Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by harry 4 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Sam Flynn 6 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Pcdunn 6 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring a Life - by Iconoclast 7 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring a Life - by Herlock Sholmes 7 hours ago.
Conferences and Meetings: The East End Conference 2018: London - by Andrew Firth 7 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (32 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (17 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A 20th Century Word Processor - (11 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring a Life - (8 posts)
Visual Media: HLN's Unmasking a killer-The Golden State killer - (3 posts)
Conferences and Meetings: The East End Conference 2018: London - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Social Chat > Other Mysteries

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #2381  
Old 04-12-2018, 12:54 PM
Harry D Harry D is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,132
Default

When you remove the misconception that Wallace didn't have time to commit the murder, this really isn't the great unsolvable mystery it's made out to be.
__________________
Hail to the king, baby!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2382  
Old 04-13-2018, 05:42 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,595
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry D View Post
When you remove the misconception that Wallace didn't have time to commit the murder, this really isn't the great unsolvable mystery it's made out to be.
I certainly think it makes Wallace the overwhelming favourite Harry.

A random/unnamed killer who knew nothing about the Wallace’s wouldn’t have needed a ‘Qualtrough’ plan.

If Parry was the killer he wouldn’t have needed a ‘Qualtrough’ plan.

If Parry created the plan to allow ‘Qualtrough’ the sneak-thief to get in he would have had to have found a partner-in-crime willing to carry the can for the escapade while Parry kept safely away from the scene free to deny all knowledge.

One who made almost no effort to look for cash or valuables after the paltry haul from the cash tin.

One who goes bizarrely insane and bludgeons a frail old lady 11 times with an iron bar just because she catches him in the act (even though he must have gone into the ‘robbery’ fully prepared for the possibility of being identified by Julia.)

One who takes the bloody weapon away with him despite it being in no way connected to him.

One who respectfully turns out the downstairs lights before leaving.

One who is so stealthy that he’s not seen in Wolverton Street by anyone that night.

One who is so silent that no-one hears him knock the door (despite the Johnston’s later hearing Wallace knocking the back door with his hand.) And no-one hears the conversation that he must have had on the doorstep explaining to Julia about the Qualtrough misunderstanding.

And then, to cap it all, we have Parry taking his car to a garage where he’s not welcome or trusted to be cleaned by someone who doesnt like or trust him (and has told him so,) he then proceeds (under no duress) to blab about the entire escapade (mentioning no accomplice by the way.) He even tells him where the weapon was hidden! Can this be taken seriously?

Not to mention the fact that creating this ‘brilliant’ phone call ploy, Professor Moriarty-Parry fails to even consider the fact that - Wallace might decide not to go to MGE - or that he might not go to chess that night (he was an irregular attendee) - or that Beattie might have forgotten to give him the message - or that someone at the club might have said “oh, my brother lives at Menlove Gardens West. There is no Menlove Gardens East - or that Wallace might have checked a directory during the day on Tuesday (or enquirer of Mr. Crewe who lived in the area.) - or the Wallace might have had other plans for that night - or that Julia might have had a visitor - or that Julia might not have let ‘Qualtrough’ in. Great plan eh. Seven perfectly reasonable ways for this masterpiece to fall at the first hurdle.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

Last edited by Herlock Sholmes : 04-13-2018 at 05:44 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2383  
Old 04-13-2018, 05:49 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,595
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
I certainly think it makes Wallace the overwhelming favourite Harry.

A random/unnamed killer who knew nothing about the Wallace’s wouldn’t have needed a ‘Qualtrough’ plan.

If Parry was the killer he wouldn’t have needed a ‘Qualtrough’ plan.

If Parry created the plan to allow ‘Qualtrough’ the sneak-thief to get in he would have had to have found a partner-in-crime willing to carry the can for the escapade while Parry kept safely away from the scene free to deny all knowledge.

One who made almost no effort to look for cash or valuables after the paltry haul from the cash tin.

One who goes bizarrely insane and bludgeons a frail old lady 11 times with an iron bar just because she catches him in the act (even though he must have gone into the ‘robbery’ fully prepared for the possibility of being identified by Julia.)

One who takes the bloody weapon away with him despite it being in no way connected to him.

One who respectfully turns out the downstairs lights before leaving.

