Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Amy Wallace, was she involved?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Amy Wallace, was she involved?

    Hi All,

    I thought I'd start a new post re the Julia Wallace murder, just to separate the discussions. I havenı got through the full trial transcript yet but thought Amy's statement was a little too brief yet convenient for William. I don't think they were having an affair, William just had a close relationship with the wife of a brother who (living the life William wanted) was overseas a lot... why else was Amy living nearby?

    Anyway, here goes -

    Amy’s statement to the Police

    83 Ullet Road

    21 January 1931

    I am married and live at 83 Ullet Road. My husband is abroad. Mrs Wallace of 29 Wolverton Street is my sister-in-law. At about 3:30pm on Tuesday 20.1.31 I called at 29 Wolverton Street to see my sister-in-law. She was in and I stayed there until 4pm or shortly after. She wanted to me to stay for tea but I refused because I had no time to stay.

    She was in her usual health apart from her cold. We talked about various matters and she told me that her husband, Mr Wallace, had a telephone message while he was at the chess club the previous night to call somewhere in the Calderstones district sometime that evening, that is the Tuesday evening. She told me that neither she nor her husband knew anyone in the district.

    The bread boy called while I was there but no one else. We were alone in the house. She did not mention she expected anyone to call. I left sometime between 4pm and 4:30pm.

    Amy Wallace


    Any other reported discussions between Amy and Julia cannot be corroborated. Amy could have said anything about her relationship with Julia to assist William’s alibi.

    Points to consider regarding Amy’s statement

    “She wanted to me to stay for tea but I refused because I had no time to stay.” Why? Her husband was abroad, what else did she have to do? Did she leave at 4 – 4.30 to ensure she was out before William arrived home? Amy couldn't be there when William got home because she was part of the plan and knew that William would only have a very short period of time to do the deed. She had to be there earlier to corroborate his story that Julia did know about “his business trip” that night. Did she also leave at that time knowing she would meet up with William to let him know whether Julia was aware of his trip that night.

    “…no time to stay” but gave a 30 minute window for when she did leave “…between 4 and 4.30.”…just a little odd. “…no time to stay” implies another important/planned appointment, otherwise you just say I had to get home before it got too dark or something similar.

    “She told me that neither she nor her husband knew anyone in the district.” Not true, they both knew that William’s boss, Mr J. Crewe, lived in Mossley Hill. Julia would have known that Mr Crewe lived in the area and she knew the area as she and William had been to Calderstone Park many times. Julia would not have said this, so this must be a lie. Also, and more damningly, Amy lived only 1¼ miles from Menlove Gardens and William (and probably Julia) would have visited her many times. This comment is to support William’s claims on the night that he was “… a complete stranger to the area…”

    It must be noted that Green Lane runs into Menlove Gardens North.

    And why did she say “…to call somewhere in the Calderstones district…” and not say “…Mossley Hill…” as that was the address that was given that Julia would have said to Amy if she had been told the story by William. However, if Amy had said Mossley Hill, this would have raised eyebrows as it was more specific and more closely related to Mr Crewe as his address is in Mossley Hill?

    I can't find it anywhere but why was William not interrogated more thoroughly about the fact that although he claimed not to know the area, his boss lived there, he had been there at least 5 times but claimed he was a stranger to the area (he was asked about it but not thoroughly)? Just a thought, but when he first went to Mr Crewe’s house, he would have asked him for directions. He would have travelled by tram and the name of the stop would match the name of the street on the side of the road he was coming down (Menlove Avenue)…and that would be Menlove Gardens North (you need to imagine the discussion that would have had to have taken place after agreeing to meet at Crewe’s place the first time and that they would have been in the office and had a map handy). Also, that his brother and sister-in-law lived not very far away and on the same tram line. He had also been to Calderstone Park and the cinema in that area… all requiring the same tram route.

    Amy’s husband was abroad – someone was asking if there was proof whether Joseph was around at the time of the murder. Amy would not put this in her statement as it could easily be disproved if it wasn’t correct.

