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:
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - by Robert St Devil 2 hours ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - by Sam Flynn 2 hours ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - by Robert St Devil 3 hours ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - by Joshua Rogan 3 hours ago.
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - by Jeff Leahy 3 hours ago.
Non-Fiction: Elizabeth Stride and Jack the Ripper: The Life and Death of the Reputed Third Victim. - by Herlock Sholmes 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - (10 posts)
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - (6 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Caught!? Long Island Serial Killer suspect - (3 posts)
Non-Fiction: Elizabeth Stride and Jack the Ripper: The Life and Death of the Reputed Third Victim. - (3 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: How about the "Bad Cop" ??? - (2 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (2 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
  #1281  
Old 09-09-2017, 09:01 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 328
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdCaseJury View Post
Hi AS,

Let's tackle the logic and evidence together. Your counter is that if someone can conceive of sneak-thievery, Wallace could of. Yet, it took 40 years for someone to think of the sneak-thievery scenario. My point is that returning the cashbox is not what you would expect someone to do if they were staging a robbery, not that someone could not conceive it but the planner would reject it as too risky.

I think your appeal to circular reasoning is not accurate, in my view, especially when Wallace writes about the case (in his unpublished memoir) he never mentions sneak-thievery as an explanation. Remember, we are assuming Wallace is guilty so when he writes his memoir we are getting a good idea of his plan, what he wants us to think happened. I also find it bizarre and inconsistent that Wallace would think a burglar would drop coins and leave the cabinet lid on the floor but return the cashbox. Even if Wallace was in a rush; it was so central to his plan.

BTW, in my book I publish extracts from his memoir that have never been published before. You will find them very interesting, I'm sure.
My theory would be that Wallace has simply made a mistake and it did not occur to him. In the same way that you say it took 40 years for Hussey to put forth the theory, perhaps Wallace did not consider, at least until some time later, the significance of his putting the cash box back on the shelf.

Also, in response to a point you made in the other post, perhaps if Wallace was guilty, he was trying specifically to pin the blame on one particular person; Gordon Parry. There are problems with this; the cash haul was small and we are in a similar predicament as with the cash-box...it would appear Wallace wouldn't try to frame someone else (or at least create reasonable doubt by diverting suspicion onto someone else) with such a paltry sum. But then again couldn't the same argument be made for Parry as being part of any plot. I am aware there is some ambiguity about what RGP would know in regards to the amount that would be likely to be there...perhaps this could be cleared up some more. Could Wallace have been so cheap/ fastidious that he just couldn't bare to steal too large a sum of his own insurance takings, even if it weakened his life or death plot to seem innocent?

Anyways, my over-arching point would not be that Wallace was attempting to make it look like sneak thievery, just a theft gone wrong in general, and simply screwed up (out of habit) by meticulously doing what he had done several times, without thinking about it in a rushed and panicked state after bashing his wife's brains in. I am not as convinced as you that this is something he would necessarily quickly realize needed correcting. (You rightly suggest that he would have had time to think about it on his journey and a brief opportunity to rectify any mistakes.)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1282  
Old 09-09-2017, 09:15 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 328
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdCaseJury View Post
AS, thank you for your comments. Yes, this forum has been truly outstanding for the quality of the posts. The case could have been solved at the time, in my opinion. That is not to say the police did not have the correct verdict, but if they did, they did not demonstrate it. Better forensics, better follow-ups on all suspects etc...

Yes, I agree that Murphy and Gannon are important books. Murphy did some excellent research and is good at advancing an argument, but I was disappointed with two aspects. He assumed it was either Wallace or Parry (perhaps that is understandable given the historical context) and he was very selective in his facts in exonerating Parry from having any involvement with the call, and a little selective in his evidence regarding the milk boy.

What is interesting is the debate has moved on from a dichotomy to examining other possibilities, including P. D. James. This does not mean the more recent theories are correct, of course. But as you say, the case has been examined more thoroughly.

