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:
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by MrBarnett 28 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Herlock Sholmes 48 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Herlock Sholmes 55 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by MrBarnett 2 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Joshua Rogan 2 hours ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (21 posts)
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - (14 posts)
Witnesses: What EXACTLY did Maurice Lewis say? - (5 posts)
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - (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
  #31  
Old 06-08-2016, 06:59 AM
ColdCaseJury ColdCaseJury is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: England
Posts: 278
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginger View Post
I don't think Wallace had the time to commit the murder, nor do I think he had any motive to do so. By all accounts, he and his wife were quietly content.

According to Thomas Slemen in "Murder on Merseyside" (Hale 1994), the houses in that street were all built at the same time, by a single builder, who imprudently used a single model of lock for all the doors. Mr. Slemen's source relates that he discovered this when he came home tipsy one night, and unlocked and entered the wrong house. Furthermore, Slemen reports that prior to the murder, there had been an outbreak of burglaries on the street.
Two really strong points. Timing is crucial to this case. On your second point, neighbour Jack Johnston even offered to try his key in case it fitted Wallace's back door lock. In which case, the possibilities of the murderer expand to someone in Wolverton Street or a burglar... but these possibilities were never entertained by the police.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-08-2016, 11:40 AM
Graham Graham is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Midlands
Posts: 3,314
Default

I have to say right away that I'm not as well-read on the Wallace Case as many people on these boards, but the bit I have read doesn't exactly paint Wallace as your typical domestic murderer. I believe he was once described as someone 'who was born middle-aged'. I also believe that he was a devotee of the works of Marcus Aurelius, who philosophy was, basically, Stoicism; in other words, don't kid yourself that you're going to be any great shakes in life, but rather bend yourself to working hard and also to practicising self-discipline. Which to me seems to put Wallace in the proverbial nut-shell.

I was surprised to learn that he pulled stumps and went to India and later to China, in some kind of low-key quest for adventure, but didn't find it in either country, and came back to England. (I can personally empathise with this, as I did much the same myself about 40 years ago. It doesn't work - if you're bored in the country of your birth and up-bringing, then you'll be bored in any country you care to go to....)

I have read that Julia was much better educated than Wallace, but this didn't seem to bother him, and he lived a quiet life with her, played chess, and kind of pottered about. This doesn't sound like the recipe for a brutal domestic murder to me. He was probably as bored with Julia as he was with life in general, but that was no reason to kill her. They'd been together for nearly 20 years, and if it didn't 'seem a day too much', then they at least seem to have learned to survive with their differences.

Frankly, I have never been able to view Wallace as a cold-blooded and violent killer, under any circumstances. He seems to me to be have been the kind of bloke who, rather than lowering himself to having a bloody good row with his wife, would have sat down with her quietly discussed whatever the problem might have been.

Anyway, my thoughts and no more than that.

Graham
__________________
We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-08-2016, 12:45 PM
ColdCaseJury ColdCaseJury is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: England
Posts: 278
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham View Post
Frankly, I have never been able to view Wallace as a cold-blooded and violent killer, under any circumstances.
Graham
I don't think anyone can contradict this view. Proponents of the Wallace Theory might argue that the motive for someone else (e.g. Parry) is even less. Of course, what lies beneath a marriage may bubble up without warning with violent results. so your "under any circumstances" rider might be too strong. My own view is that there is something about the Wallace case we do not know. I do not think we have the whole picture, and this is why it will always remain unsolved.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-08-2016, 12:53 PM
sdreid sdreid is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: McWopetaz Metroplex, Illinois U. S. of A.
Posts: 4,957
Default

I would suppose that Wallace was tired of Julia and wanted to rid himself of her without having to give up half his assets in a divorce. As a bonus, he also gained Julia's rather meager property and life insurance benefit.
__________________
This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.

Stan Reid
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-08-2016, 12:59 PM
sdreid sdreid is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: McWopetaz Metroplex, Illinois U. S. of A.
Posts: 4,957
Default

BTW-I don't want to come off as overly critical of Close. He was simply a kid who got caught up in something much bigger than himself and through no fault of his own. The fact that he was killed in WWII makes it all the more tragic.
__________________
This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.