    Why would Amy do an hour’s round trip (at least two trams both ways) to visit Julia for 30 to 60 minutes? Her statement doesn’t imply any important discussion was necessitating the visit or that which a telegram could not have covered. When was Amy last at the house?

    BTW, all the above could be completely incorrect and, whether it is or not, does not change all the other evidence against William. I just think it helps the case against William without being too outlandish. I haven’t made anything up, I’ve just interpreted the statement made as being not quite right. Her Sister-in-law has just been murdered and she writes 2 minor paragraphs, not stating why she was there (30 minutes from home), being very in-explicit about their discussion “…We talked about various items…” the exception being that Julia told her what William was doing that night…how very convenient for William, not to mention the out of the blue timing of Amy’s visit.

  • #2
    I should direct you here:

    https://www.williamherbertwallace.co...ess-statement/

    Though he didn't take that route to Amy or Crewe's. The route he took was given somwhere before. He knew very well how to get to Menlove Avenue and never pretended otherwise. But not Gardens. He told Caird precisely how he'd get to Menlove Avenue among other things.

    Amy was more Sefton Park.

    Comment


    • #3
      Hey WWH, that link took me to William's "alleged" route home. Not his journey there. "Though he didn't take that route to Amy or Crewe's." YES HE DID.. refer my paper Appendix 1

      He knew very well how to get to Menlove Avenue and never pretended otherwise. YES HE DID... " I am A complete stranger here...." and so on several times...

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Ven View Post
        Hey WWH, that link took me to William's "alleged" route home. Not his journey there. "Though he didn't take that route to Amy or Crewe's." YES HE DID.. refer my paper Appendix 1

        He knew very well how to get to Menlove Avenue and never pretended otherwise. YES HE DID... " I am A complete stranger here...." and so on several times...
        No I thought that link would be relevant given it's a witness saying he saw William with Amy on the murder night.

        Comment


        • #5
          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.

          Comment


          • #6
            No, My suggestion re this Amy page was that he got off at Menlove Gardens North when he first went to see his boss, Mr Crewe, not the night of the murder!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Ven View Post
              No, My suggestion re this Amy page was that he got off at Menlove Gardens North when he first went to see his boss, Mr Crewe, not the night of the murder!
              I know, I'm saying moste recently gave the route he claims he used to take to get to Crewe's and it's not getting off at Menlove Gardens as I recall. But I'm on my mobile etc so I cba to look it up presently.

              I'm sure it's written somewhere.

              I just thought you might find the testimony useful given you're suggesting involvement of Amy.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Ven View Post
                Hi All,

                I thought I'd start a new post re the Julia Wallace murder, just to separate the discussions. I havenı got through the full trial transcript yet but thought Amy's statement was a little too brief yet convenient for William. I don't think they were having an affair, William just had a close relationship with the wife of a brother who (living the life William wanted) was overseas a lot... why else was Amy living nearby?

                Anyway, here goes -

                Amy’s statement to the Police

                83 Ullet Road

                21 January 1931

                I am married and live at 83 Ullet Road. My husband is abroad. Mrs Wallace of 29 Wolverton Street is my sister-in-law. At about 3:30pm on Tuesday 20.1.31 I called at 29 Wolverton Street to see my sister-in-law. She was in and I stayed there until 4pm or shortly after. She wanted to me to stay for tea but I refused because I had no time to stay.

                She was in her usual health apart from her cold. We talked about various matters and she told me that her husband, Mr Wallace, had a telephone message while he was at the chess club the previous night to call somewhere in the Calderstones district sometime that evening, that is the Tuesday evening. She told me that neither she nor her husband knew anyone in the district.

                The bread boy called while I was there but no one else. We were alone in the house. She did not mention she expected anyone to call. I left sometime between 4pm and 4:30pm.

                Amy Wallace


                Any other reported discussions between Amy and Julia cannot be corroborated. Amy could have said anything about her relationship with Julia to assist William’s alibi.

                Points to consider regarding Amy’s statement

                “She wanted to me to stay for tea but I refused because I had no time to stay.” Why? Her husband was abroad, what else did she have to do? Did she leave at 4 – 4.30 to ensure she was out before William arrived home? Amy couldn't be there when William got home because she was part of the plan and knew that William would only have a very short period of time to do the deed. She had to be there earlier to corroborate his story that Julia did know about “his business trip” that night. Did she also leave at that time knowing she would meet up with William to let him know whether Julia was aware of his trip that night.

