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 6 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Herlock Sholmes 6 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by caz 2 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by caz 2 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by caz 2 hours ago.
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by Elamarna 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - (19 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (9 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (6 posts)
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - (4 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: What was occuring in 1888? - (4 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Mary Kellys Inquest - (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
  #1091  
Old 05-06-2017, 08:08 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is online now
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 606
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Okay, what did he do with the murder weapon? What about the forensic evidence, which pretty much rules Wallace out? After all, it's difficult to argue with science.

As for the Qualtrough call, it was made a few minutes before Parry, who apparently history of making hoax calls, turned up at his girlfriend's. He then lied about the time he arrived at his girlfriend's in order to establish can false alibi.
1. That's the biggest disagreement. If you think it was plainly impossible for Wallace to commit the crime, then that's all there is to say. I do not agree with this. The drains may have been tested, what about the toilet water being used to wash off some blood and then flushed? The clot there is interesting to me, while the police admitted they don't know who deposited it (they themselves could have), it strikes me that it was more likely than not JW's blood deposited by the killer. Too bad there was no DNA. Let's also not forget that there was not a trail of blood from the body ..no blood tracks. How did a highly strung robber who snapped manage to do this? What do we make of the macintosh in this scenario???

2. We only have Parkes word on this 50 years later who knew all the details of the case and was trying to peg Parry for the crime. Parkes suggests some stuff that we know is bunk and I don't consider his testimony very reliable. It's hard for me to fathom Parry showing up to a car wash with a bloody glove saying "that could hang me" .
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1092  
Old 05-07-2017, 01:02 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
1. That's the biggest disagreement. If you think it was plainly impossible for Wallace to commit the crime, then that's all there is to say. I do not agree with this. The drains may have been tested, what about the toilet water being used to wash off some blood and then flushed? The clot there is interesting to me, while the police admitted they don't know who deposited it (they themselves could have), it strikes me that it was more likely than not JW's blood deposited by the killer. Too bad there was no DNA. Let's also not forget that there was not a trail of blood from the body ..no blood tracks. How did a highly strung robber who snapped manage to do this? What do we make of the macintosh in this scenario???

2. We only have Parkes word on this 50 years later who knew all the details of the case and was trying to peg Parry for the crime. Parkes suggests some stuff that we know is bunk and I don't consider his testimony very reliable. It's hard for me to fathom Parry showing up to a car wash with a bloody glove saying "that could hang me" .
But if the toilet was flushed then the blood would have ended up in the drains, which of course were tested. Moreover, the idea that Wallace would have used the toilet to wash blood off himself alludes to the police argument that he was some sort of criminal genius, which I consider a fanciful notion.

Moreover, Dr McFall conceded that the perpetrator, if naked under the Macintosh, would still have blood on his legs, face and left hand (and he would have got further blood on himself when he lifted the victims head and shoulders to place the Macintosh under the body.) Not only would this take a significant amount of time to completely wash off, which Wallace didn't have, it would be ridiculously impractical to, say, wash off blood from the legs in the toilet.

It's true that blood wasn't traipsed through the house. However Dr McFall argued that the killer could have wiped his boots in the hearth rug, i.e. to avoid leaving boot prints.

Regarding Parkes' evidence, I agree that it is hard to believe Parry would have incriminated himself to such a degree. However, if he was seriously stressed, and maybe regretting his actions, who knows?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1093  
Old 05-07-2017, 01:48 AM
Harry D Harry D is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,163
Default

Hoax calls only work if you speak to the person you're hoaxing. What if Wallace had ignored the message and went straight home? In your scenario he might have caught Parry in the act. But no, instead there was a readymade alibi waiting for Wallace when he got to the chess club.
__________________
Hail to the king, baby!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1094  
Old 05-07-2017, 02:19 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry D View Post
Hoax calls only work if you speak to the person you're hoaxing. What if Wallace had ignored the message and went straight home? In your scenario he might have caught Parry in the act. But no, instead there was a readymade alibi waiting for Wallace when he got to the chess club.
Not if Parry was involved in the crime, i.e. if the purpose of the Qualtrough ruse was to get Wallace out of the house in order to effect a robbery (he was a bit of a charmer and still on good terms with Julia, and therefore might have considered that she could be easily distracted whilst he stole the takings. Additionally, sending Wallace off on a fool's errand whilst he committed a robbery might have seemed amusing to him (it would also be a means of revenge for Wallace reporting the misappropriation.)

And he might not have wanted to speak to Wallace directly in case he recognized his voice.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1095  
Old 05-07-2017, 03:56 AM
ColdCaseJury ColdCaseJury is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: England
Posts: 278
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
[/b]
Hi Antony,

I'm surprised to see you put this so cut and dry. I guess Wallace Alone is not a plausible one of 4 theories anymore in your view. Also, if you believe the evidence points to a sneaky robbery as you said, then the conspiracy masterminded by Wallace is ruled out and he is totally innocent. Seems like Rod persuaded you! Oh dear...
Hi AS,

I said it is a pointer to his innocence. An experienced pathologist riles out his guilt on this basis. Also, I note for he first time in our long discussion on this fascinating case, AS, you have led with an ad hominen argument and completely ignored the point about the importance of the forensic evidence. However, I note later you said Wallace might have used the toilet to clean himself. But as John G correctly pointed out the drains were tested, and Charles St Hill (the pathologist) said it would have been found.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1096  
Old 05-07-2017, 04:03 AM
ColdCaseJury ColdCaseJury is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: England
Posts: 278
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
Hi Antony

