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 Abby Normal 15 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - by Joshua Rogan 2 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Elamarna 2 hours ago.
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - by Elamarna 3 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by MrBarnett 3 hours ago.
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - by Joshua Rogan 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (31 posts)
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - (9 posts)
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - (7 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (5 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Mary Kellys Inquest - (2 posts)
Rippercast: Colin Wilson: Jack the Ripper Conference in Ipswich, 1996 - (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
  #2051  
Old 03-13-2018, 11:43 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 602
Default

Herlock, I think the Parry Accomplice theory has been so thoroughly debunked and discredited, we can cast it aside with "far out there ideas".

Like for example maybe a young Churchill was the killer.

Nevertheless, I will debunk it some more

To me the biggest thing discrediting the likelihood of someone other than Wallace planning it is the sheer unreliability of the plan combined with the fact that such a person would by definition have to rely on Wallace being out the whole Monday night at the chess club for the plan to work in the 1st place, so why not do it then.

Explanations that such a person (usually Parry) feared identification from Julia and enlisted someone else to do it the next night with the "Qualtrough open sesame" don't really past muster. Julia may or may not open. More uncertainty. Yes criminals take risks...but why such an elaborate and confusing plan from presumably two low level criminals. Parry was a "dunderhead" who was a complete criminal failure. Such a plan would be stupid (in character for Parry actually ) But also bizarrely detailed and intricate in comparison with the impulsive, wide boy crimes that defined him.

Furthermore, an accomplice in this role would also risk identification. Just because Julia didn't know him doesn't mean a crime wouldn't be reported. It would be obvious when Wallace got back that they were the victim of an elaborate and threateningly dangerous home robbery. Major risk for such a person, who may already be a hardened criminal if he would agree to such a thing, with fingerprints on record. All in an unfamiliar home, taking ALL the risk for his friend Parry, with a woman he didn't know.

The genius plan would be to "rob the cashbox" and hope the woman there doesn't notice.

This is just not a theory that warrants serious consideration.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2052  
Old 03-13-2018, 01:20 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,006
Default

I agree AS.

I also think that it's reasonable to ask why, if Qualtrough was prepared to possibly be identified by Julia as the sneak thief and take the consequences , he would resort to brutally murdering her just because she had caught him in the act. Even if she'd panicked and screamed (and there's absolutely no evidence that she did) he could have just left. Nothing would have changed or worsened in his situation. So not only was the murder unnecessarily brutal it was also completely unnecessary.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2053  
Old 03-13-2018, 02:01 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 602
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
I agree AS.

I also think that it's reasonable to ask why, if Qualtrough was prepared to possibly be identified by Julia as the sneak thief and take the consequences , he would resort to brutally murdering her just because she had caught him in the act. Even if she'd panicked and screamed (and there's absolutely no evidence that she did) he could have just left. Nothing would have changed or worsened in his situation. So not only was the murder unnecessarily brutal it was also completely unnecessary.
Yes that's a great point. Either the person wasn't willing to take the risk of being identified and wouldn't agree to such a plan or if he went along with the plan (and by definition was accepting that risk) then there would be nothing different in Julia suspecting him. (He clesarly wasnt caught directly in the act since the cashbox was replaced and Julia looks like she was killed in another room at the fireplace.) He could just leave right then and there. It would be no different if he had gotten away without being suspected until later.

The only counter argument...that there was some commotion and the thief panicked without thinking in fear is completely belied by the crime scene, the vicious prolonged attack, the lack of defensive wounds (and likely Julia wasn't even facing her killer), and most tellingly the fact that JW wasn't even in the same room as the cashbox when murdered.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2054  
Old 03-13-2018, 03:28 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
Yes that's a great point. Either the person wasn't willing to take the risk of being identified and wouldn't agree to such a plan or if he went along with the plan (and by definition was accepting that risk) then there would be nothing different in Julia suspecting him. (He clesarly wasnt caught directly in the act since the cashbox was replaced and Julia looks like she was killed in another room at the fireplace.) He could just leave right then and there. It would be no different if he had gotten away without being suspected until later.

The only counter argument...that there was some commotion and the thief panicked without thinking in fear is completely belied by the crime scene, the vicious prolonged attack, the lack of defensive wounds (and likely Julia wasn't even facing her killer), and most tellingly the fact that JW wasn't even in the same room as the cashbox when murdered.
I think that this point alone shoots a considerable hole in ‘The Correct Solution.’ Even if Qualtrough had gotten away Julia could have still have identified him if caught. If she’d caught him ‘in the act’ she could still have identified him. Being caught on the spot changes nothing. Julia wouldn’t have performed a citizens arrest and detained him! She couldn’t phone the police! I think we can safely say that it’s unlikely that Julia would have chased him down the street shouting “stop thief!” So by the time the police got involved he’d have been miles away.

