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:
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by Bridewell 1 minute ago.
General Discussion: Is a Ripper tour worthwhile? - by Ally 19 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly killed in daylight hours.? - by Bridewell 30 minutes ago.
General Discussion: Is a Ripper tour worthwhile? - by Geddy2112 1 hour and 24 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly killed in daylight hours.? - by richardnunweek 2 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by caz 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere The Psychopath - (76 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly killed in daylight hours.? - (15 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: "Murder...!" cry - (7 posts)
General Discussion: Is a Ripper tour worthwhile? - (3 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (3 posts)
Casebook Announcements: All Posters Read This! - (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
  #621  
Old 12-12-2016, 12:29 AM
Charles Daniels Charles Daniels is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 57
Default

Also, we have to assume that Wallace was a genius at murder.
But couldn't stage a simple robbery?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #622  
Old 12-12-2016, 12:31 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 224
Default

Was Reading the Chess and the Wallace Murder site which some of you may be familiar with by now.

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/wallace.html

The site is unbiased, but does include many different writer's opinions on the case and is quite a good read. There had been an abridged version I had seen awhile ago; this is the full version. There are no new facts, but it includes many blurbs from many sources and had a bit of a "new feel" for me.

2 interesting things to me, one a point that can be deduced to be in favor of Wallace's guilt from Murphy's book, and the second the opinion of Lord Justice Wright, who summed up strongly for acquittal in the original trial; the jury went against his summation, but as we know fortunately for Wallace he won his appeal. Justice Wright here is not to be confused with Lord Hewart who presided over Wallace's successful appeal. Anyway, here they are with my commentary below in parentheses:

1. "On page 119 Murphy suggested that, if robbery were the motive, it was unnecessary for the murderer to make a telephone call to the chess club:

‘How much simpler, how much more lucrative it would have been, for Qualtrough to have slipped a note to Wallace through his front door on Monday, 12 January [sic – an intentional reference to the previous week], asking him to call at 25 Menlove Gardens East the following night.

That Qualtrough chose Wallace’s putative attendance at the chess club, rather than the night when he could maximize his gain, as the starting point for his plan, again testifies to the fact that robbery was not a significant motive in the crime.’"

(I think this really warrants examination. Murphy is correct that the call itself is suspicious and seems unlikely to mesh with a planned robbery. I would add that from Qualtrough's perspective the likelihood of Wallace having been at the chess club that particular night was in doubt; there would, in the words of Murphy have been much "simpler" ways to go about it. Unless of course, Qualtrough was Wallace himself!)

2. "On page 171 Hussey wrote: ‘Barrister Abrahams states: “The judge ... summed up strongly for acquittal.”’ He did indeed, and it is perhaps surprising to find the following on page 309 of Goodman:

‘A few years before his death, in an interview with a Liverpool Echo reporter, he [Mr Justice Wright, who took the title Lord Wright of Durley] said:

“Never forget that Wallace was a chessplayer. ... I should say that, broadly speaking, any man with common sense would have said that Wallace’s alibi was too good to be true, but that is not an argument you can hang a man on.”’ "

(Quite interesting IMO. Because my opinion is similar, the case back then wasn't proved enough to convict, but common sense tells you he's guilty. Credit to Goodman here for including this, even though he was writing in favor of Wallace's innocent. The site includes many quotes from Goodman, including an article he wrote in response to a newspaper that said they had changed their mind and found Wallace's guilt very evident following the 1975 Who Killed Julia program. He argues in a somewhat acrimonious manner for Wallace's innocence and suggests the makers of the program, not Wallace, were the ones who got away with murder! This is where he claims that because the walls were "stippled with blood", that Wallace could not have used the mackintosh to avoid blood spatter. This is also around the time that he started hinting seriously at Parry's identity, which finally was put out there following his death in 1981. I wonder what Goodman would think if he knew that Richard Whittington Egan (who accompanied him to confront Parry in 1966) now thinks Wallace was guilty and Parry was "rightly exonerated!)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #623  
Old 12-12-2016, 12:33 AM
Charles Daniels Charles Daniels is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 57
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Penny_Dredfull View Post
AmericanSherlock- Yes, no one could have known Wallace's movements on any given day except Wallace himself. Only Wallace would have known when he would be at the chess club,
Unless the caller knew him by sight, and took a guess when he'd head off for the tram.

