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:
Elizabeth Stride: Lipski - by Fisherman 2 hours ago.
Elizabeth Stride: Lipski - by Abby Normal 9 hours ago.
Elizabeth Stride: Lipski - by c.d. 9 hours ago.
Elizabeth Stride: Lipski - by c.d. 9 hours ago.
Elizabeth Stride: Lipski - by Abby Normal 9 hours ago.
Elizabeth Stride: Lipski - by Harry D 9 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Elizabeth Stride: Lipski - (23 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
  #851  
Old Yesterday, 12:17 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 131
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
The idea she was attacked while lighting the fire was put forward by Oliver KC. McFall, while conceding it was possible, had stated his own view that Julia was attacked while sitting on the chair to the left of the fireplace, and the evidence is more suggestive of that. There was no bloodstaining in the right corner of the room, near the window and chaise-longue, to the right of the fireplace, where the valve for the gas fire was. The bloodstains were mostly to the left of the fireplace, behind the left chair, with some between the door and the piano.

It becomes less doubtful if the visitor - or the planner of the crime - was an intimate acquaintance of the Wallaces, and had observed her frequent need to urinate on many previous occasions. Also, the visitor had a backup, if Julia didn't perform as expected. He could ask to use the toilet, giving him another opportunity to leave the parlour and effect a robbery in the middle kitchen. A commonplace ruse, found in many similar crimes.

The evidence is suggestive that a bar from the fireplace was used, and taken away by the killer, which if correct tends to indicate the killing was a spur of the moment thing.
If she was seated, then that completely goes against the idea that she caught "Qualtrough" stealing from her and a struggle ensued (also none of this changes the fact that there were no physical signs of a struggle and that she was struck from behind).

Additionally, if the killer found the bar in the fireplace as you suggest, did a seated Julia just let him walk past her and diddle around the fireplace for it, before he whacked her?

The more I think about this case, the more convinced I am that Wallace was guilty.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #852  
Old Yesterday, 02:02 AM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 59
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
If she was seated, then that completely goes against the idea that she caught "Qualtrough" stealing from her and a struggle ensued (also none of this changes the fact that there were no physical signs of a struggle and that she was struck from behind).

Additionally, if the killer found the bar in the fireplace as you suggest, did a seated Julia just let him walk past her and diddle around the fireplace for it, before he whacked her?

The more I think about this case, the more convinced I am that Wallace was guilty.
Julia was an elderly, "frail" woman. There wouldn't be much of a struggle. There is evidence she was grabbed by the arm, in any case. If her killer had just "seen red", grabbed the bar and brained her, it would be all over in a flash, surely?

McFall seemed adamant that the fatal initial blow was struck while Julia was facing her killer. The wounds to the back of the head were administered while she was prone on the floor.

Wallace was a victim of a miscarriage of justice, thankfully rectified in time. Miscarriages occur regularly. In our own time, cases such as Jonathan Jones and Sheila Bowler - to mention just two - bear this out, and share some similarities with the Wallace case.

Wallace had no time, no motive, no forensics, no weapon - whereas none of these snags apply to an alternative killer.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #853  
Old Yesterday, 02:23 AM
ColdCaseJury ColdCaseJury is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: England
Posts: 219
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
The more I think about this case, the more convinced I am that Wallace was guilty.
Hi AS, it's good to have you back discussing this case again. WRT to your comment above, it also follows that you are more convinced that John Parkes and Dolly Atkinson lied about Parry's late night visit to the garage. Similarly, that Lily Hall was mistaken (as you believe Wallace acted alone). On the latter, you may be on stronger ground. After examining the original statements and depositions again, Hall saw one of the two men head down Richmond Park while the other went into the entry by the Church Institute. This means that both men walked AWAY from the entry to Wolverton Street, which Wallace would have used (and said he used). Not proof, of course, but grounds for thinking neither man was Wallace.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #854  
Old Yesterday, 02:37 AM
ColdCaseJury ColdCaseJury is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: England
Posts: 219
Default Frenzied Attack?

