Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[Ven]

Post #342

Thanks for your response WWH.

The missing images is a little weird as they appear in your response to my post?!
The first to images are the from the The Murder of Julia Wallace (1931) - Full DPP case files
01-17-2020, 06:06 AM POST #37

Where it reads as - "Apart from that Sister-In-Law had seen him alone at 4pm" Which confirms my theory that Amy and Wallace met up after her visit to Julia at 3.30pm
I said it must have been a pre-arranged rendezvous because Amy walked further away from her home and had to meet William who could have been anywhere on his afternoon collection - and we know he was a mile or two north-east because he was seen around 3.30pm by PC James Rothwell on Maiden Lane.

The second lot of images was from the trial -
Page 253
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)

These items don't prove William used the Mack as a shield... How she was murdered is obviously still up for more investigation... but in a case that seems to lack evidence linking anyone to anything, they are pretty damning.

[Ven]

Mentioning the name and call that often is completely unnecessary and a fake address is completely unnecessary. People aren't goldfish. Beattie is going to know he relayed a message when questioned the day after.

The fake address and fake name is bad in both a murder and a robbery scenario unless they are fake by accident. All he has to do is have someone confirm he received a message for business (Beattie, done), and that he was far away from the home at the time his wife was killed (could knock on anyone's door or their neighbours if they're out, that's done...).
Using a fake address and name is also bad for a prank. If the caller wasn't Wallace then the fake name and address for any of those reasons fails because of the likelihood that Willian would have thought a call for work, outside his area, at his chess club would have been incredibly strange and he would have either looked up the address, called his employer etc., to check it.

[Ven]

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.

[Ven]

Woah...this is weird...

If we accept all statements as real then there are 10 people in the room as i jokingly said to WWH.

We have...

A guy that gets a cab and says "You won't kill me"
A young girl that says she sees Wallace talking to someone
A guy that is asking for a fake/false address... the guy asking for 54 Richmond Tce
A guy that claims he cleaned a car and there was a bloody mitten
A sister in law that says she spoke to the deceased in the afternoon...but the husband says he told Julia at TEA time about the Qualtrough visit
A young lady that says she saw WW speaking to someone
A guy that says he saw WW and Amy asking for directions to the river
A guy that asked for his car to be washed out on the night of the murder... and said several incriminating things.

Which statements are true?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve spent the last hour walking around Tesco’s thinking about
Wallace/accomplice scenario’s!

Wallace gets Mr X to make the call and tells him that Julia will be in bed as she’s unwell. Wallace kills Julia. Mr X gets in by the back door, takes the cash and leaves. Later he finds out about the murder. Wallace relies in Mr X not going to the police because he doesn’t want to place himself, as a thief, at the scene of a brutal murder.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I remember it now. The time seems a bit late to me but not if you accept the idea of a prank call and an unplanned robbery/murder then they might have gone into number 29 at anytime. With a robbery/ murder connected to the call then I’d have expected 7.30 at the latest which, for me, makes it unlikely that they would have been inside the house for 40 minutes or so.
A minor point might also be - would they have drawn attention to themselves by running? But it might reasonably suggested that panic might have taken over if the killing was unplanned.

Hows this for a Sherlock Holmes/Poirot scenario - two blokes get into number 29 with the intention of robbery but one goes into the parlour and finds Julia’s dead body.

Your Poirot scenario is actually the solution to a particular "locked room" type detective fiction book, the name of which I don't now remember.

I think that a fleeing killer(s) would be running away, especially if they had any blood/weapon/whatever upon them.

But I think I favour the idea that Wallace's initial suspicions about both doors being locked was accurate; Florence's thumps reported at 20:25 to 20:30 would be suggestive then also that if there was an intruder in the house they were still there, and interrupted, when Wallace got home.