One who is so stealthy that he’s not seen in Wolverton Street by anyone that night.

One who is so silent that no-one hears him knock the door (despite the Johnston’s later hearing Wallace knocking the back door with his hand.) And no-one hears the conversation that he must have had on the doorstep explaining to Julia about the Qualtrough misunderstanding.

And then, to cap it all, we have Parry taking his car to a garage where he’s not welcome or trusted to be cleaned by someone who doesnt like or trust him (and has told him so,) he then proceeds (under no duress) to blab about the entire escapade (mentioning no accomplice by the way.) He even tells him where the weapon was hidden! Can this be taken seriously?

Not to mention the fact that creating this ‘brilliant’ phone call ploy, Professor Moriarty-Parry fails to even consider the fact that - Wallace might decide not to go to MGE - or that he might not go to chess that night (he was an irregular attendee) - or that Beattie might have forgotten to give him the message - or that someone at the club might have said “oh, my brother lives at Menlove Gardens West. There is no Menlove Gardens East - or that Wallace might have checked a directory during the day on Tuesday (or enquirer of Mr. Crewe who lived in the area.) - or the Wallace might have had other plans for that night - or that Julia might have had a visitor - or that Julia might not have let ‘Qualtrough’ in. Great plan eh. Seven perfectly reasonable ways for this masterpiece to fall at the first hurdle.
Ignore this post please im trying to suss out the qoute function. Ive never done it properly.

Nope, i was trying to isolate a passage.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2384  
Old 04-13-2018, 06:14 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,595
Default

Quote:
One who goes bizarrely insane and bludgeons a frail old lady 11 times with an iron bar just because she catches him in the act (even though he must have gone into the ‘robbery’ fully prepared for the possibility of being identified by Julia.)
Has it actually worked?

Quote:
One who respectfully turns out the downstairs lights before leaving.
Please ignore this post all. Just trying to suss this out. Its a bit long-winded with the deleting. Plus im experiencing ‘lag’ at the moment.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2385  
Old 04-14-2018, 01:20 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 580
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Right, I've now caught up with all the posts. If Wallace was innocent and Parry made the phone call, he chose that box for a very specific reason - the reason being that he presumed Wallace would pass that way en route to the chess club. Whether he knew how to ensure the call could be traced [making suspicion fall on Wallace], or didn't anticipate it ever would be, he'd have been in that location hoping he would see Wallace going in the right direction for the club.

So unless Wallace lied about the route he took, Parry must have been wrong about the route he had expected Wallace to take. But if that was also the route anyone in Parry's position might have expected Wallace to take - via that call box - why didn't the innocent Wallace take it? If Wallace was telling the truth, isn't it rather remarkable that he not only went off in a direction that was different from the one "Qualtrough" was expecting him to take, but one which very fortunately for him did not take him past the call box "Qualtrough" was found to have used?

Assuming it was Wallace then, who made the call, killed Julia the following evening then took the murder weapon with him after turning off the lights, might that explain why her handbag wasn't touched? In staging a robbery after the murder, he could safely leave his own fingerprints on anything he would normally have touched, like the cash box and so on, and the lack of a stranger's prints would be put down to them wearing gloves. But would Wallace have risked leaving his own prints on or inside Julia's handbag, even though a genuine thief would have been unlikely to ignore it?

I do have a problem with the idea of a thief who has just murdered Julia, while in pursuit of financial gain, leaving her handbag untouched, but taking the time to turn off the lights, presumably with one glove-wearing hand while still clutching the murder weapon in the other, then sneaking out of the house with it.

You'd have thought a handbag and its contents would have been a bit more tempting to take away than a bloody bit of lead piping.

Love,

Caz
X
Hi Caz,

Parry either must have expected 1) Wallace to take the route by the box or 2) go the other way or 3) He did not know which route Wallace would take to the chess club

There is ambiguity regarding which route made the most sense to take; I tend to agree with Herlock that it looks like a slightly roundabout way Wallace took if he was telling the truth. It seems at least we can say the route Wallace claims he took was certainly not the obvious only option.

