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 Herlock Sholmes 4 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Joshua Rogan 9 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Herlock Sholmes 38 minutes ago.
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - by Michael W Richards 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Debra A 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Observer 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (33 posts)
Non-Fiction: Scholes of the Yard: The Casebook of a Scotland Yard Detective 1888 to 1924 - (3 posts)
Thompson, Francis: Jack the Poet - (1 posts)
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - (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
  #1301  
Old 09-24-2017, 12:31 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 276
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Daniels View Post
Well this is fascinating.

Surely if she had become so completely estranged from her family that they couldn't be bothered to lay her to rest after her murder .... then that hints at a much darker past than the cute little closed scenario that often gets explored.
I think the possible suspects list is limited in a way because I think she would only let in someone she knew or someone calling themselves Qualtrough. But since we don't know who these people are or who "Qualtrough" was if he existed, from our POV it is unlimited. Does that make sense?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1302  
Old 09-24-2017, 12:49 PM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
hi John, what do you think of the idea of Wallace telling Julia all about the business himself to make sure she would admit Qualtrough (since he set up the murder himself)? Is that what you are getting at?
Hi AS,

I was thinking more on the lines of what suspects could be included or excluded. For instance, didn't Wallace provide a list of people Julia would admit? Now, on the face of it, unless Wallace was responsible himself, and as there was no sign of forced entry, then the odds must be strong that the killer is on that list, unless a secret lover was involved. However, if Julia would have simply admitted anyone calling themselves Qualtrough then we're effectively back to square one, as the killer need not have been someone on Wallace's list.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1303  
Old 09-25-2017, 12:24 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
hi John, what do you think of the idea of Wallace telling Julia all about the business himself to make sure she would admit Qualtrough (since he set up the murder himself)? Is that what you are getting at?
Hi AS,

I think the idea of Wallace being involved in a conspiracy involving the Qualtrough ruse is too convoluted, effectively going back to the the police argument that Wallace was some sort of evil genius simply because he was an average chess player. And if that was the plot, I don't think Wallace would have drawn attention to it by conceding in court that Julia would admit anyone calling themselves Qualtrough.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1304  
Old 09-25-2017, 01:05 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 276
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Hi AS,

I think the idea of Wallace being involved in a conspiracy involving the Qualtrough ruse is too convoluted, effectively going back to the the police argument that Wallace was some sort of evil genius simply because he was an average chess player. And if that was the plot, I don't think Wallace would have drawn attention to it by conceding in court that Julia would admit anyone calling themselves Qualtrough.
I agree...that makes sense to me. I think Wallace if guilty could have said that in court to draw attention to the possibility of "Qualtrough" as the killer. But I also concede that it is absolutely possible and even probable JW would have let in a Qualtrough if he really did exist. And if innocent it would also make sense for Wallace to draw attention to that possibility!

More ambiguity in this case!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1305  
Old 10-18-2017, 05:25 AM
Tecs Tecs is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 245
Default

Dear all.

I haven't read through all of the posts so apologies if I'm repeating what others have said.

I've been interested in this case for many years and have visited Wolverton street and timed the walk that Wallace made to get to the tram stop myself.

So many weird elements to this case but there were two key points that I always thought spoke volumes even though they are both very far from being a "smoking gun" or whatever the opposite of that is!

1. Why would he go through such a ridiculous pantomime to establish an alibi when he could have used his visits to the chess club as a perfectly good alibi on its own?

2. I have seen that some people have said that the neighbours were approached by Wallace himself but in the versions I have read, they just happened to be leaving at the time Wallace was trying his back door. If this version is correct then he couldn't possibly have guaranteed that and his behaviour appears to have fitted that of a puzzled man eventually gaining access and discovering his wife dead.

Also, Wallace said that he never saw anyone hanging around. This suggests to me that if anything he may have left the house even earlier than he said as we know the milk boy, Alan Close, was talking to Julia at around 6.40. If Wallace had left after that he surely would have mentioned him as he could verify that he (Wallace) left the house with his wife perfectly well. I know some people say that Alan Close changed his timings and told the court it was 6.30, but it does seem that he did that under pressure from the Police.