I don't really think the two men running is necessarily related to this crime, but there is a tendency to believe witness timings (when they have no definite timestamp to match it against especially) to be more accurate than they necessarily are. Sidney Green and Lily Pinches are good evidence of the fallability of witness timings. The second tram conductor (first one who remembered Wallace) thought it was 19:10 (when it was actually 19:06) that his tram left. If you go through all of the Pru client statements from that day which I posted up as a large collection, you will amongst those as well a lot of variability in the accuracy of the claimed timings.

So there is some wiggle room.

But I don't really necessarily believe the sighting is connected. The taxi cab man was much more suspicious than that, but I saw a newspaper report (not on the archives, but in Munro's files) that said the man had come forward voluntarily and it had been explained.

Something else to remember is that there was another very serious murder/crime in Liverpool that night. Daniel O'Mara who caused a huge scene at the top floor of his home or whatever it was, threatening onlookers with an iron bar, then setting his baby alight after covering it in paraffin and throwing it out the window, then leaping headfirst to his death. Some reports of weird sighting that night could be related to that in some way if people were rushing over to see wtf was going on there. I mean... I don't think that's why those men were running, but there are a number of peculiarities like that, and I wouldn't say with any certainty that the two men running are Julia's killers.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes:

"On Tuesday the 20th January 1931. I was walking up Hanwell Street about 8 o’clock in the evening; I think it was nearer 8.15. I was going to a meeting. I noticed a man running down Hanwell Street towards Lower Breck Road. He was followed by another man close behind him who was also running. They were running very fast. I cannot say what they were like. I did not take much notice of them. They only aroused my attention from the fact that they were running so fast."

I remember it now. The time seems a bit late to me but not if you accept the idea of a prank call and an unplanned robbery/murder then they might have gone into number 29 at anytime. With a robbery/ murder connected to the call then I’d have expected 7.30 at the latest which, for me, makes it unlikely that they would have been inside the house for 40 minutes or so.
A minor point might also be - would they have drawn attention to themselves by running? But it might reasonably suggested that panic might have taken over if the killing was unplanned.

Hows this for a Sherlock Holmes/Poirot scenario - two blokes get into number 29 with the intention of robbery but one goes into the parlour and finds Julia’s dead body.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Could you put up a link to the Ann Parsons statement please WWH? Cheers

Yes:

"On Tuesday the 20th January 1931. I was walking up Hanwell Street about 8 o’clock in the evening; I think it was nearer 8.15. I was going to a meeting. I noticed a man running down Hanwell Street towards Lower Breck Road. He was followed by another man close behind him who was also running. They were running very fast. I cannot say what they were like. I did not take much notice of them. They only aroused my attention from the fact that they were running so fast."

[Herlock Sholmes]

Could you put up a link to the Ann Parsons statement please WWH? Cheers

[Herlock Sholmes]

No he went down the entry, turned left along another entry thing to Letchworth Street, and then emerged from there. He may have walked further down and then turned left, came out onto Letchworth Street and up from there, presumably looking for the mythical 54 Richmond Park.

I think she has seen the two men pass each other, I don't think she's a fame hunter to have actually taken it to court and be willing to hang a man for 5 minutes of fame. But I don't see how a murder accomplice is going to be purposefully going up to people on the street imprinting himself in their minds asking for fake addresses right by the scene of the murder. It does not add up at all, if it is in fact the same man. It also does not make sense they'd pick a wide open spot for a clandestine meeting, as opposed to say, actually being down the entry. Two people passed by that entry in relatively quick succession, it doesn't seem like the best place to be standing talking to a hitman. And I don't know why you would want to talk to your hitman, especially right near the crime scene where you could be recognized (as he seemingly was), unless you lent your keys or had to fork over some cash. It doesn't seem smart.

I do think she just glanced very briefly to see them part (seeing them part isn't in her original statement though), and it was so brief that she doesn't know who went where. Just perhaps saw the silhouttes of the two men and a general direction sort of thing. I think if she had watched them part and walk away from each other she'd know who went where, one is a distinctively tall skeletor looking man, and the other short and stocky.