                “…no time to stay” but gave a 30 minute window for when she did leave “…between 4 and 4.30.”…just a little odd. “…no time to stay” implies another important/planned appointment, otherwise you just say I had to get home before it got too dark or something similar.

                “She told me that neither she nor her husband knew anyone in the district.” Not true, they both knew that William’s boss, Mr J. Crewe, lived in Mossley Hill. Julia would have known that Mr Crewe lived in the area and she knew the area as she and William had been to Calderstone Park many times. Julia would not have said this, so this must be a lie. Also, and more damningly, Amy lived only 1¼ miles from Menlove Gardens and William (and probably Julia) would have visited her many times. This comment is to support William’s claims on the night that he was “… a complete stranger to the area…”

                It must be noted that Green Lane runs into Menlove Gardens North.

                And why did she say “…to call somewhere in the Calderstones district…” and not say “…Mossley Hill…” as that was the address that was given that Julia would have said to Amy if she had been told the story by William. However, if Amy had said Mossley Hill, this would have raised eyebrows as it was more specific and more closely related to Mr Crewe as his address is in Mossley Hill?

                I can't find it anywhere but why was William not interrogated more thoroughly about the fact that although he claimed not to know the area, his boss lived there, he had been there at least 5 times but claimed he was a stranger to the area (he was asked about it but not thoroughly)? Just a thought, but when he first went to Mr Crewe’s house, he would have asked him for directions. He would have travelled by tram and the name of the stop would match the name of the street on the side of the road he was coming down (Menlove Avenue)…and that would be Menlove Gardens North (you need to imagine the discussion that would have had to have taken place after agreeing to meet at Crewe’s place the first time and that they would have been in the office and had a map handy). Also, that his brother and sister-in-law lived not very far away and on the same tram line. He had also been to Calderstone Park and the cinema in that area… all requiring the same tram route.

                Amy’s husband was abroad – someone was asking if there was proof whether Joseph was around at the time of the murder. Amy would not put this in her statement as it could easily be disproved if it wasn’t correct.

                Why would Amy do an hour’s round trip (at least two trams both ways) to visit Julia for 30 to 60 minutes? Her statement doesn’t imply any important discussion was necessitating the visit or that which a telegram could not have covered. When was Amy last at the house?

                BTW, all the above could be completely incorrect and, whether it is or not, does not change all the other evidence against William. I just think it helps the case against William without being too outlandish. I haven’t made anything up, I’ve just interpreted the statement made as being not quite right. Her Sister-in-law has just been murdered and she writes 2 minor paragraphs, not stating why she was there (30 minutes from home), being very in-explicit about their discussion “…We talked about various items…” the exception being that Julia told her what William was doing that night…how very convenient for William, not to mention the out of the blue timing of Amy’s visit.
                Hi Ven - a good and fair minded post. No proper answers from me I'm afraid, just a couple of observations with analogies to two others who faced the rope and went to it in their cases.

                As you suggest, Amy Wallace's statement is brief. Frustratingly so. Like so many of the aspects in the Wallace case, it leaves us crying out to know more. Now I don't carry a torch for Amy (and most certainly not for her brother-in-law), however the brevity of her statement should perhaps be regarded not so much as suspicious but more an example as to how things were simply done and documented in those times.

                Twenty odd years later, Ruth Ellis' confession to murder consisted of less than a handful of sentences amounting to little more than, ''I shot my lover several times outside the pub.'' No adequate mention was made of the physical abuse she had suffered at his hands causing her to miscarry, where she had obtained the murder weapon or how she had got to the murder scene. The paucity of her confession and the inadequacy of further investigation by the police formed part of the basis of a posthumous appeal at the turn of the century. However, it was thrown out and given very short shrift by the Court of Appeal in 2003 who effectively ruled that the police had fairly obtained all they needed to in order for a guilty verdict to be safely delivered.