And once seeing Wallace, made the call, assured that Wallace could not have possibly arrived yet.

Quote:
Only Wallace would know if he was going to go out on the fateful night in search of the mysterious caller.
Unless of course the killer watched the house or the tram station, or the route between the two, and waited to see Wallace board the tram or head off in that direction.

Quote:
The call box from which the Qualtrough call was made was just 400 yards from his home, and adjacent to where he caught the tram to the chess club. This strongly suggests that Wallace himself was the caller, and that it was part of a ruse to provide himself with an alibi.
Possibly.
But it could also indicate a stalker, as I have laid out above.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #624  
Old 12-12-2016, 12:43 AM
Charles Daniels Charles Daniels is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 57
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Penny_Dredfull View Post
Louisa- I suggest you read the transcripts of the trial. Then you will see that such a scenario doesn't hold up given the evidence.

The timing of the phone call from "Qualtrough" and of the murder for when Wallace was out is very telling. The prosecution got Wallace to admit that "Qualtrough" had no way of knowing whether he would receive the message that night, because no one knew he would be at the club.
Again, unless the caller saw Wallace in route.

Quote:
So, without knowing Wallace would even go to look for Menlove Gardens East, the assailant was waiting that night for his departure? That the killer would have to watch both front AND back doors, as he wouldn't know which exit Wallace would use? That the killer had no idea if Wallace would get the message or even act on it? That Wallace may consult a directory first, learn there IS no Menlove Gardens East and then not go at all?
If Julia was murdered nearer 8o'clock he need not watch the house at all.
He could probably be inconspicuously in the area of the tram station.
Observe Wallace near 7pm-ish, and then casually stroll to the house.

Quote:
Another point the prosecution focused upon- the burned and bloody macintosh belonging to Wallace that the killer placed under the body. Who would have had an interest in doing this? Why would a stranger (or Parry) want to destroy SOMEONE ELSE'S macintosh?
Why would Parry want to destroy his own Macintosh?
And was it placed under the body or did the body merely fall on top of it?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #625  
Old 12-12-2016, 03:58 AM
ColdCaseJury ColdCaseJury is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: England
Posts: 253
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
Was Reading the Chess and the Wallace Murder site which some of you may be familiar with by now.

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/wallace.html

The site is unbiased, but does include many different writer's opinions on the case and is quite a good read. There had been an abridged version I had seen awhile ago; this is the full version. There are no new facts, but it includes many blurbs from many sources and had a bit of a "new feel" for me.

2 interesting things to me, one a point that can be deduced to be in favor of Wallace's guilt from Murphy's book, and the second the opinion of Lord Justice Wright, who summed up strongly for acquittal in the original trial; the jury went against his summation, but as we know fortunately for Wallace he won his appeal. Justice Wright here is not to be confused with Lord Hewart who presided over Wallace's successful appeal. Anyway, here they are with my commentary below in parentheses:

1. "On page 119 Murphy suggested that, if robbery were the motive, it was unnecessary for the murderer to make a telephone call to the chess club:

‘How much simpler, how much more lucrative it would have been, for Qualtrough to have slipped a note to Wallace through his front door on Monday, 12 January [sic – an intentional reference to the previous week], asking him to call at 25 Menlove Gardens East the following night.

That Qualtrough chose Wallace’s putative attendance at the chess club, rather than the night when he could maximize his gain, as the starting point for his plan, again testifies to the fact that robbery was not a significant motive in the crime.’"

(I think this really warrants examination. Murphy is correct that the call itself is suspicious and seems unlikely to mesh with a planned robbery. I would add that from Qualtrough's perspective the likelihood of Wallace having been at the chess club that particular night was in doubt; there would, in the words of Murphy have been much "simpler" ways to go about it. Unless of course, Qualtrough was Wallace himself!)