I think William is walking up that entry onto Richmond Park.

To be honest I didn’t think that that was what you were suggesting but I thought I’d check.

I suppose that, if Wallace had an accomplice, he might have said “half cash up front then the rest when the job was done” which might explain the meeting but, as you’ve said, it was a massive risk of being seen together (and after all that planning) That’s hard to believe but it’s impossible to believe an accomplice accosting strangers to ask for non-existent addresses. If Greenlees had been on the other side of the road then we might have been able to suggest that Hall had seen Greenlees talking to stocky man. Nothings that convenient though.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Are you saying that the man that Hall claimed was talking to Wallace went down the entry to Sedley Street and then emerged from the same entry to cross the road to speak to Greenlees?

No he went down the entry, turned left along another entry thing to Letchworth Street, and then emerged from there. He may have walked further down and then turned left, came out onto Letchworth Street and up from there, presumably looking for the mythical 54 Richmond Park.

I think she has seen the two men pass each other, I don't think she's a fame hunter to have actually taken it to court and be willing to hang a man for 5 minutes of fame. But I don't see how a murder accomplice is going to be purposefully going up to people on the street imprinting himself in their minds asking for fake addresses right by the scene of the murder. It does not add up at all, if it is in fact the same man. It also does not make sense they'd pick a wide open spot for a clandestine meeting, as opposed to say, actually being down the entry. Two people passed by that entry in relatively quick succession, it doesn't seem like the best place to be standing talking to a hitman. And I don't know why you would want to talk to your hitman, especially right near the crime scene where you could be recognized (as he seemingly was), unless you lent your keys or had to fork over some cash. It doesn't seem smart.

I do think she just glanced very briefly to see them part (seeing them part isn't in her original statement though), and it was so brief that she doesn't know who went where. Just perhaps saw the silhouttes of the two men and a general direction sort of thing. I think if she had watched them part and walk away from each other she'd know who went where, one is a distinctively tall skeletor looking man, and the other short and stocky.

I think William is walking up that entry onto Richmond Park.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
NOW, if the statement is correct, because of the sighting by Mr. Greenlees reported to Munro which Gannon also places just after Lily, the "other man" has gone down that entry, crossed left to Sedley Street, then as he emerged from Sedley Street saw Mr. Greenlees and crossed over from there to talk to him... While Wallace went "towards Breck Road" because the entry he used is actually not directly opposite the Parish Hall entry but a little towards Breck Road diagonally... Only by a few yards or so but enough to walk diagonal in that direction.

Are you saying that the man that Hall claimed was talking to Wallace went down the entry to Sedley Street and then emerged from the same entry to cross the road to speak to Greenlees?

[Herlock Sholmes]

A further thought though. She has the man that she calls Wallace walking along Richmond Park toward Breck Road but... perhaps she just saw him for a second (looking over her shoulder) before he crossed over to the entry that led to Wolverton Street.

I cant recall but did she say how far away from them she was when she first saw them? Would she have only just noticed them as she got to the WS entry? If she’d seen them earlier it’s difficult to see how she could have mistaken them being in conversation.

Hall’s a tricky witness because she sounds honest (if confusing) and we can’t come up with a reason for her to have lied except the ‘15 minutes of fame’ reason.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just the one I think. The photo isn't anywhere else (it's actually like 3 or 4 photos but of the same thing, that's the best pic).

I'm not sure if anyone can do more to discover precisely how true Parkes' statement is?

I think the next major one is Lily Hall. I am very certain Gannon was wrong about the entry Lily says one of the men went down.

We know the man she calls Wallace and another man were sighted by her at the "entry opposite the institute", which makes it sound like she means the opposite side of the road, AKA the Wolverton Street entry. But we know from clarification that she meant the entry beside it when she referred to the entry.

Now Gannon says she saw a man go down Wolverton Streets's entry because she says the man went down the entry, then that the entry is "opposite Parish Hall (the institute)". She's using the word opposite in the same misleading way in both. On the trial she is asked several times in a row to be very specific about the entry and she clarifies she means the person went down the entry by the church/institute thing (towards Sedley Street).

