means of drying and warming a garment in winter those days,it may have have become burnt,and resulted in Julia burning the skirt while attempting to save the mackintosh.

I hadn’t considered the gas meter Harry. Certainly a missed source of cash for a thief whose just discovered Ł4 in the box instead of Ł80-100. It just doesn’t look like a really robbery does it.

[WallaceWackedHer]

For me it’s not a case of disregarding forensic opinion it’s a case of accepting that they are fallible human beings. There have been cases of bludgeoning at close range where the killer has avoided blood spatter. In this case, if the killer knelt to the left of Julia’s backside how can it be impossible that no blood went to the left, right or above the killer? And yet we find no blood spatter in the area behind the killer toward the window.
If your experts could go back in time to the crime scene I’m certain that they could have given important info (and I’m not saying that they can’t give important info now) but they are working with not great quality information. I’ve always considered the rigid objection to the suggestion that William could have protected himself from blood as simple bias but I don’t think that’s the case with you (although I know that you think I’m biased) but I do find it a frustration. If we forget the names and this case we just have to consider - a man kneeling in a knee length coat, wearing a glove or gloves and with a piece of cloth face covering. Nothing about that is remotely impossible if we consider a planned murder. With a weapon possibly a foot long he has 3 or 4 inches of face exposed. How can this not be possible? Even a few specs on the face could have been wiped away.
Its probably best though to avoid this part of the case rather than going round in circles.
Im not just being bloody-minded to annoy though. I’ve looked at the case, as you have, and assessed all the aspects and no matter how many times I’ve re-assessed it just comes back William, William, William (with points against of course) I just can’t see him as being uninvolved.
I honestly think that you should look at writing a book on the case. It doesn’t have to be a suspect or specific theory book but you can obviously weigh up theories/suspects. I think you’re ideally placed to write a kind of bible of the Wallace case.

It's not only the idea of the jacket in and of itself but also the written descriptions and reports of the patterning upon it, even taking into account that one side has been in the pooling and therefore ruining potentially useful marks on that side.

I looked carefully at the statements and the police are contradictory about the burning. Bailey (or Gold?) for example states one time that it's the left side, then says it's the right side in a different statement. No specifics as to whether it's left/right from the perspective of the wearer or the viewer... I like the suggestion the burning took place in the kitchen earlier in the day but it doesn't work because the fragments and such of that jacket were not found in any other place but the parlour and the skirt burns are patterned.

I would think any motive that developed since the 15th of December is likely to have involved another person. I think so also on the basis of the reports of no arguing, though I think and also can show definitely that the neighbours (as in the Johnstons) can't really be trusted as per Moore and their changing statements; so you might choose to not believe that claim. The family the opposite side did not give a police statement AFAIK I think they just spoke to the Press? I can't see a police statement from them.

It is easy to logically interpret William's behavior as the basis of convicting him of course. I could list out probably every single thing. IMO he is the most guilty-seeming innocent person in human history if he has nothing to do with this.

Much though, makes more sense with deeper diving and isn't as sinister or condemning as it seems. A lot of that info is somewhat hidden though, and I do believe a number of authors on the case have purposefully omitted things (or doctored official statements like Murphy). Regarding those things, it is a disgraceful failing by the Defence because so many times they just allow total misstatements of fact through when they literally have official statements stating the opposite.

I don't think the milk boy is part of a contrived alibi otherwise he would have mentioned the boy to police and not relied on chance that the boy himself would come forward. He couldn't rely on any of these witnesses or the boy accurately fixing the time. Sidney Green got the time wrong, Lily Pinches got the time wrong, a number of them did. It was suggested by caz that in fact he wasn't using time as an alibi - and the boy was just an obstacle... But then it ruins the idea of a time-based alibi which changes the behaviors you might expect.

The visit to Crewe might be considered a failpoint in a plan by the way, if he was hoping to extend his time away from the house by visiting Crewe for a little while and then knocked to find no answer meaning he returned home earlier than anticipated. The idea then being, I would suppose, that whoever is doing this thing with him is meant to have done it at around 8 pm or something, and William has had to come home early because of that unforeseen mishap.

