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:
Scene of the Crimes: Was Whitechapel really any worse than other areas of London? - by MrBarnett 2 hours ago.
Scene of the Crimes: Was Whitechapel really any worse than other areas of London? - by miss marple 2 hours ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Eddowes' gut cut - by Sam Flynn 4 hours ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Eddowes' gut cut - by Fisherman 4 hours ago.
A6 Murders: scan of Hanratty statement re Rhyl alibi - by Spitfire 9 hours ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Eddowes' gut cut - by Joshua Rogan 9 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: Diary Handwriting - (25 posts)
Doctors and Coroners: Eddowes' gut cut - (13 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (10 posts)
A6 Murders: scan of Hanratty statement re Rhyl alibi - (4 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Was Whitechapel really any worse than other areas of London? - (4 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Dennis Nilsen - (4 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
  #1831  
Old 02-09-2018, 01:51 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 595
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Hmmm, you have a good point there, AS!

It does seem like a very odd and convoluted plot. Qualtrough has to know Wallace is going to play chess on the Monday evening, or the message luring him out on the Tuesday evening may not reach him. Even if it does, only Wallace knows if he will go or not, and he doesn't need to decide until the last minute anyway. It's actually quite absurd if you think about it, unless there is some reason why it has to be the Tuesday, or it's all about sending Wallace on a wild goose chase, and what happens in his absence is something that was never part of the original plan.

Could this be the answer? Does Parry make the call, in a petty attempt to get one back on Wallace, then decide to pay Julia a visit on the spur of the moment, eager to find out if Wallace has actually fallen for it? Is there a conversation between them, which winds Parry up further against Wallace, to the extent that he decides, again on the spur of the moment, to take a much more terrible revenge while he has Julia on her own?

Does this work with the other evidence, such as the mackintosh and the missing murder weapon? Could Parry have used the mac to ward off excessive blood stains and taken the iron bar or poker away with him in a panic, in case of fingerprints? What about the cash box? Did he take the money as an additional act of revenge, not caring that this would lead to him being suspected?

I still favour Wallace as Qualtrough and Julia's killer, in line with the vast majority of murders which happen in the victim's home and appear designed to lead suspicion away from the spouse.

Love,

Caz
X
Hi Caz, the Wallace case bares unmistakable marks of typical domestic homicide. Profiling would point strongly towards Wallace, particularly with the greater knowledge we have in the 21st century.

The injury to the head/face area, excessive overkill, and what looks like an incongruent robbery scene (suggesting staging) all are typical aspects involved in spouse (usually wife) homicide.

As usual, you make good and incisive points. I just can't see Parry behind such a plot, but if I were forced to suggest the best "Parry" scenario, it would be one where he makes the call as a prank having a laugh and then later decides to exploit it and visit Julia, maybe asking to borrow money. It would almost certainly not be a clever plot with an unbroken chain of events. Still, I find this scenario rather implausible for reasons we've spoken about before.

It should also be noted that regardless of how one can attempt to poke holes in RGP's alibi, he had a pretty cast iron alibi on the night of the murder from 5 until 8:30 PM. Lily Lloyd, his girlfriend at the time, after being jilted said his alibi of being with her was bogus. However, that was only for the later part of that evening and did not cover the time of the murder. (Later in life when tracked down, she said she absolutely believed he was innocent.) Also far from the police seeking to exonerate Parry, they examined him on the night of the murder and he was inspected down to the seams of his pants and under his fingernails.

If the police were guilty in bias in terms of unfairly trying to pin the crime on Wallace, it was only after examining other suspects. This does not excuse them, and it appears they DID try to get the milk boy to give a favorable time from their perspective (although then again his original time of about 6:45 was almost certainly wrong as corroborated by the other milk kids who gave detailed and convincing testimonies without being coached by the police first. )This timing is somewhat of a moot point as pretty much everyone now agrees it was around 6:37 , but I would concede the police seemed eager to move this back to 6:30 to give Wallace more time to have been guilty. This is clearly lacking in professional integrity and morality, but it does not mean Wallace was innocent. I believe Parry was rightly eliminated.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1832  
Old 02-09-2018, 01:55 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 595
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
I was just going over the events of the murder in my mind last night after Johnís post about the blood evidence. The phrase Ďcui bonoí came to mind with regard to getting rid of bloodstains. And so my thinking was....

