Originally posted by John G
View Post
I have searched extensively for two things but turned nothing up:
Firstly Wallace's accent. Hemmerde references a faked "accent" on the unabridged form of the trial but whether he means literal accent (i.e. Liverpool accent) or as a manner of speaking to mean the voice in general, I cannot ascertain.
The Liverpool accent was also very different at the time... But if Wallace had a Yorkshire accent that was clearly different from a local man (which my knowledge of historic accents does not allow me to determine), then the operators you'd imagine would have picked up on this fact. Neither defence nor prosecution pursued this matter. Wilkes interviewed the operators who never brought up anything about, for example, noticing a regional accent... One of the operators to Wilkes said hearing Wallace's voice during the trial she could not have sworn it was the same man - which is again joyfully ambiguous like everything.
Secondly, the briefcase...
I have found zero reference to anyone seeing him with a briefcase or having one when he came back. Nobody seems to have mentioned it. I have the Kindle forms of Goodman, Gannon etc. so I've used the search function and turned up nothing. Nor in Wyndham Brown's trial text in PDF format, again the search turns up no matches for briefcase.
This is quite ridiculous because of course if he went OUT with a briefcase and returned without one that's like, proof of guilt type stuff. He gathered papers for his trip to conduct business, you'd assume it was checked that he in fact did this. Another point neither prosecution nor defence touched.
Nobody ever asked Wallace if he had to unlock the back kitchen door with his key or if he tried it then found it already unlocked and simply bolted. He used "locked against me" referencing both doors but it seems he means it in the ambiguous sense, because of course he had his own key and it seems was simply unable to get in - claiming he believes the doors were bolted.
...
If this case had facts laid out straight, no ambiguous statements or mistakes in the facts, just pure clarity and questioning the things that really matter, I don't suppose it would be nearly as difficult. The investigation done on this case at the time as well as the ensuing trial was poor... Very, very poor... There's no close up photos of blood staining just the useless single clot on the upstairs toilet... Imagine being at a murder scene and taking only five photos inside (four in the same two rooms and one in the kitchen where the robbery is meant to have taken place). That's absolutely pathetic, something worthy of a firing.
Where's the "disturbed" spare room for example?... Though hardly "disturbed" or even "staged", it sounds totally ordinary... Two pillows kind of stacked by the fireplace on the window side, the "bed clothing" (bedsheets) semi off the mattress across the fireplace. That's it judging by Hubert Moore.
Sadly I don't have the witness statements given to the police as I have not as of yet been to see the police files. I have contacted Hill Dickenson for the solicitor files but received no response during the COVID pandemic.
Because of serious errors by many authors in the translation of documents I have photographed to text, the mixing of fact with rumour/assumption, and MOST annoyingly paraphrasing (like seriously WRITE THE WHOLE STATEMENT AS IT APPEARS) it is nearly impossible to discern what exactly was said by pretty much anyone. Simple differences in even single words can change everything, so there's no room for messing about like that... I really do want/need those original statements...
Comment