...

I think William is high functioning autistic, and I think that is why the man comes across as so strange. Based on the description of his personality, weird love of stoic philosophies (an ideology which would be ESPECIALLY comforting to an autist), somebody saying he's listed his hat and glove size on every diary, regimented lifestyle, constant timechecks (per a Pru client), things like that and more... So I think he's a slightly autistic man, and also a likely homosexual for reasons I gave before.

I think a person could pursue an angle of guilt where the motive is something like an affair very successfully. Much more successfully than the angle of him doing it alone and just being tired of her or something.

I would really heavily recommend a person look at the idea of William leaving and someone else going in through the back (or really just a two person scheme). He leaves his wife in the room saying about a visitor he's just gonna go get or w.e. excuse... Maybe a person known to his wife even... It aligns more with everything including probable motive and removes the element of improbable timeframes.

Also the voice on the phone message then makes better sense. But I think the details of that are then a mistake. Here's what the caller was meant to say in a murder plot IMO:

R. J. Qualtrough
25 Menlove Gardens West

But screwed up... Realistically I'd actually expect a normal name and address that he doesn't pretend not to know.

If intentional with the East I do prefer that it's a prank call. And I favor that anyway because of the extended period spent talking in an ordinary voice to operators and fiddling a couple of pennies. I think it can be agreed that this is unexpected behavior in a criminal plan, especially something as serious as murder. Hence why the functioning of the box and operator testimony is CRITICAL.

As it stands the first operator claims a successful pickup at the cafe.

Rather then, I would expect the caller to go straight through to the City Cafe first try using a fake voice throughout and of course not give a **** about his coins. The least exposure = The better.

...

I wouldn't bother with a book I'd just write stuff up on the web. Antony probably earns about $2 per week off his book, and idc about the "prestige" of being an author... I write better in this type of way in any case, which is stream of consciousness type writing.

I think I do a very bad job of explaining why I believe in certain things I tend to just touch on the base and not really elaborate, so people don't get my full reasoning. As above and almost all posts I make I basically just give my conclusion and not all the process of elimination and reasonings etc. to get there. Maybe just mention one aspect. Rarely deep dive.

I get it out better when I have conversations with Josh because the line of questions makes me do a better job showing the process of elimination and why certain things don't make sense.

E.g. I should mention that Qualtrough very easily and quickly leads back to Marsden/Parry. If they are involved with him like Gannon claims, it's like he's legitimately trying to frame them if the name is his choosing. Then he names them as prime suspects. And the problem is that in any murder plot nobody wants their helpers to go down or be found/questioned because it puts themselves in danger.

Also then going after Parry AFTER acquittal. Very off. He'd have to specifically have it in for them and want them to go down in addition to his wife. Doesn't make sense.

I could go very much further down that line including if they weren't involved with him.

[harry]

I am well Herlock.Today I feel like a twenty year old,but cannot find one.
Things I find odd if it was an intruder killer bent on robbery,is that the intruder was very obliging.The gas fire and lights were turned off,the money box was replaced on the shelf,only one bed was slightly disarranged,and the mackintosh placed in a position to contain the bleeding from the head. Bloodstained footprints and handprints avoided.Only a small quantity of money claimed to be stolen,yet money upstairs was clearly visible,Julia's handbag was accessable,and last but not least,the gas meter was left intact.Younger people may not understand that last,but gas meters alone ,in those days,were by themselves objects of robbery.
For those who may believe the mackintosh and skirt were burned sometime that evening after Wallace left,try a little experiment.Burn similar items of material and experience how long the smell lingers.There were no reports,despite the number of persons being in that room that evening,of any one noticing a smell of burning. My opinion is the fire was not lit by Julia.That,in her state of health, in the middle of winter,she would not use that cold room for any purpose while the kitchen/living room was available,and only William on some pretext could coax her into that front room.
When might the burning have occured.I would guess midday,and it was the reason William wore a different coat in the afternoon.How did it happen.If Julia was airing the mackintosh in front of the kitchen fire,a frequent means of drying and warming a garment in winter those days,it may have have become burnt,and resulted in Julia burning the skirt while attempting to save the mackintosh.