Firstly, I apologise for re-stating facts that everyone on the thread is fully familiar with.

This surely wasnít a robbery that went wrong? The only suspect is Parry and itís unthinkable that he would have visited Julia (after getting rid of Wallace via a phonecall that he didnít need to make [he could have acted any time Wallace went to chess]) and stolen money leaving Julia alive to tell the tale.

If he intended to kill Julia and steal the cash he wouldnít have bothered putting the cash box back on the shelf. If heíd made the Qualtrough phonecall heíd have had reason to believe that Wallace would have been gone for a considerable time. This would have allowed him to pretty much ransack the house in search of cash but he didnít. So much so that it gives the distinct impression of being a staged robbery.

And then thereís the blood (or rather the lack of it.) This is where my Ďcui bonoí comes in. If itís suggested that Wallace would have been heavily bloodstained then the same must have applied to Parry. Apart from the smear of blood on the cash and the blood clot on the toilet bowl there was no blood upstairs. We would expect a burglar/murderer to leave extensive traces upstairs as he searched for cash but this wasnít the case. This suggests that the person that went upstairs wasnít covered in blood and so must have cleaned himself up beforehand. Who, of the two suspects, was more likely to have cleaned himself up thoroughly after killing Julia? Parry would have left the property alone, in the dark to go to his car. He may even have used the back gate and the alleyway to stay out of sight of neighbours. Then he would have then had plenty of time to go home or somewhere else private and clean himself up. Would he have wasted valuable time cleaning up? There was no risk as long as he made sure that he left no fingerprints. Wallace, on the other hand, knew that he was going to be using well lit trams, talking to conductors and others and so it would have been absolutely vital for him to clean himself up fully. So, to me, the lack of blood in the corridors, on the stairs and in the bedrooms points far more to Wallace than a burglar/murderer.

Itís true of course that no evidence of anyone washing away blood in the sink was found but I have to say that this was 1931. How rigorous were the tests compared to todayís? Also Wallace had his own chemistry lab. Is it impossible that he had some kind of chemical/bleach that would have cleaned the sink (and his hands) thoroughly? He might even have bought it especially for that purpose after doing some research on how to remove blood evidence?

Finally Iíve always been a little confused at why, when he re-entered the house later that night looking for Julia, the Johnstonís said that they saw a light go on in the lab? Surely the only room in the house that Wallace could have been certain not to have found Julia in? Could an explaination for this be that when Wallace entered the back kitchen he noticed that heíd left out the bottle of chemicals/bleach and so his first priority was to return it to the lab where no one would have suspected itís use? This would explain why he went to the lab in priority over the Parlour.

I think it has to be at least possible that Wallace used something to clean the sink (and his hands?) The suggestion that, in haste, he left the bottle in the kitchen, is pure conjecture of course. But it does explain a couple of mysteries. In my opinion that is
Herlock, I agree with the jist of your post here. It seems someone had a rather good technique for eliminating blood tracking and containing what we keep hearing must have been a very messy scene to virtually one room. This indicated pre-planning to me. As you said, Cui Bono?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1833  
Old 02-09-2018, 02:02 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 595
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
This is a summary of the forensic evidence revealed at the trial. According to Professor McFall there was blood on the furniture and walls of the room. In fact, he conceded that as a consequence of the first blow, which severed an artery, blood spurted all around the room:

Oliver: "You have pointed to the jury it has been spurting all round the room."

McFall: "That was from the first blow."

Under cross examination, Professor McFall conceded that the assailant would have got blood on his face and hair from the first blow, and on his feet and lower part of his legs from the subsequent blows that were struck whilst the victim was on the ground: the fact that he may have been wearing a Macintosh would have made no difference, as the garment would not have covered his feet or the lower part of his legs.

It's also worth noting that Dr McFall was an expert witness for the prosecution, so he had no reason to give an opinion favourable to Wallace.

For the defence Professor Bible made this observation as regards the amount of blood that would have covered the assailant:

"I should say that he could hardly escape being splattered and covered with blood all over."