                That said, Amy Wallace was in a different position to Ruth Ellis in not being the clear suspect (anything but) and certainly not making a confession of any sort. Furthermore, the killer of Julia Wallace was in no way obvious. I therefore unquestionably agree with you that there should have been more probing and follow up concerning what Amy stated. However, whilst not supporting the lack of it for a moment, I'm not astounded there wasn't given the standards of the time. If the police's initial thoughts were that Amy was not involved in the murder and Julia told her nothing of significance, they would probably have left it at that rather than pushing for extra details, such as why she was in the area in the first place. This leads to a further point.

                I would be interested to know in what way did Amy actually give her statement. Did she just write it down herself? Did she dictate it to a policeman who wrote it down? Either would of course be acceptable. However, there is a further alternative which is unacceptable. Did the police ask her a series of questions, write down all or some of the answers, then put them in a statement and ask her to sign it? Reading again Amy's brief statement with its short stop-start sentences, I do seriously wonder if the last alternative applied. That doesn't make the contents of her statement untrue but it may result in key elements being omitted and the end result being potentially misleading as well as not as helpful and as free flowing as it could have been.

                Two or three years before Ruth Ellis' confession, Derek Bentley signed a statement to the police relating to his participation in events surrounding the murder of PC Sydney Miles that night. With the support of linguistic experts at Bentley's posthumous appeal, Bentley's statement was ruled to have been the result of his answers to different questions and not a comprehensive all in one account from him as had been claimed at trial. Unlike Ellis, his appeal was successful in 1998 and the way in which his statement had been compiled was criticised by the Court of Appeal and a (admittedly very secondary) factor in coming to their judgement.

                Apologies for veering so far away from what extra we needed to know from or have clarified by Amy. However, just maybe not all of the responsibility and blame for that rests with her and so we shouldn't leap to condemn her as a consequence.

                Best regards,
                One Round

                Comment


                • #9
                  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.
                  Ok, here's my earth shattering(?) view on the Julia Wallace murder.

                  This paper I put together started out as a resource document, that morphed into the basis for a book/screenplay several months ago... but was unable to post it on Casebook. I had to write it this way to help me get my thoughts in order and explain how I think I happened. By reading the casebook threads I can see that all sorts of "possibilities" abound, however if you go down any of these paths then it also raises the possibility that a troop of travelling Ninjas committed the crime... just because there's no evidence against it seems to make it somewhat plausible. I have tried to stick to the evidence that is available from the trial transcript, witness statements, additional facts/comments made by you guys, etc.

                  I am not a writer by trade and have tried to acknowledge all parties I have drawn information from. If what I have presented is not proper, please advise and I will redo to make it valid.

                  I think you'll like this version Herlock... maybe not you WWH so much!
                  I look forward to the constructive feedback!

                  https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link...9-1a8dcae7d556

                  Here's my post with link to my document.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Thanks One Round,

                    Your explanation of the brevity of Amy's statement makes sense...and yes it's frustrating. It reeks of they've got there man so no need to ask further questions of anyone!

                    The reference to Calderstones district still irritates me. William was given the address as Mossley Hill, so some sort of conversation had to be had for it to morph to Calderstones district, which also means that he was not ".. a complete stranger to the area"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Ven View Post
                      Thanks One Round,

                      Your explanation of the brevity of Amy's statement makes sense...and yes it's frustrating. It reeks of they've got there man so no need to ask further questions of anyone!

                      The reference to Calderstones district still irritates me. William was given the address as Mossley Hill, so some sort of conversation had to be had for it to morph to Calderstones district, which also means that he was not ".. a complete stranger to the area"
                      That conversation took place when he was given the message.

                      He knew where Menlove Avenue was, he immediately said "Menlove Gardens, is that Menlove Avenue?" to Beattie. It was a major road in Liverpool so he had heard of it. He told James Caird how he would get there.

                      But he did not know the rest of the area from what we can discern. They'd go to Calderstones Park to see the roses, and he'd go to Green Lane for Crewe. He says he knows very well about the existence of Menlove Avenue but it is not an area he is very familiar with (this statement taken from the trial).