2. "On page 171 Hussey wrote: ‘Barrister Abrahams states: “The judge ... summed up strongly for acquittal.”’ He did indeed, and it is perhaps surprising to find the following on page 309 of Goodman:

‘A few years before his death, in an interview with a Liverpool Echo reporter, he [Mr Justice Wright, who took the title Lord Wright of Durley] said:

“Never forget that Wallace was a chessplayer. ... I should say that, broadly speaking, any man with common sense would have said that Wallace’s alibi was too good to be true, but that is not an argument you can hang a man on.”’ "

(Quite interesting IMO. Because my opinion is similar, the case back then wasn't proved enough to convict, but common sense tells you he's guilty. Credit to Goodman here for including this, even though he was writing in favor of Wallace's innocent. The site includes many quotes from Goodman, including an article he wrote in response to a newspaper that said they had changed their mind and found Wallace's guilt very evident following the 1975 Who Killed Julia program. He argues in a somewhat acrimonious manner for Wallace's innocence and suggests the makers of the program, not Wallace, were the ones who got away with murder! This is where he claims that because the walls were "stippled with blood", that Wallace could not have used the mackintosh to avoid blood spatter. This is also around the time that he started hinting seriously at Parry's identity, which finally was put out there following his death in 1981. I wonder what Goodman would think if he knew that Richard Whittington Egan (who accompanied him to confront Parry in 1966) now thinks Wallace was guilty and Parry was "rightly exonerated!)
Good points, as always, AS. An ex-detective always tells me that armchair detectives like us always look too clinically at the evidence in a case like this. Just because something is obviously simpler - or even better - does not necessarily mean that someone would choose that option. Life is messier.

Nevertheless, as you know, I think the most likely scenario is Wallace was involved in the killing of his wife. My counter to the Durley point would be that, if he worked alone, Wallace's plan was never going to give him a strong alibi (as Wallace's solicitor was always at pains to point out), something antithetical to a chess player, perhaps.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #626  
Old 12-12-2016, 05:26 AM
louisa louisa is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 987
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
1. "On page 119 Murphy suggested that, if robbery were the motive, it was unnecessary for the murderer to make a telephone call to the chess club:

‘How much simpler, how much more lucrative it would have been, for Qualtrough to have slipped a note to Wallace through his front door on Monday, 12 January [sic – an intentional reference to the previous week], asking him to call at 25 Menlove Gardens East the following night.
But that would entail leaving an evidence trail, i.e. notepaper and handwriting, which 'Mr. Q' may have thought the police would be able to trace.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post

‘A few years before his death, in an interview with a Liverpool Echo reporter, he [Mr Justice Wright, who took the title Lord Wright of Durley] said:

“Never forget that Wallace was a chessplayer. ... I should say that, broadly speaking, any man with common sense would have said that Wallace’s alibi was too good to be true, but that is not an argument you can hang a man on.”
Yes, Wallace was a chess player, but he was a rubbish one. Wasn't somebody quoted as saying "if Wallace was to be hanged at all then it should have been for his abominable chess playing"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post

I wonder what Goodman would think if he knew that Richard Whittington Egan (who accompanied him to confront Parry in 1966) now thinks Wallace was guilty and Parry was "rightly exonerated!)
Really? Even after talking to Parry on his doorstep and getting an unfavourable impression?

I haven't read the reasons behind why RWE would think that Wallace was guilty but from what I have read (so far) I would say that Parry was by far the most likely culprit.

He belonged to a dramatic society that had it's HQ in the City Cafe building so Parry was likely to have seen the noticeboard with Wallace's name written on it, due to play a match on the Monday night.

Parry was a ham actor and could put on different voices.

Parry's gave a false alibi for the night of the murder. Why would an innocent person do this?

The blood found on items in Parry's car at Parkes Garage.

Julia knew and trusted Parry and would have let him into the house if he had knocked.

And most telling of all....Parry was a known thief and was always short of money.

.
__________________
This is simply my opinion
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #627  
Old 12-12-2016, 06:33 AM
Penny_Dredfull Penny_Dredfull is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 90
Default

Charles Daniels- The macintosh wasn't Parry's- it was Wallace's. And it was clear to investigators that it was placed under the head of the victim. The medical examiner stated at trial that it was splashed by blood from in front- which implies that the killer was wearing it when Mrs. Wallace was attacked.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #628  
Old 12-12-2016, 06:52 AM
ColdCaseJury ColdCaseJury is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: England
Posts: 253
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Penny_Dredfull View Post
I too have done extensive research on this case as part of a PhD.
Your PhD sounds interesting, presumably on some aspect of criminology? Was there a particular aspect of the Wallace case you were examining?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #629  
Old 12-12-2016, 07:13 AM
Penny_Dredfull Penny_Dredfull is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 90
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by louisa View Post
But that would entail leaving an evidence trail, i.e. notepaper and handwriting, which 'Mr. Q' may have thought the police would be able to trace.