The conclusions of the forensic experts are, of course, deeply problematic from the perspective of Wallace's candidacy, i.e. because we know that no blood was found either on his person or his clothing when examined by the police. And neither did any other witness, such as the tram passengers, notice any blood on the visible parts of his body, such as his face or hair.

Moreover, the forensic tests also conclusively demonstrate that the blood was not washed off in the sink or bath.

On that basis, as things stand, the forensic evidence would appear to exonerate Wallace as regards the murder of his wife.
John, you make some clever points here. I can't agree however that Wallace is exonerated of the murder based on the forensic evidence. There is a reason this is a classic; it is not that simple!

MacFall was incompetent. If anything his testimony was damaging to Wallace; he at first insisted on a time of 6 PM! He made so many errors that they would be too numerous too list. I believe Goodman (whose book I've come to think is rubbish) goes over them as well as that Chess and the Wallace Murder webpage.

Here is what I keep coming back to though and it is a point originally made by James Murphy: there was no blood tracked out of the parlor, no blood towards the exit. You would definitely expect this in the case of a high strung robber fleeing who had just committed a brutal murder that he wasn't planning on.

To my intuition, this suggests a method was employed to reduce blood splatter.

As sure as you are that Wallace could not have avoided substantial blood on his person, I am sure that whoever killed JW had a method to, if not avoid, reduce the mess of blood.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1834  
Old 02-26-2018, 12:06 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
John, you make some clever points here. I can't agree however that Wallace is exonerated of the murder based on the forensic evidence. There is a reason this is a classic; it is not that simple!

MacFall was incompetent. If anything his testimony was damaging to Wallace; he at first insisted on a time of 6 PM! He made so many errors that they would be too numerous too list. I believe Goodman (whose book I've come to think is rubbish) goes over them as well as that Chess and the Wallace Murder webpage.

Here is what I keep coming back to though and it is a point originally made by James Murphy: there was no blood tracked out of the parlor, no blood towards the exit. You would definitely expect this in the case of a high strung robber fleeing who had just committed a brutal murder that he wasn't planning on.

To my intuition, this suggests a method was employed to reduce blood splatter.

As sure as you are that Wallace could not have avoided substantial blood on his person, I am sure that whoever killed JW had a method to, if not avoid, reduce the mess of blood.
The problem AS is that at least one other expert opined that the perpetrator must have got blood on their person, and considering an artery was cut, which would have resulted in blood spraying in every direction, this seems to me to be a sensible conclusion.

Dr McFall did make an error on time of death, but the simple fact is that time of death cannot be accurately estimated even by modern forensic experts. Nonetheless, as you point out, as he police doctor he clearly intended to do Wallace no favours-as evidenced by the fact he inexplicably altered his time of death estimate-and yet even he had to concede that the perpetrator was would have got blood on their person.

James Murphy's comments are interesting, however, he is not a forensic expert. What I think is required is for someone to employ a modern expert to re-evaluate the evidence, like Trevor Marriott in respect of the Whitechapel murders. Maybe this is something CCJ might consider!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1835  
Old 02-26-2018, 03:41 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,773
Default

Hi John,

Iím no expert on blood spray at crime scenes but when I look at the crime scene photos I donít see massive amounts of blood around the room although I accept that the quality of the period photography might not be too helpful. What Iím saying is that it wasnít a case of the scene looking like someone was hosepiping blood around the room. Thereís blood around Juliaís head of course but if you look at the photograph that looks toward the door I can see no other blood, granted the furniture is dark but the carpet is light. I see none on the wall or mirror or ornaments and I can see none on the piano keys or the music score. The table in front of the piano looks blood free to me too.
Now obviously there was blood in various parts of the room but itís not exactly Millerís Court. And so my point is that if the killer was expected to be drenched in blood there would surely be more blood at the scene? On the carpet between Juliaís head and the sideboard near to the door for example. Surely itís not impossible that the killer didnít get as much blood on him as might have been suspected by the experts? After all, none of them considered the possibility that the killer might have used the mackintosh as a shield. He might even have put it over her head to make the first blow knocking her to the floor (as I think AS has suggested.) Then when she was on the floor, unconscious or semi-conscious, he drapes the mackintosh over his left arm and bludgeons her with his right.
Iíd also reiterate the point that whoever killed her, if he did get blood on him, was surely likely to have cleaned up as it seems unlikely that the killer could have rummaged around and yet left no blood traces (apart from on the notes upstairs and the blood clot on the toilet bowl.) If that is the case then Iíd suggest that Wallace was the only one that would have had to have cleaned up. Parry could have walked to his car in the dark with it being unlikely in the extreme that anyone would have noticed blood stains.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1836  
Old 02-27-2018, 02:07 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,095
Default

Hi HS,

You make some good points. I think it may all depend on whether the killer thought before he struck or did it entirely on the spur of the moment. If the evidence suggests the former, and Julia had her back to him, he would surely have taken some precautions against getting covered in blood, whoever he was.