                      He is familiar with Calderstones, Green Lane, and to a small extent the Plaza Cinema.

                      I can think of a few similar places myself. I go to a nightclub in Watford but if I were in the surrounding streets etc. I would consider myself a stranger.

                      I have to believe what he's saying is genuine to his own mind anyway and THIS IS WHY:

                      If he's establishing an alibi with the tram conductors he expects to use the conversation with them to aid his alibi. Therefore he knows for a fact that he will call as witnesses people who will say he told them he's a stranger.

                      But he also knows for a fact that he will also be calling witnesses from the chess club including Caird, KNOWING that he had intimated to Caird how he'd get to Menlove Avenue... AND everyone else at the club heard him reveal familiarity with the existence of Menlove Avenue. I think he might know Moscow Drive too.

                      Therefore he KNOWS he can't pretend he doesn't know Menlove Avenue. So he would have been better served I should imagine by just not saying the stranger line at all. I think he means stranger to the area in general, not a complete stranger - but unfamiliar.

                      It would be VERY different if he'd been all like "never heard of Menlove Avenue" and hadn't told Caird his route etc.

                      You see what I mean?

                      That's why I think if Parkes is lying it might be a hoax call and he killed his wife unplanned and it's a major coincidence. We know he didn't give a **** about beating clocks because he never mentioned Close came to the house.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Thanks WWH, but it still reeks. You said you go to a nightclub in Watford, what district is that in... and would a friend of yours say you went to XXX district when you told them you went to Watford?

                        He still says he's a complete stranger not simply "I'm after Menlove Gardens East"

                        If your nightclub is on Main St and you were told to met someone else at Main St East would you say on you way there "I'm a complete strange".. or trust you know you have a pretty good idea?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Ven View Post
                          Thanks WWH, but it still reeks. You said you go to a nightclub in Watford, what district is that in... and would a friend of yours say you went to XXX district when you told them you went to Watford?

                          He still says he's a complete stranger not simply "I'm after Menlove Gardens East"

                          If your nightclub is on Main St and you were told to met someone else at Main St East would you say on you way there "I'm a complete strange".. or trust you know you have a pretty good idea?
                          I think Watford is the name of the district. It's Hertfordshire I just had to look it up lol.

                          I would know how to get to the club in the town centre very easily, I use Uber though, so that makes it easy. If I was meeting anyone in that town centre bit I would not say I'm a stranger... I think I'd say "I don't come here often do you know where X is?"

                          I'm imagining though if I came out of that town centre wandering the residential streets neighbouring it. And then I would consider myself most assuredly a stranger... I also wouldn't know the name of any of the streets, I wouldn't know where the F I am loool. It actually happened to me once the Uber dropped me off a few streets away as I was expecting to meet someone. When they didn't show I was like, totally screwed (my phone batt had died), had no idea at all where I was... No coat and it was dead winter... It's sheer luck I encountered a couple of people getting a cab somewhere.

                          William told Caird which trams he thought he could take to get to Menlove Avenue. He said he would inquire as to Menlove Gardens as he got into the general area.

                          He knew well how to get to Menlove Avenue and he was quite clear about that to Caird. I do have the conversation somewhere.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I think Watford is the name of the district. It's Hertfordshire I just had to look it up lol.

                            So again, why change what you've been told

                            I think I'd say "I don't come here often do you know where X is?"

                            Completely different to "I am a total stranger here"....thank you!

                            He knew well how to get to Menlove Avenue

                            So why all the questions?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Ven View Post
                              I think Watford is the name of the district. It's Hertfordshire I just had to look it up lol.

                              So again, why change what you've been told

                              I think I'd say "I don't come here often do you know where X is?"

                              Completely different to "I am a total stranger here"....thank you!

                              He knew well how to get to Menlove Avenue

                              So why all the questions?
                              I live in England we have towns, cities, boroughs, counties. It's very confusing. I don't know what "district" Watford town centre is, Hertfordshire is the county.

                              He wasn't trying to get to Menlove Avenue he wanted the Gardens. He did what he told Caird and Beattie he would do, which is to inquire once he got in the general area. Albeit he did so one tram stop earlier than he said he would.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X