Having taken another look at the original police and DPP files, I have discovered an inconsistency in MacFall's evidence. In the Autopsy report, he states:

I am of the opinion that death was due to fracture of the skull by someone striking the deceased three or four times with terrific force with a hard large-headed instrument.

He found ten incised wounds which had burst the scalp in parallel lines, hence his inference to a large headed instrument (i.e. one that would leave several parallel lines in the scalp per blow). In his deposition and trial testimony, he says 11 blows were struck by a iron bar (i.e. a small headed instrument).

I suggest MacFall was adjusting his interpretation of the evidence to fit the police case. What if the murder weapon was a large-headed instrument all along?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #855  
Old Yesterday, 04:29 AM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 913
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdCaseJury View Post
Having taken another look at the original police and DPP files, I have discovered an inconsistency in MacFall's evidence. In the Autopsy report, he states:

I am of the opinion that death was due to fracture of the skull by someone striking the deceased three or four times with terrific force with a hard large-headed instrument.

He found ten incised wounds which had burst the scalp in parallel lines, hence his inference to a large headed instrument (i.e. one that would leave several parallel lines in the scalp per blow). In his deposition and trial testimony, he says 11 blows were struck by a iron bar (i.e. a small headed instrument).

I suggest MacFall was adjusting his interpretation of the evidence to fit the police case. What if the murder weapon was a large-headed instrument all along?
Hi CCJ
I'm not sure I follow your point here....why do you say an iron bar is a small headed instrument? Doesn't that depend on the particular iron bar in question - are the dimensions of the bar from the fireplace known?
And why would a large headed instrument leave "several" parallel lines per blow but not a small headed one (assuming they were the same shape)? Surely a large one would simply leave them further apart.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #856  
Old Yesterday, 06:07 AM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 59
Default

An interesting 'coincidence'?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/t5oczidvek...33.09.jpg?dl=0
36 Menlove Gardens South
occupant: John Parry Williams
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #857  
Old Yesterday, 01:46 PM
ColdCaseJury ColdCaseJury is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: England
Posts: 219
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
Hi CCJ
I'm not sure I follow your point here....why do you say an iron bar is a small headed instrument? Doesn't that depend on the particular iron bar in question - are the dimensions of the bar from the fireplace known?
And why would a large headed instrument leave "several" parallel lines per blow but not a small headed one (assuming they were the same shape)? Surely a large one would simply leave them further apart.
Hi - the iron bar was 12" long and as thick as an ordinary candlestick (that is how the cleaner described it) unlikely to produce parallel incisions.

I agree small and large are relative terms... I can only assume the parallel lines were far enough apart to warrant the adjective large by MacFall.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #858  
Old Yesterday, 02:49 PM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 59
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
Wallace was a victim of a miscarriage of justice, thankfully rectified in time. Miscarriages occur regularly. In our own time, cases such as Jonathan Jones and Sheila Bowler - to mention just two - bear this out, and share some similarities with the Wallace case.
Sounds familiar?

'The presiding judge, Mr Justice Rougier, released his confidential remarks about the trial which revealed that he thought the prosecution case had "fallen decidedly flat". Had he been a member of the jury, he said, he "should be conscious of significant doubt". He was disturbed by "the contrast between the total ruthlessness and pitiless determination of whoever killed Harry and Megan and man who sat in the dock and for four and a half days in the witness box".
...
The killer was an experienced and accurate shot. Mr Jones had no experience with any firearms. There was a lack of forensic science evidence to link Mr Jones to the killing. The murder at close range would have left the killer covered in blood and brain tissue. Police examined Mr Jones's clothes and car and even took washbasins apart to try to find evidence linking him to the killings. He has to wear glasses at all times: police examined the minutest crevices of his glasses but there were no traces of blood or tissue.

The prosecution, Mr Rees argued yesterday, was based on "suspicion, speculation and conjecture . . . '
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/te...g-1306788.html

and...

'It was that very detachment that helped confirm her as a cool, calculating killer in the eyes or the police and the jury. Too blunt and emotionally buttoned up for her own good, her case divided opinion even in her home town.'
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...d-1143113.html
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 01:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.