[Herlock Sholmes]

For me it’s not a case of disregarding forensic opinion it’s a case of accepting that they are fallible human beings. There have been cases of bludgeoning at close range where the killer has avoided blood spatter. In this case, if the killer knelt to the left of Julia’s backside how can it be impossible that no blood went to the left, right or above the killer? And yet we find no blood spatter in the area behind the killer toward the window.
If your experts could go back in time to the crime scene I’m certain that they could have given important info (and I’m not saying that they can’t give important info now) but they are working with not great quality information. I’ve always considered the rigid objection to the suggestion that William could have protected himself from blood as simple bias but I don’t think that’s the case with you (although I know that you think I’m biased) but I do find it a frustration. If we forget the names and this case we just have to consider - a man kneeling in a knee length coat, wearing a glove or gloves and with a piece of cloth face covering. Nothing about that is remotely impossible if we consider a planned murder. With a weapon possibly a foot long he has 3 or 4 inches of face exposed. How can this not be possible? Even a few specs on the face could have been wiped away.
Its probably best though to avoid this part of the case rather than going round in circles.
Im not just being bloody-minded to annoy though. I’ve looked at the case, as you have, and assessed all the aspects and no matter how many times I’ve re-assessed it just comes back William, William, William (with points against of course) I just can’t see him as being uninvolved.
I honestly think that you should look at writing a book on the case. It doesn’t have to be a suspect or specific theory book but you can obviously weigh up theories/suspects. I think you’re ideally placed to write a kind of bible of the Wallace case.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Well I can now remember why I never took Slemen seriously when I first read him. Apart from his attempts to make everything sound sinister (Johnston’s mention of his key for eg) he mentions the paltry amount in the cash tin but doesn’t explain why they didn’t search drawers in the kitchen or Julia’s bag for more cash. Where does he get the idea that William was some kind of skinflint? He payed a third of years salary for a microscope! The story is blown away of course when ‘Stan’ says that the Johnston’s entered the house because they assumed that Julia was going out with William because they saw that she was wearing a mackintosh. Whoever read about the case to concoct this story obviously didn’t read the part where William states that Julia wasn’t wearing his mackintosh when she accompanied him to the gate. On that point alone the story is shown to have been an invention.

Yeah parts are wrong. Some parts match and shouldn't. I asked Tom via his FB to give me Stan's exact words without his own additions but no response yet.

Primarily I think the next door neighbours are liars (they are in any case which I may return to) and aside I think killed this woman with or without there having been the reported confession, and that IF the specifics of the call, particularly East and the penny scam, are on purpose I think the call is a joke.

On top of that I think the man is probably gay. Given a lot of facts about the marriage I already mentioned and also the fact he always refers to his wife in platonic terms: companion, friend, comrade.

I don't accept he just wanted rid of her randomly. And clearly his life was totally **** in the time he did live without her. It's very highly suggestive the motive is recent because that Xmas time diary story is corroborated twice. Hard to envision him to have been homicidal at that stage. So it was then within the timeframe after the 15th of Dec. Something evidently took place within about 4 weeks from there.

I don't accept someone's first response to a situation is to premed murder a person unless there's some secret affair type thing where they want to bash the wife so they can be together or w.e. other reasonings common to these crimes. So I think the neighbours are lying about there being no arguments except in a situation like mentioned.

So anyway I think gay William's been sent to look for Men Love. Gordon thinks he's a queen and said so many years after. If I'm right he made a joke call he'd know there's no relation and therefore think William wanted Julia dead because he's a gay (which is what he alluded to to Goodman).

Gannon had two people tell him the man was a gay but the blog was deleted by him and Antony was emailed about the other one.

...

Secondarily I think if the details on the telephone message are an accidental flub and the neighbours are innocent people, their appearance being coincidental, and their lies either mistakes or coerced (I don't know why they did)...