Wallace claimed he went the other way, so if he really did go in the direction of the box, one has to ask why he lied? If he went the other way, then he might be going a different route than Parry would have expected, in which case wouldn't Parry have serious doubts that Wallace was headed to the club? If that WAS the way Parry expected he would go, then we can rule out any sort of a planned murder/framing, because Parry would not pick a phone box that wasn't part of Wallace's route to the club if he wanted to divert suspicion onto WHW. The same thing goes if Parry did not know which way Wallace planned to go.

The best argument then for Wallace's innocence is that Parry saw Wallace leave and the route WHW took that was in the opposite direction from passing the phone box was the one that either made the most sense, or at least one that did not seem unusual. Parry then makes the call as what was either a prank at the time or a loose idea of a possible robbery/ hit Julia up for cash the following night.

There are still problems here. If Parry did not have a route in mind for Wallace to go to the club, this would further cloud the certainty that WHW was headed to the club and not somewhere else entirely, particularly since he had missed the last FOUR meetings.

Even if Wallace's route going the other way seemed reasonable to Parry as the start of a journey to the club, he would not have time to really see Wallace do more than take his first couple steps before heading the other way to the phone box; even if Parry was driving. (Consider the call was made 3 minutes after Wallace left home according to his own testimony, but Wallace did not know the location of the box and time was traced yet.)

On the other hand if Parry had been expecting Wallace to pass the box, he could see him head a few hundred yards toward the tram stop and pass the box, increasing Parry's "certainty" that Wallace was in fact headed to the club. I put certainty in quotes because it is still very tenuous in my opinion, but at least there would be a modicum of a reason to have some faith that Wallace was heading that way in this scenario.

However, this can't be the case because Wallace said he went the other way and did not pass the box. If he was lying, then what possible innocent explanation is there? Perhaps he felt implicated by passing the box (and anyway in line with the incriminating timing he gave, it seems likely he did not know the call box location was traced at the point of his original testimony to the police). Even if for the sake of argument, we grant this, there is another problem with the timing. Parry being in a car would not help him, if he had to stalk Wallace who was on foot and wait for him to pass the phone box. 3 minutes is just about the right amount of time for Wallace to reach the call box, add in the extra time of Parry trailing him at a distance so he is not seen or suspected, waiting for Wallace to pass the phone box by a bit and be out of sight, park his car, and walk into the phone booth himself, and the timing does not work!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2386  
Old 04-15-2018, 04:45 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,595
Default

In Rod’s ‘Incorrect Solution’ he has Parry and ‘Mr X’ sitting in his car in Breck Road watching Wallace exit Richmond Park. According to Rod, if i recall correctly from the video that he made (which now appears to have disappeared) Parry and Mr X had the end of Richmond Park on the opposite side of the road and to their right. If Wallace turns left (as he claims to have done) Parry moves on to the phone box with Mr X following Wallace. Theres absolutely no way that Parry could have known for certain which route Wallace might have taken.

There appears to be a problem though. From their vantage point the call box was facing away from them at the apex of a triangular garden. If Wallace had gone through the estate along one of either (and these are difficult to read on the small map) Redbourne Street, Redbrook Street or Redcar Street he would have found himself on Lower Breck Road completely our of sight of Parry and X. He would then have walked the right hand side of the triangular garden (still out of sight) to the phone box. Even Gannon admitted that this was the quickest way for Wallace to get to a tram stop. And so Rod’s two loiterers, in the masterplan, have ignored the possibilty of Wallace taking this route.

Also, if Wallace had turned right into Breck Road wouldnt Parry have been at risk of being seen by Wallace as he passed? He might only have seen the car but as he knew that Parry at least had access to one he might have recognised it.

Another fairly obvious question would be: if Wallace turned left out of Richmond Park and headed for the tram stop near to Belmont Road why did he walk past the tram stop at the end of Richmond Park and the one at the end of Newcombe Street?
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2387  
Old 04-15-2018, 01:41 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 580
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
In Rod’s ‘Incorrect Solution’ he has Parry and ‘Mr X’ sitting in his car in Breck Road watching Wallace exit Richmond Park. According to Rod, if i recall correctly from the video that he made (which now appears to have disappeared) Parry and Mr X had the end of Richmond Park on the opposite side of the road and to their right. If Wallace turns left (as he claims to have done) Parry moves on to the phone box with Mr X following Wallace. Theres absolutely no way that Parry could have known for certain which route Wallace might have taken.

