Tweet
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.
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.
Comment