She sees one man go down the entry towards Sedley Street, one towards Breck Road.

NOW, if the statement is correct, because of the sighting by Mr. Greenlees reported to Munro which Gannon also places just after Lily, the "other man" has gone down that entry, crossed left to Sedley Street, then as he emerged from Sedley Street saw Mr. Greenlees and crossed over from there to talk to him... While Wallace went "towards Breck Road" because the entry he used is actually not directly opposite the Parish Hall entry but a little towards Breck Road diagonally... Only by a few yards or so but enough to walk diagonal in that direction.

The descriptions of the man are the same in the giving of "stocky build" except the hat style.

If it is the same person it really crushes the idea that this is Marsden entirely. The murderer would have at least some blood on him or at least be nervous he might. In any case he wouldn't want to loiter the area and especially not approach anyone in the streets for a face to face discussion, with a memorable mention of the fake address.

Not only did he "accost" this man but actually crossed the road in order to do so...

I think what's happened is Lily Hall was walking by there as Wallace was returning home. The stocky man was maybe standing aside at the entry waiting for him to pass because the entry is narrow. She might not even see Wallace yet depending on the viewing angle... But this stocky man has stood there waiting for Wallace to pass so when she sees Wallace go by him etc. she thinks they've been talking (do notice by the way that it is around 8.35ish in an era before cars, and she does not mention HEARING that a conversation was going on even as crossing the road close to the men, she just sees them apparently in conversation).

But actually she just saw the men pass each other in the street. Wallace going home and the weird man down the entry, possibly in search of the non existent home or who knows what. Then is frazzled shortly after and went up to Mr. Greenlees for directions...

I think this man might not want to come forward because it's eerie and would make him seem suspect if he's hanging around near the scene of a murder asking for a fake address when we know the husband had apparently been asked away also to visit a fake address.

That would be dangerous.

I’m starting to think that I shouldn’t have started posting again until I get my pad back as I’m really struggling to read large chunks of text on a phone!

Ive just read your appraisal of Lily Hall’s evidence on your website WWH and agree 100% although she does her best to be confusing! There can be no doubt for me which entry she saw ‘Wallace’ near (although as you pointed out she irritatingly uses ‘opposite’) and we know that she’d have crossed over to the Letchworth Street side.
Your suggestion about her seeing him pass the opposite entry is plausible. My only question is the timing seems a little early for William but it’s difficult to quibble over a very few minutes.

Ill read about the other sighting later.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Regarding the two men running story also, keep in mind the time given for this by the witness Anne Parsons is 8 to 8.15 PM. Way before Lily's sighting of the apparently clandestine meeting (out in the open streets for anyone to see).

The corroboration is not a corroboration, when the other woman is penned in a margin it just says "saw the 2 men". It's a completely different document and doesn't say which two men, and doesn't even say she is at home (he uses her home address to say where she'd seen the men). There is nothing to suggest at all that she had been asked or testified about the two men running, only that two men were seen.

No time, specifics on who, or where this is. That part is disregardable.

But Anne Parsons almost certainly saw two men running. Someone else (a man she knows) wrote the police on her behalf AFTER she herself had, asking that they please take her statement seriously because they hadn't even responded to her or something like that.

Regarding Phyllis Plant... She is absent from the statements of both Harold Denison and Parry. Brine says she called but never actually says she had come into the home. Apparently Denison and Parry did not see her or I think Gordon would have mentioned it if it weren't a woman he was cheating on Lily with... And Denison might have just said it anyway... Though he got to the house at 6 pm and Gordon turned up about 5.30 by Brine, so Phyllis may have been there and left before 6.

Antony's version of Gordon's statement is slightly altered in mostly non-important ways. Gannon's version is the correct one:

https://www.williamherbertwallace.com/case-files/richard-gordon-parry-full-statements/