If the first blow was enough to sever an artery and cause death, that was the one the killer would have been most at risk from, and any subsequent blows, inflicted when the heart had stopped, would have produced far less to worry about. So as long as he was careful to avoid that first spurt, possibly with the aid of the mackintosh, he may have got away relatively free of blood, as has been speculated about JtR.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1837  
Old 02-27-2018, 05:07 AM
gallicrow gallicrow is offline
Cadet
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Oxford
Posts: 40
Default

I wonder how accurate the time of death was. When I first read about this case I thought that perhaps Julia Wallace was smothered to death (by WHW) earlier in the day and then then the over-top-bludgeoning carried out when he came back from his evening errand. This would explain the lack of blood on Wallace.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1838  
Old 02-27-2018, 05:32 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,773
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gallicrow View Post
I wonder how accurate the time of death was. When I first read about this case I thought that perhaps Julia Wallace was smothered to death (by WHW) earlier in the day and then then the over-top-bludgeoning carried out when he came back from his evening errand. This would explain the lack of blood on Wallace.
Hi Gallicrow,

The main point against that is that the milk boy Alan Close saw and spoke to Julia at 6.45pm. There might me a little leeway in the time but only a little.

Unless of course you go for my ‘female accomplice’ scenario.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1839  
Old 02-27-2018, 05:55 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,773
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Hi HS,

You make some good points. I think it may all depend on whether the killer thought before he struck or did it entirely on the spur of the moment. If the evidence suggests the former, and Julia had her back to him, he would surely have taken some precautions against getting covered in blood, whoever he was.

If the first blow was enough to sever an artery and cause death, that was the one the killer would have been most at risk from, and any subsequent blows, inflicted when the heart had stopped, would have produced far less to worry about. So as long as he was careful to avoid that first spurt, possibly with the aid of the mackintosh, he may have got away relatively free of blood, as has been speculated about JtR.

Love,

Caz
X
Hi Caz,

So youíve slipped under the wire, avoided the guards and the searchlights and the dogs and escaped from Ďdiaryland.í Theyíll come looking for you though

For me the scene has the appearance of a murder being made to look like a robbery gone wrong, which would naturally point to Wallace and imply planning. Therefore, as you said, itís likely that the killer would have taken precautions against getting covered in blood. When you add that suggestion to the fact that we canít come up with a satisfactory explaination for what Julia was doing with her husbands mackintosh in the Parlour it seems possible to me that the killer used it in some way to protect himself against blood contamination. As I said in an earlier post, of Wallace and Parry, only Wallace would have categorically needed to have cleaned up after the murder (for obvious reasons) whereas Parry could have slipped away, alone in the dark, to his car and then safety.

Its also possible that the number of blows might be suggestive? How many blows, with a heavy object, would be required to kill a 70 year old lady, slightly built and not in the best of health? Does this suggest a frenzied result of a build up of resentment? In fairness though it could also be suggested as the result of the blind panic of Parry who had persuaded himself that, for whatever reason, that Julia had to die.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1840  
Old 02-27-2018, 10:41 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,773
Default Bloody prices!!

Until around 18 months ago the only book on the case that I owned was the Murphy one which I accidentally gave away. I’ve been wanting to buy it again along with any books on the case that I don’t have but the prices are staggering.

For the Murphy book on Amazon Used it’s £95! The cheapest that I can find is £45!

Another one that I don’t have is The Telephone Murder by Ronald Bartle (is this one any good?) The cheapest I can see is around £12 but one copy is for sale at £788 !!!

Then there’s The Wallace Case by John Rowland for £20. Any info on this one guys?
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
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 02:54 AM.


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