...Then I'd say it's some gay man wacking: Jilted or in league with William. William is laughable with details like names and addresses and if he made this all up then I would find it easy to believe he knew about West and meant West but pulled a "William". I see his first response to getting the message was to go to write West which I suggested (probably in one of my first posts) seems like he had EXPECTED that.

I do buy forensics, but I think I wasted thousands of my money on that because I think it won't ever be accepted which I should have known by the Hanratty thread. Therefore it's useful only to me.

Because I think the pros are more likely correct about the way the crime was carried out than anyone else I don't accept the proposal of the jacket. I also don't necessarily think the woman had let anyone into the home.

I think William might have let someone in the back as he went out which would then work well of course if this is a setup.

Perp then a gay who feels envy or hatred for the woman on the grounds that he's into William (I would say woman, but it sounds like William is a gay, so a man). And attacked her savagely for this reason. Which fits better on multiple levels because this person also doesn't have to worry as much about how messy the scene is unless he lives far away or has to use public transport.

The man might have still been inside the house and William then knocking gently to alert him hoping not to be noticed by neighbours. I haven't thought about that much before so it's not fully furnished.

I know the Press says John says William came to him, so corroboration of the knocking might even be made up. Proveably the neighbours have lied on other details which Moore was fuming about so why not that too? Believable over the idea he's knocking "just in case" someone happens to be looking out their window. I'd rather expect louder knocks then so his neighbours would hear and therefore either be roused into coming out if that was the intent, or at least be able to corroborate he had done this.

The front bedroom might have been where Julia was sleeping if they'd fallen out, hence why it was found as it was. Cats can sometimes run away if there's trouble in the house and the living environment is unstable.

...

Gordon and Denison I found to be a more plausible setup until seeing the weapon is not the bar - and likely not the poker either - and so unless something else is missing the person came armed (or it's a jemmy or housebreaking implement). Still I expect Arthur Mills to have heard more no matter what took place.

Obviously if the John Parkes story is fully real then Gordon has to be involved not only in a joke message but directly in the crime. But Parkes' detail of the bar is wrong and that is a concern, and the lack of corroboration on those crucial points of the bar and glove which if true legit prove he's involved in the murder, is also jarring.

I would think Dolly would have jumped right on those things when corroborating the story... I do believe Gordon had a powerclean of his car, and I do believe Parkes is sure the man did it. Maybe in part due to his talks in the town about the fishing gear.

Rod has invented details which were misleading.

E.g. Gordon did not turn up "the next day" with another man. He's lying.

It's "some time after", timeframe not given.

I asked Antony for Rod's source on the cafe pronunciation. I was told by Antony long ago that the engineer's report confirmed Bridges is BSing about there having been a fault but there was in fact no such report confirming the box was in perfect order.

So first operator's testimony is more important to establish that because she claims a cafe pickup.

...

I'm already aware of every point, counterpoint, piece of evidence, suggestion, theory and that is in fact my conclusion.

1. Neighbours killed her (I think this even if Slemen's book didn't exist). Ironically the cat and jacket details AKA confession tale make it HARDER to explain. If that story is literally invented, it must be contemporary rumour.

But I could then make a FAR FAR stronger case you understand. I just have never done so because I accept parts of Stan's story as being improbable to be totally made up.

2. Gordon and Denison (without Denison or a Brine family member this is not possible).

Certainly not the series of events given by Rod which are impossible. Rod describes a struggle and the woman being dragged into the room and shoved down onto the armchair. Which is probably the most LUDICROUS "forcing facts to a theory" example I have ever seen in my life and I would disregard as completely impossible.

3. A gay man with or without Wallace. If William isn't gay (I think he is) then a woman...

Main three picks. Unless I am considered to be a complete retard it might be worth consideration.

...

Naturally, because I trust the opinion of the forensic pros I am in contact with you understand why I have certain ideas.

The murder itself took place like this:

Julia lights the lamp(s) and/or fire and puts her matches by the lounger. She then relaxes on the couch. At the point of the murder she gets up and from there or as she is crossing the room (maybe to greet somebody?) that is when she is assaulted. The fire has been on for a little while hence the radiants are heated enough to cause the fire.