I have tried to examine the case impartially, placing all the theories side by side. In my examination of the trial, I highlight where I believe Wallace's testimony/statements are the most perplexing (regarding locks and bolts), so there is no shying away from any theory! I'm sure this will reinforce your verdict, but other aspects might give you second thoughts, too.
That is the aspect that I think is the best about the discussion here and your books; everything is being questioned. It feels much more "3 dimensional" and I think a more modern approach.

I am not married to WHW's guilt or him acting alone BTW. It is what I think currently is the BEST theory (and I do think it is >50 percent likelihood). But, my mind is totally open to new information or new ways of viewing the whole picture.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1283  
Old 09-10-2017, 01:44 AM
ColdCaseJury ColdCaseJury is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: England
Posts: 278
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
That is the aspect that I think is the best about the discussion here and your books; everything is being questioned. It feels much more "3 dimensional" and I think a more modern approach.

I am not married to WHW's guilt or him acting alone BTW. It is what I think currently is the BEST theory (and I do think it is >50 percent likelihood). But, my mind is totally open to new information or new ways of viewing the whole picture.
AS, I certainly do not have conviction in any of the theories. Today, police would TIE - Trace, Incriminate or Eliminate. I suggest, Wallace and Parry were never both eliminated from being involved, and neither was fully incriminated. The key for Wallace is MONDAY night. If he was observed (say by a conductor) getting on a tram or bus near the kiosk, I suggest this would be decisive evidence that he lied and acted alone. Parry had to be checked out for both nights, I suggest. I'm sure the police would have solved this case today, at least one of the two main suspects would have been properly eliminated... unless Lily Hall did recognise Wallace and Gannon is looking in the right direction. I have an exhibit "Conversation in the Dark" that examines Hall's evidence.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1284  
Old 09-10-2017, 04:41 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,092
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
John,

Thanks! We seem to be on the same train of thought regarding the problems of Parry and an Accomplice or even Parry by himself.

Do you think we should give some more weight in our discussions to outlier scenarios, such as the lover one you mentioned? Perhaps, the current options we are considering, although they seem to rightly be the dominant few most likely, have so many problems with them that outlier possibilities are a better option despite how seemingly obtuse they might appear.
Hi AS,

Yes. Although it's hard to believe that someone like Julia would have a secret lover, I don't see how it's less plausible then any other theory which has been proposed, as they all suffer from major problems.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1285  
Old 09-10-2017, 11:49 AM
ColdCaseJury ColdCaseJury is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: England
Posts: 278
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
My theory would be that Wallace has simply made a mistake and it did not occur to him. In the same way that you say it took 40 years for Hussey to put forth the theory, perhaps Wallace did not consider, at least until some time later, the significance of his putting the cash box back on the shelf.

Also, in response to a point you made in the other post, perhaps if Wallace was guilty, he was trying specifically to pin the blame on one particular person; Gordon Parry. There are problems with this; the cash haul was small and we are in a similar predicament as with the cash-box...it would appear Wallace wouldn't try to frame someone else (or at least create reasonable doubt by diverting suspicion onto someone else) with such a paltry sum. But then again couldn't the same argument be made for Parry as being part of any plot. I am aware there is some ambiguity about what RGP would know in regards to the amount that would be likely to be there...perhaps this could be cleared up some more. Could Wallace have been so cheap/ fastidious that he just couldn't bare to steal too large a sum of his own insurance takings, even if it weakened his life or death plot to seem innocent?

Anyways, my over-arching point would not be that Wallace was attempting to make it look like sneak thievery, just a theft gone wrong in general, and simply screwed up (out of habit) by meticulously doing what he had done several times, without thinking about it in a rushed and panicked state after bashing his wife's brains in. I am not as convinced as you that this is something he would necessarily quickly realize needed correcting. (You rightly suggest that he would have had time to think about it on his journey and a brief opportunity to rectify any mistakes.)
Hi AS,

Let's assume Wallace wanted to pin the blame on either Parry or Marsden (evidence: his second statement where he spends 10 paragraphs on both). If so, the pool of suspects (other than Wallace) is two. But Marsden was not known to frequent the cafe and hence was unlikely to know when Wallace played a chess match. So, it boils down to Parry (unless Wallace did not know the implications of his call).