Stan Reid
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-08-2016, 01:02 PM
ColdCaseJury ColdCaseJury is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: England
Posts: 278
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdreid View Post
I would suppose that Wallace was tired of Julia and wanted to rid himself of her without having to give up half his assets in a divorce. As a bonus, he also gained Julia's rather meager property and life insurance benefit.
But is there any evidence that Wallace WAS tired of Julia? There is certainly no evidence he was considering divorce (if there is, this would be important evidence). I think this is Graham's point (above).

My view is that looking for motive is futile. The innocence or guilt of Wallace (as far as we can tell today) depends on the circumstantial evidence.

Last edited by ColdCaseJury : 06-08-2016 at 01:05 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-08-2016, 01:21 PM
Graham Graham is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Midlands
Posts: 3,314
Default

Quote:
My own view is that there is something about the Wallace case we do not know. I do not think we have the whole picture, and this is why it will always remain unsolved.
I agree with you 100%. The whole thing seems utterly illogical to me. Do you think that someone, somewhere, alive or not, knows or knew something about this case that hasn't come down to us? This is how it seems to me. I've sometimes wondered that had William Wallace not died so soon after his trial and its aftermath, he might have added something to the flimsy details we know. After all, he'd been cleared, and couldn't be tried again. He had no motive to murder, as far as I can tell. Would a smart-arse like Parry really batter a woman to death for the few quid that was in an insurance collection-box? Was it some unknown who just walked into the Wallaces' house and killed Julia because she was there? Domestic murders are not all that rare, but the vast majority of those that do occur usually have some kind of motive, and I can see none in the Wallace Case. There is something missing.

Graham
__________________
We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-08-2016, 01:51 PM
ColdCaseJury ColdCaseJury is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: England
Posts: 278
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham View Post
Was it some unknown who just walked into the Wallaces' house and killed Julia because she was there?
Possibly, except then the telephone call would have been a terrible coincidence. And the killer appears to have known about the collection box in advance.

We know nothing of Julia's life from (approx) 1875 to 1905. Could it have been someone from her past? Other than speculate, all we can do is to look at the evidence and say from what we do know, what most likely happened? This is all I ask of the Cold Case Jury. But in this case, even this is no easy ask.

The Wallace case is like a jigsaw puzzle with a few pieces missing. Even if it was Wallace all along, we don't know why he did it, or where he hid the weapon, for instance.

Some key facts have been lost to history.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-08-2016, 02:21 PM
sdreid sdreid is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: McWopetaz Metroplex, Illinois U. S. of A.
Posts: 4,957
Default

Being tired of being married is a common thing whether there is evidence that can be pointed to or not. Also as a contributing factor, if Julia was so much older and William just found out, he could have been angered that she had cheated him out of family.
__________________
This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.

Stan Reid
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-08-2016, 02:52 PM
Mayerling Mayerling is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Flushing, New York
Posts: 2,748
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdreid View Post
Being tired of being married is a common thing whether there is evidence that can be pointed to or not. Also as a contributing factor, if Julia was so much older and William just found out, he could have been angered that she had cheated him out of family.
Hi Stan and Graham,

Being of a stoic philosophical bent, Wallace probably would have just accepted Julia's inability to give him children - the marriage was apparently for love and companionship. Besides, what if they had a child or more, and the offspring brought unexpected problems to Wallace. Then we'd wonder if he blew up at Julia for giving him such offspring.

While on the whole I feel he might have mentioned more regarding any of those untold enemies of his had he lived longer, if he were guilty and was aware he could no longer be convicted of Julia's murder due to his verdict being quashed, that means nothing. Several killers in the past got away with it in one or another, and some by double jeapardy, only to be marked men or women in a second round (on another crime, if they were defendants again). Emmanuel Bartholemy in the 1850s was acquitted for fighting the last duel in England at Eglinton, and killing Lt. Cournet his opponent. England banned dueling at the time. The case was in 1852. In 1855, having killed two men in what was an extortion scheme and an attempt at escape, Bartholemy was found guilty and executed. Robert Butler was able to escape the gallows for killing a husband and wife and child in New Zealand in 1882, though he was charged and convicted of a burglary. In 1904 he was tried for a murder during a robbery, convicted and hanged. Henry Seymour, a contemporary of Wallace, was arrested for killing a woman, and made a confession which was used in court, but while on trial he said the confession was a lie. It included mistakes that had been overlooked so he had to be released with the double jeapardy rule protecting him. A few years later Seymour was to try the same trick again, but the police recalling the earlier business purposely dug deeper, and simply ignored the confession - and got a conviction. Seymour hanged as a result.

Jeff
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 10:29 AM.


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