The Police behaviour was appalling and the lead investigator, Moore ignored evidence that could have helped Wallace and twisted anything that wouldn't. I'm only surprised that some conspiracy theorist hasn't put a theory forward suggesting Wallace was silenced for knowing something, when you consider the behaviour of the Police and pathologist who went out of their way to put Wallace in the frame.

Never finding the murder weapon despite huge searches is significant too as he would have had to dispose of it somewhere en route.

Finally, anyone from the North West might know this, there was a great criminologist called Vincent Burke who appeared often on local radio and TV discussing historical North West murders. He did a very good CD of this case and if anyone can suggest how I could get it onto casebook, I'd be happy to try. Can't guarantee just how 100% accurate it is (e.g. he ponders if Alan Close was still alive when it's easily available on the internet that he died, a hero, in the war.) unless Vincent knows more and that's a mistake?

regards

Tecs
__________________
If I have seen further it is because I am standing on the shoulders of giants.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1306  
Old 10-18-2017, 06:01 AM
Tecs Tecs is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 245
Default

Dear all.

I've just realised that I may have been a bit harsh on Vincent Burke. He says in the CD I mentioned above he says that he spoke to Alan Close "many years later." Unless he classes up to 9 years as being "many years" then either he was talking to an imposter or the Alan Close who died directing a plane away from a built up area into a field in 1940 was someone else. To be fair I didn't do too much double checking, so the website I saw it on is probably wrong.

regards

tecs
__________________
If I have seen further it is because I am standing on the shoulders of giants.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1307  
Old 10-19-2017, 01:24 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 276
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tecs View Post
Dear all.

I haven't read through all of the posts so apologies if I'm repeating what others have said.

I've been interested in this case for many years and have visited Wolverton street and timed the walk that Wallace made to get to the tram stop myself.

So many weird elements to this case but there were two key points that I always thought spoke volumes even though they are both very far from being a "smoking gun" or whatever the opposite of that is!

1. Why would he go through such a ridiculous pantomime to establish an alibi when he could have used his visits to the chess club as a perfectly good alibi on its own?

2. I have seen that some people have said that the neighbours were approached by Wallace himself but in the versions I have read, they just happened to be leaving at the time Wallace was trying his back door. If this version is correct then he couldn't possibly have guaranteed that and his behaviour appears to have fitted that of a puzzled man eventually gaining access and discovering his wife dead.

Also, Wallace said that he never saw anyone hanging around. This suggests to me that if anything he may have left the house even earlier than he said as we know the milk boy, Alan Close, was talking to Julia at around 6.40. If Wallace had left after that he surely would have mentioned him as he could verify that he (Wallace) left the house with his wife perfectly well. I know some people say that Alan Close changed his timings and told the court it was 6.30, but it does seem that he did that under pressure from the Police.

The Police behaviour was appalling and the lead investigator, Moore ignored evidence that could have helped Wallace and twisted anything that wouldn't. I'm only surprised that some conspiracy theorist hasn't put a theory forward suggesting Wallace was silenced for knowing something, when you consider the behaviour of the Police and pathologist who went out of their way to put Wallace in the frame.

Never finding the murder weapon despite huge searches is significant too as he would have had to dispose of it somewhere en route.

Finally, anyone from the North West might know this, there was a great criminologist called Vincent Burke who appeared often on local radio and TV discussing historical North West murders. He did a very good CD of this case and if anyone can suggest how I could get it onto casebook, I'd be happy to try. Can't guarantee just how 100% accurate it is (e.g. he ponders if Alan Close was still alive when it's easily available on the internet that he died, a hero, in the war.) unless Vincent knows more and that's a mistake?

regards

Tecs
Tecs,

It's cool to have someone else to discuss this case with Yes, both of your points have been discussed before here. But I'm down to talk it thru again and see if we can agree or agree to disagree