However, Wallace could not know whether Parry would have an alibi for 20/1/31. If Parry had cast-iron alibi (step forward Mrs Brine) Wallace is in a tight jam (because if Parry is eliminated the finger points at Wallace). Surely, he would want to make it look like a "theft gone wrong in general" (we agree), and inflate the number of suspects; so he should not touch the cashbox.

Your counter: it was a mistake, stupid. Aren't you listening?

My counter-counter: yes, but it was a mistake in planning to touch the cashbox and in execution to replace it. If someone can devise the Qualtrough call and the fiddle with the locks, could he not see the implications of touching the cashbox? It was a BIG mistake for someone so allegedly aware of small details. If someone can pull off the forensically flawless crime (if it was Wallace) would they not get the robbery right?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1286  
Old 09-10-2017, 01:03 PM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,092
Default

Regarding the cash box, what do you think of this theory? A sneak thief removes the cash box whilst Julia is out of the room. He then takes out the notes and pockets them. However, Julia returns unexpectedly, catching him in the act. She calmly asks him to replace the cash box and await the return of her husband; this he agrees to do. Unfortunately for Julia, he changes his mind and decides instead to silence her, before making his getaway.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1287  
Old 09-10-2017, 09:06 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 328
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Regarding the cash box, what do you think of this theory? A sneak thief removes the cash box whilst Julia is out of the room. He then takes out the notes and pockets them. However, Julia returns unexpectedly, catching him in the act. She calmly asks him to replace the cash box and await the return of her husband; this he agrees to do. Unfortunately for Julia, he changes his mind and decides instead to silence her, before making his getaway.
Hi John, I think that is the most likely scenario if a sneak-thief really was the culprit. Consider this:it would make perfect sense for such a thief to replace the box if his goal was to go undetected and not arouse suspicion. This meshes well with such a person expecting or at least hoping not to have a confrontation and be forced into violence to silence JW. But then the question becomes how did this person get caught? If the cashbox is where it should be, what went wrong?

Your explanation here is the most plausible to me. I can think of 3 possible ways to reconcile this problem and the other 2 do not past muster. One is what has been suggested before as part of the "Qualtrough Parry Accomplice" theory (although it could apply to any robber theory). That something tipped off Julia. The coins on the floor has been suggested. To my way of looking at things, it seems very odd that a thief would manage to take the money, then cover the box with a lid and put it back where it was on the high shelf while Julia was in the kitchen or loo undetected with the entire goal being his theft going unnoticed, but not spot other obvious errors like coins strewn on the floor. I think this is more indicative of a poor and thoughtless staging job or something that happened under duress--perhaps the coins fell out of the pocket of the killer whoever he was while committing the murder.

The 2nd alternative I can think of is the unlikely event that JW caught the kille right as he was finishing the theft. So, if she walked back in the room in the couple second window after "Qualtrough" pocketed the money, and the cash box was being put on the shelf, when it would be obvious that something was wrong--that this strange man was fiddling around with things. The odds of this are rather slim though IMO.

Therefore, I'd say your scenario is the most likely to explain the whole cash box debacle in the event that Wallace was not the killer.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1288  
Old 09-10-2017, 09:21 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 328
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdCaseJury View Post
Hi AS,

Let's assume Wallace wanted to pin the blame on either Parry or Marsden (evidence: his second statement where he spends 10 paragraphs on both). If so, the pool of suspects (other than Wallace) is two. But Marsden was not known to frequent the cafe and hence was unlikely to know when Wallace played a chess match. So, it boils down to Parry (unless Wallace did not know the implications of his call).