I'm surprised to see you put this so cut and dry. I guess Wallace Alone is not a plausible one of 4 theories anymore in your view. Also, if you believe the evidence points to a sneaky robbery as you said, then the conspiracy masterminded by Wallace is ruled out and he is totally innocent. Seems like Rod persuaded you! Oh dear...
AS, I said it is a pointer to his innocence. An experienced pathologist rules out his guilt on this basis, however. Also, I note for he first time in our long discussion on this fascinating case, AS, you completely ignored my point - about the importance of the forensic evidence. However, I note later you said Wallace might have used the toilet to clean himself. But as John G correctly pointed out the drains were tested, and Charles St Hill (the pathologist) said it would have been found. I will follow the evidence, and no one theory for me is probable (greater than 0.5 probability). It seems I have more doubt than you, as you seem absolutely sure Wallace is guilty.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1097  
Old 05-07-2017, 05:22 AM
Harry D Harry D is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,163
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Not if Parry was involved in the crime, i.e. if the purpose of the Qualtrough ruse was to get Wallace out of the house in order to effect a robbery (he was a bit of a charmer and still on good terms with Julia, and therefore might have considered that she could be easily distracted whilst he stole the takings. Additionally, sending Wallace off on a fool's errand whilst he committed a robbery might have seemed amusing to him (it would also be a means of revenge for Wallace reporting the misappropriation.)

And he might not have wanted to speak to Wallace directly in case he recognized his voice.
Why not just stage the robbery while he was at the chess club that night?
__________________
Hail to the king, baby!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1098  
Old 05-07-2017, 06:25 AM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 315
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry D View Post
Why not just stage the robbery while he was at the chess club that night?
110 pages of comments, and we're still going round in circles.

a) they could not be certain he was going to the club
b) even if he was, it was too near for comfort
c) there was no chance of a stranger gaining entry on the Monday (and it had to be a stranger) - the only chance was via the Qualtrough ruse, and that seed had not yet been planted...
d) Tuesday was the financially optimal night
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1099  
Old 05-07-2017, 02:08 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is online now
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 606
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdCaseJury View Post
AS, I said it is a pointer to his innocence. An experienced pathologist rules out his guilt on this basis, however. Also, I note for he first time in our long discussion on this fascinating case, AS, you completely ignored my point - about the importance of the forensic evidence. However, I note later you said Wallace might have used the toilet to clean himself. But as John G correctly pointed out the drains were tested, and Charles St Hill (the pathologist) said it would have been found. I will follow the evidence, and no one theory for me is probable (greater than 0.5 probability). It seems I have more doubt than you, as you seem absolutely sure Wallace is guilty.
Hi Antony,

The toilet water theory was something that had been suggested earlier on this thread and had gone unchecked (including by yourself) that I was curious about. I don't know how drains work, but if the pathologist said it would have been detected then I absolutely believe him. I also find the clot found on the rim of the bowl odd. This was NEVER part of my theory. I thought Wallace could have avoided visible blood, something which many people have found ridiculous and considered impossible. Fair enough.

I also have maintained from the beginning that I would NOT convict Wallace as I do not believe his guilt is evident beyond a reasonable a doubt. Not sure where you're getting "absolutely certain" from.

Most importantly, I was not using an ad hominem (as you suggested in the previous post.) I'm not arguing that my complaint has anything to do with the facts of the case. However, I do stand by what I said, based on this.

-You've long maintained the difficulties with Wallace Alone, and chose the Conspiracy, with Wallace as the mastermind in your postscript. Then you all of a sudden eliminated the book you wrote and decided to write a new one and include "Rod's theory". Now the tone with which you are talking about the case has shifted.

Note:

"The bath was dry. There was no presence of blood in the bath or the house drains. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the killer did not wash in the house. WHW must have had some blood splatter on him (this is not to say he was covered in blood). Yet, there was not a spot on him and the house was clean.

The forensic evidence points to his innocence, whatever we might say about his behaviour or state of mind."

To be fair, you did not think Wallace acted alone from the beginning, but I do feel this was put in such a "cut and dry" way as to make me wonder what changed, or why you ever even thought of that as a theory worth considering if those were always your thoughts.

But then to make matters cloudier in my mind, you also seem to prop up a new theory (one that is different from your original one in the book you pulled)

"This is a good argument against Parry Alone. I think I pointed out in my e-book, Parry did not need to make the Qualtrough call if his intention was to pop round and rob and/or murder Julia. However much you are unpersuaded by Rod's theory, Parry Accomplice does explain the need for the call and why the robbery could not happen on the night of the call. The theory has flaws just like any other, but it does explain some key points of evidence."

If you were really persuaded by Rod, that's fine, but then I feel that should be made transparent.

Also, perhaps part of my issue is with the tone in which this is being discussed now. (Not your fault.)

Look at the previous post, 2 examples in response to a totally legitamite and friendly inquiry by another user:

"110 pages of comments, and we're still going round in circles. " with a roll-eye emoticon at the end.

"there was no chance of a stranger gaining entry on the Monday (and it had to be a stranger) - the only chance was via the Qualtrough ruse, and that seed had not yet been planted...:

Yes, there is no chance of anything else, except a completely novel, never before heard of idea, anything else would not be the one and only way it could have happened.

We had different conclusions from the beginning, so this has nothing to do with an argument over positions. I'm finding the vibe here to become a bit unbearable. Perhaps I need a break.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1100  
Old 05-08-2017, 12:10 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,289
Default

Apparently the benzidine test is not the most sensitive. For example, benzidine has been shown to produce a positive result from a dilution of blood equal to 1:300000. However, the comparison for luminol was 1:5000000 as was phenolphthalin. See: Grodsky, Wright, Kirk (1951).
Of course, there's always the issue of false negatives: http://documentslide.com/documents/i...ine-test.html# Although I believe the main issue with benzidine has been false positives.
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 07:47 AM.


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