She is shoved or pushed, the direction of force being towards the fireplace. This causes the burning. She is pulled out by her hair and dumped down by the first blood pool nearest the armchair, as shown in the blueprint.

She is hit here by an attacker on the fireplace side and this causes the blood up the wall that caused McFall to think Julia was just in front of the armchair or stooping down etc. She's "too low to be standing" because she's on the floor.

Feet are to the right of the room where she came from.

Follow the pool round and that is how the body was moved, counter clockwise into the final position. Understand a fire is extinguished so maybe the movement is partly for this reason.

The attacker has moved to the opposite side of the body (armchair side) at a point and delivered some of the assault from there. The mackintosh will later be found here on this side.

The marks upstairs are probably transfer.

If you think this is Wallace and disregard forensic opinion you may, it can be whoever, the details of the murder event will still be like that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well I can now remember why I never took Slemen seriously when I first read him. Apart from his attempts to make everything sound sinister (Johnston’s mention of his key for eg) he mentions the paltry amount in the cash tin but doesn’t explain why they didn’t search drawers in the kitchen or Julia’s bag for more cash. Where does he get the idea that William was some kind of skinflint? He payed a third of years salary for a microscope! The story is blown away of course when ‘Stan’ says that the Johnston’s entered the house because they assumed that Julia was going out with William because they saw that she was wearing a mackintosh. Whoever read about the case to concoct this story obviously didn’t read the part where William states that Julia wasn’t wearing his mackintosh when she accompanied him to the gate. On that point alone the story is shown to have been an invention.

[Herlock Sholmes]

BTW WWH I’m going to re-read Slemen this afternoon to refresh my memory.

[Herlock Sholmes]

With an accomplice, Wallace could have done a far better job of giving himself a 100% solid alibi, leaving before the milk boy arrived for instance, and not inviting suspicion by asking so many people how to get to MGE and claiming to be a stranger to the area. An accomplice could also have used a call box further away from Wallace's house and not on any route he could have taken to the chess club. He could also have made the call after Wallace's arrival, giving him a 100% alibi for the call too. Easy to set this up so that the accomplice would give Beattie the salient details while asking for Wallace; or Wallace would ask Beattie to take a message while he was working on his next move. Accomplice in a hurry, Wallace temporarily preoccupied, message left, job done.

You don't buy a dog and bark yourself, so Wallace wouldn't have made the call and he wouldn't have left himself any window at all to be accused of the murder.

Love,

Caz
X

Good points Caz. We’ve spoken about this before I think? A call received by the club either while Wallace was there or 5 mins before he arrived leaves him in the clear as far as suspicion of being the caller.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
In the Wallace case, where were the bloody footprints, finger or glove prints, or any other marks left by the killer as he made his way out of the house, along floors, walls, lights, door handles etc? Why would anyone other than Wallace have taken care to avoid any, or to clean them off, and how would Wallace have had time? One explanation would be that like the woman in the white overalls, there was no blood on the killer to spread beyond the parlour.

You won’t be surprised that I agree with you Caz. It might also be worth mentioning that if Wallace must have been covered in blood then an unpremeditated killer would also have been and yet he wasn’t worried about walking outside looking like an abattoir worker.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fair point at face value, WWH. But we do know that nobody was ever connected to this murder apart from Wallace, and his motive was not robbery.

If some unknown individual was out purely for murderous revenge against the Wallaces, they'd have been better off not making it look like a robbery, thereby leaving Wallace as the only obvious suspect. As soon as they introduce the possibility of a robbery motive, Wallace has a potential get-out clause, which a jilted secret lover would not have been inclined to give him.

Love,

Caz
X

The list of people that might have just wanted to murder Julia for their own reasons would have been minute to non-existent to the police but they might have discovered that she’d had some kind of issue with the killer.

Money was ‘stolen.’ Someone homed in straight to the box but made no real effort to search elsewhere. For me it’s a pretty inescapable conclusion that this was a murder which was made to look like a robbery by a man who knew where the cash was kept and a man that Julia would have no issue with admitting to the house.

Can an you name such a person Mrs Brown?