However, Wallace could not know whether Parry would have an alibi for 20/1/31. If Parry had cast-iron alibi (step forward Mrs Brine) Wallace is in a tight jam (because if Parry is eliminated the finger points at Wallace). Surely, he would want to make it look like a "theft gone wrong in general" (we agree), and inflate the number of suspects; so he should not touch the cashbox.

Your counter: it was a mistake, stupid. Aren't you listening?

My counter-counter: yes, but it was a mistake in planning to touch the cashbox and in execution to replace it. If someone can devise the Qualtrough call and the fiddle with the locks, could he not see the implications of touching the cashbox? It was a BIG mistake for someone so allegedly aware of small details. If someone can pull off the forensically flawless crime (if it was Wallace) would they not get the robbery right?
Hi Antony,

You make a good point here. I read what you are saying as even if Wallace made a mistake in replacing the cash box, the entire idea of using it to fake the robbery creates problems.

I suspect you may find this an unsatisfying retort; but consider Wallace as being a bit on the spectrum-- these types may focus very strongly on details and forget the bigger picture.

Perhaps, he had figured he had done enough to create significant reasonable doubt by hoaxing Beattie. Once it is obvious he is not suspected of making the call himself after the hubub at the chess club over the mysterious caller and Beattie relaying it to him, perhaps WHW figured this was all he needed to get off. If he really was the caller he might have waited to see the reaction after arriving at the club. It is like when Murphy said he makes hiw own timeframe; here Wallace can judge the reactions of the club members and specifically Beattie in relaying it to him before processing with the plan. It is only in retrospect that we view it as an unbroken chain. Of course, he would try his best in every facet to look innocent, but I'm not sure he would connect every implication up in his mind. Maybe he wasn't trying to frame Parry so much as create reasonable doubt and realized he was someone he could point to after he found himself unexpectedly under heavy police fire. (After perhaps arrogantly thinking; Beattie will tell them it wasn't my voice on the line, I'm scot free)

Again I suspect you will find this an unsatisfying explanation
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1289  
Old 09-11-2017, 12:27 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,092
Default

Does anyone else think that the Roger Wilkes interviews, as good as they were, were ultimately an opportunity lost? Personally, I think he was too deferential, which is understandable when you consider the series of interviews must have represented something of a coup, and he was therefore probably eager not to offend anyone.

Thus, When Dolly Atkinson speaks vaguely about the blood he doesn't press her for more details, i.e. in order to ascertain if her recollection wss the same as Parkes'. Nor does he ask any of the interviewees how they could be so certain of the facts after almost half a century. In fact, he doesn't even ask Dolly Atkinson how she first heard of the account or who from-this is important because we have to consider the possibility of a "Chinese whispers situation. He doesn't even ask when she first heard the story, assuming she even remembered. I mean, it could have been days or even weeks after the event.

And without any sense of irony he states that "of course" they would have come forward had the appeal been rejected, without bothering to question why they failed to come forward before or during the trial or, indeed, at the tone of the appeal.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1290  
Old 09-11-2017, 12:44 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,092
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdCaseJury View Post
Yes, 2 November 2017.

I will make an announcement here nearer the time. BTW, discussing this case with you, AS, Rod and others have helped shape my views. It contains a new theory - the Accomplice theory - as well as evidence presented for the first time: timing tests, MacFall's original, unsigned autopsy report and excerpts from Wallace's unpublished memoir. I also provide a fresh analysis of the phone call, having spoken to experts about the phone system. So, I hope some things will be clearer, but overall the case is unsolvable i.e. you cannot prove one solution to be correct. In fact, I would say that 2-3 of the 5 theories are close to each other, in terms of plausibility, based on the evidence we have.
Thanks CCJ, I'm very much looking forward to your new book, especially the new theories and the section on Wallace's unpublished memoirs. If Wallace was somehow involved it does seem strange that he would point the finger at Parry in an unpublished document. However, do you think he was intending to publish the memoirs? If so, then clearly that would put a different sllant on things.
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 12:51 PM.


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