Yes, Wallace was a chess player, but he was a rubbish one. Wasn't somebody quoted as saying "if Wallace was to be hanged at all then it should have been for his abominable chess playing"?



Really? Even after talking to Parry on his doorstep and getting an unfavourable impression?

I haven't read the reasons behind why RWE would think that Wallace was guilty but from what I have read (so far) I would say that Parry was by far the most likely culprit.

He belonged to a dramatic society that had it's HQ in the City Cafe building so Parry was likely to have seen the noticeboard with Wallace's name written on it, due to play a match on the Monday night.

Parry was a ham actor and could put on different voices.

Parry's gave a false alibi for the night of the murder. Why would an innocent person do this?

The blood found on items in Parry's car at Parkes Garage.

Julia knew and trusted Parry and would have let him into the house if he had knocked.

And most telling of all....Parry was a known thief and was always short of money.

.
Louisa- Where to begin.

Although Wallace was often down to play matches, he just as often didn't turn up to them. So no one could rely on the chess club match schedule as a certain way to know Wallace's whereabouts.

Likewise, the Qualtrough call was a clumsy and unreliable way to ensure Wallace would be out and Julia would be at home alone. There was no way to know if Wallace would even take the bait, or whether he would find out the address was bogus and not go at all. It was impossible to know if he was leaving the house by which exit and for how long. And why choose the area of Menlove Gardens- why not choose an address which would lure Wallace further away so as to give the murderer more time to commit his crime?

No- as the prosecution pointed out, "The wrong address is essential to the course of evidence for an alibi". Wallace was familiar with that area as he was taking music lessons there. His immediate supervisor at work, Mr. Crewe, lived in that vicinity- why didn't he call on him FIRST and ask about the Menlove Gardens East address? As the prosecution put it to him "...You never said until today you called at Mr. Crewe's. Of course, you realize now the importance of the point that you were quite near your superintendent, who knew the district well, and yet you asked everybody else instead of going to see him?"

As to the other issues which you see as making Parry guilty:

He was a thief- but there was no theft.
The blood supposedly on items in his car- this story comes from a third party and dates from the 1980's. The reliability of it is suspect. There WERE no bloody items found in his car.

In answer to your question "Why would an innocent person give a false alibi?"- it happens all the time. The reason being that they are guilty of or hiding SOMETHING, just not the murder.

You don't need to be a "ham actor" to make the Qualtrough call- Parry wouldn't have needed to disguise his voice. It's Wallace himself who may have needed to do that.

And finally, there are likely many others Mrs. Wallace would have gladly answered the door to when her husband was out- not least of which the neighbours and the milk boy. Are they all equally suspect?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #630  
Old 12-12-2016, 07:36 AM
Penny_Dredfull Penny_Dredfull is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 90
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdCaseJury View Post
Your PhD sounds interesting, presumably on some aspect of criminology? Was there a particular aspect of the Wallace case you were examining?
ColdCaseJury- Thanks! Yes, the Wallace case has always fascinated me. It's the mundane domestic setting and the woman murdered in her own home that most interests me. When I first saw the crime scene photos of the interior of 29 Wolverton Street I was hooked. It's not often you get such a direct glimpse into an ordinary dwelling of that time- probably not much different from all the other homes in that street. Except this home has become something else far more intriguing because murder has intruded and interrupted its stolid domesticity.
That was the initial thing that got me interested. I have researched other related cases- my PhD isn't exclusively about the Wallace case. And no, I'm not doing a degree in criminology. It's critical and cultural theory. Although a lot of my work intersects with criminology and history of crime.

My first degree, by the way was almost exclusively on JTR. Go figure. I think there should be more women like me writing about and researching these aspects of criminological history, which have for so long been, with few exceptions, the preserve of males.

Cheers for asking!

Last edited by Penny_Dredfull : 12-12-2016 at 07:48 AM.
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 05:17 AM.


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