I think 1. is your stronger point. The counter-argument is that the same exact logic would apply to anyone else. If someone wanted Wallace out of the house and was so certain he would be at the club to receive the message, then why not use that night itself for the robbery. Calling up the club and leaving a message for Wallace (that he may or may not receive) for the following night seems an odd way to go about a criminal enterprise as opposed to just committing the crime when one would be confident he was at the chess club. Even if one was confident Wallace would receive the message, he could scarcely be confident Wallace would actually embark on the journey the following night at least when concerned with the certainty that Wallace would be at the club on the Monday night. As an aside, I actually do NOT think anyone could be certain Wallace would be at the club on the Monday night (unless he was being stalked as has been suggested), but this premise is a prerequisite for any plan involving a mastermind other than Wallace, so if you don't grant this, the entire plan falls apart anyway as Wallace even receiving the message is step 1 in any plan that involves a premeditated crime the following night.

On the other hand, I think there are viable reasons why Wallace himself might wish to go about this plan; the introduction of a supposed other suspect "Qualtrough". If he simply committed the crime on Monday night, yes he could use the alibi in the same way he did Tuesday, working fast and trying to seemingly "outpace" reality casting doubt on the timing and being seen soon after at a pre-set time and location (chess club or tram stop both work). but in the case of simply whacking his wife on Monday night, there wouldn't be as much doubt as if there were a mystery suspect introduced. That is qhat the Qualtrough ruse serves to do. Wallace might also figure that if he is confident he has hoaxed Beattie (the man who took the call at the club) with his voice which would be readily apparent to him, that this would create an unshakeable alibi for himself.

In other words, not committing the murder on the Monday but rather setting this whole ruse up and then doing so on the Tuesday makes more sense if Wallace was the killer. It at least seems like a viable option. However, if someone else was guilty and presumably planning a robbery, it makes no sense whatsoever to my eyes. I haven't seen a viable explanation for this apart from convoluted plots involving multiple people (sorry a shot at a former poster here ) If you can think of one, I'd be glad to hear it.

I have seen the idea that perhaps a plotter was simply preoccupied and couldn't carry out the commission of the crime on the Monday, my counterargument is that if they were involved in the call to the club , this would require significant effort, including as most who come down on the side of Wallace's innocence concede, stalking Wallace barring almost an impossible coincidence. (since the call was made right as Wallace according to his own testimony could have been passing the phone box. He claimed he went another way but admitted to leaving home at 7.15 on Monday and the call was made about a 3 minute walk away at 7.18) With such effort and time involved in this hypothetical scenario, it is confounding why such a person wouldn't just take it upon themselves to rob the house and kill JW( whether it was a spur of the moment unplanned thing or not) that night.

As regards to your 2nd point, I think there is a misunderstanding. Wallace himself said he left at 6.45. The only question is precisely when he left after the milk boy's departure. As he caught the tram at 7:06, many put 6.48 or 6.50 at the latest as a plausible leaving time. I always found the whole business of Wallace being unable to complete the journey is such a short time a bit of a confusing argument, since he himself gave a 6:45 time of departure, so suggesting 6:48 instead--a 3 minute difference which would have given him IMO ample time ( Antony believes the milk boy came at 6:38, and I agree evidence suggests it was some time between 6:35 and 6:40), hardly seems like such an insane leap that robs him of the necessary time to complete the journey Now, of course 3 minutes in this context is a large difference but it does seem surprising that this is enough to squabble over and insinuate Wallace did not have time to commit the murder following the milk boy's departure and reach the tram stop at 7:06.

At any rate, since WHW gave 6.45 as his leaving time (and he would be incentivized to give as early as possible of a time), there should be no confusion that he left some time after the milk boy left. He probably realized that the time he could have left was bounded by which tram he caught as it would be hard to explain claiming having left at 6:30 but only making such a late tram. (This holds true whether or not he was guilty.)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1308  
Old 10-19-2017, 03:42 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 726
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tecs View Post
2. I have seen that some people have said that the neighbours were approached by Wallace himself but in the versions I have read, they just happened to be leaving at the time Wallace was trying his back door.
The Johnsons were just leaving. But Mrs Johnson, in her statement and in court, said that she had heard the knocking at the back door and - by the style of knocking - knew that it was Wallace. Therefore he could have reasonably expected his knocking actions to cause one or both of them to come out anyway and ask him if there was a problem.
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 04:25 AM.


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