There appears to be a problem though. From their vantage point the call box was facing away from them at the apex of a triangular garden. If Wallace had gone through the estate along one of either (and these are difficult to read on the small map) Redbourne Street, Redbrook Street or Redcar Street he would have found himself on Lower Breck Road completely our of sight of Parry and X. He would then have walked the right hand side of the triangular garden (still out of sight) to the phone box. Even Gannon admitted that this was the quickest way for Wallace to get to a tram stop. And so Rod’s two loiterers, in the masterplan, have ignored the possibilty of Wallace taking this route.

Also, if Wallace had turned right into Breck Road wouldnt Parry have been at risk of being seen by Wallace as he passed? He might only have seen the car but as he knew that Parry at least had access to one he might have recognised it.

Another fairly obvious question would be: if Wallace turned left out of Richmond Park and headed for the tram stop near to Belmont Road why did he walk past the tram stop at the end of Richmond Park and the one at the end of Newcombe Street?
Hi Herlock, thanks for all the info.

It's fairly obvious the call makes no sense as a "plan" if made by anyone other than Wallace who wasn't working for him. At best you could argue for a prank call

The logic of the case against anyone other than WHW just falls apart on close examination, doesn't it?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2388  
Old 04-15-2018, 02:29 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,595
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
Hi Herlock, thanks for all the info.

It's fairly obvious the call makes no sense as a "plan" if made by anyone other than Wallace who wasn't working for him. At best you could argue for a prank call

The logic of the case against anyone other than WHW just falls apart on close examination, doesn't it?
Hi AS,

I think so

Wallace could have gone 3 ways after leaving his house on the monday night. No one but Wallace himself would have had a clue which one he would take.

If Parry waited at the phone box he would have been 200+ yards away in the dark trying to see Wallace. This would have left him open to have been seen by potential witnesses (and as youve pointed out theres the car to consider too.) I mentioned in a previous post that Parry might have stayed in the box but the box, in its position, would have faced in the wrong direction for him to have watched Wallace. So he would have had to have stood outside, in full view of passers by

Also if Wallace had gone in the direction of the box and Parry could see him then its equally possible that Wallace could have seen Parry. A stupid risk for Parry.

If, as Rod suggests, Parry waited with Mr X in Breck Road then they couldnt have seen Wallace had he decided to take the shortest route (into Lower Breck Road.) And he says that this was a meticulous plan
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2389  
Old 04-17-2018, 03:19 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,595
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Hi AS,

I think so

Wallace could have gone 3 ways after leaving his house on the monday night. No one but Wallace himself would have had a clue which one he would take.

If Parry waited at the phone box he would have been 200+ yards away in the dark trying to see Wallace. This would have left him open to have been seen by potential witnesses (and as youve pointed out theres the car to consider too.) I mentioned in a previous post that Parry might have stayed in the box but the box, in its position, would have faced in the wrong direction for him to have watched Wallace. So he would have had to have stood outside, in full view of passers by

Also if Wallace had gone in the direction of the box and Parry could see him then its equally possible that Wallace could have seen Parry. A stupid risk for Parry.

If, as Rod suggests, Parry waited with Mr X in Breck Road then they couldnt have seen Wallace had he decided to take the shortest route (into Lower Breck Road.) And he says that this was a meticulous plan
Just in the interest of ‘completeness’ i have to say the Wallace, of course, wasnt seen at the phone box either. We have to add though that Wallace wouldnt have had to have stood outside watching for someone.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2390  
Old 04-17-2018, 03:47 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,595
Default

Quote:
Qualtrough retrieves his coat from the hall and slips out through the back kitchen. He pauses at the yard-gate for a moment, listening for any sound, before slipping the bolt and exiting down the alley. He turns right into Redbourn St, down the alley, then crosses Lower Breck Rd, and goes into the darkened recreation ground, his pre-arranged pickup point. It is two minutes since he left number 29 Wolverton Street...
Ive never been great with maps and directions but surely this doesnt make sense. Redbourn Street and Lower Breck Road are at the front of the Wallace house and so to get to them Qualtrough couldnt have left by the back door? Just been on Google maps.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

Last edited by Herlock Sholmes : 04-17-2018 at 03:49 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.