Panic doesn’t cover it by any stretch. Any sneak-thief would accept the possibility of being surprised in the act. If he’d gotten away he’d have known that the odds were in his favour of getting away with it. No cctv to catch him in flight unlike the perils of being a sneak thief today. And if he had been arrested at a later date he’d probably have had an alibi set up.

A short prison sentence if caught hardly compares to the the gallows. For what...£2?

Add this to the level of overkill. Eleven blows when it was likely that Julia hit the floor dead. This speaks of premeditated murder to me. Anger, resentment. Julia had a very narrow circle of acquaintances or friends. This kind of anger and resentment usually takes time to build up and fester. There’s only one person who fits this bill.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

Last edited by Herlock Sholmes : 03-13-2018 at 03:31 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2055  
Old 03-14-2018, 03:06 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 602
Default

The circumstantial evidence against Wallace is overwhelming, that much is for sure.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2056  
Old 03-14-2018, 03:27 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,213
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
The car wouldn’t have been ‘drenched’ in blood. There was no DNA at that time. He could easily have cleaned it himself. Indeed if Parry had planned this crime surely he’d have factored in cleaning the car. If so he would have surely realised the suicidal stupidity of taking it to Parkes.
Good point, except that either way it would have been daft to get anyone else to clean a car, specifically to get rid of blood from a murder victim. Drenched in blood? Out of the question. A few smears? Easily missed by anyone not looking for blood, but the same danger if they were noticed by the person washing them off.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2057  
Old 03-14-2018, 03:40 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,213
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Creating a co-conspirator to facilitate a scenario is all well and good but it also means that others can do the same. And so...

We have Wallace wanting rid of his wife (remembering the nurse, the doctor, the servant and the colleague who all said that the Wallace’s marriage wasn’t the happy one that everyone thought.)

He has a client that’s behind in his payments. He gets talking to him. He’s also in arrears with his rent. He’s unemployed (maybe a criminal conviction causes difficulties?) He even tells Wallace that his wife might leave him. Wallace gradually tests the water and finds that ( for a payment) the man is a willing co-conspirator. Wallace is confident that the man won’t go to the police afterwards due to his (even peripheral) involvement. Wallace might even tell him that if he tries going to the police he’ll point the finger at him (telling them of his debts, his conviction, perhaps he might even say “I remember him asking me what nights I played chess!)

He gets ‘Mr Q’ to make the phonecall.

Then on the evening of the murder (while Wallace kills Julia, cleans up and attempts to set up a bungled robbery scene) ‘Mr Q’ waits in the alley for Wallace to leave. As he does Wallace hands him a parcel or a bag containing an iron bar which he takes away and disposes of.

Off Wallace goes in search of the mythical MGE.

I’d call this my ‘ Possibly Correct Solution.’ All I’ve done is invent a co-conspirator
One possible flaw, HS - why wouldn't Wallace have got Qualtrough to call the chess club when he was already there, and say: "Good evening, I have a business proposition for a Mr Wallace for tomorrow evening. Could I possibly have a word with him or leave a message?" That would have given Wallace the perfect alibi for the Monday evening. The belief at the time was that if Wallace didn't make that call, he was innocent, and whoever Qualtrough was, must have been Julia's killer.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2058  
Old 03-14-2018, 04:04 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 602
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
One possible flaw, HS - why wouldn't Wallace have got Qualtrough to call the chess club when he was already there, and say: "Good evening, I have a business proposition for a Mr Wallace for tomorrow evening. Could I possibly have a word with him or leave a message?" That would have given Wallace the perfect alibi for the Monday evening. The belief at the time was that if Wallace didn't make that call, he was innocent, and whoever Qualtrough was, must have been Julia's killer.

Love,

Caz
X
Caz, I believe that because of this point, which I believe you were the 1st to make it ever, rules out the possibility of a conspiracy with Wallace and anyone else. (As well as if Wallace had hired someone else to commit the actual murder, then why return home at all on the night of the murder. The obvious move if having hired someone would be to make the appointment for 6:30 PM the following night and just leave straight from work so you are out of the frame for the killing)

I think HS was just giving a hypothetical though to show how anyone can do so and that they aren't necessarily "the correct solution"

Anyway, I think it's safe to say either Wallace acted alone or somebody(ies) else committed the crime.

You know what direction I lean in
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2059  
Old 03-14-2018, 04:15 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,213
Default

Hi AS, HS,

Petty criminals after petty cash tend not to go in for elaborate plots to get the man of the house out for the evening so they can get in, knowing the woman of the house will be there.

They much prefer to watch and wait, like the Anfield Housebreaker, until a house is left totally unoccupied so they can fill their boots without being seen and without having a pesky witness - however old and frail - potentially kicking up a fuss, getting in the way or later being able to identify the culprit.

Yes, old women have all too often been murdered in their own homes by a thief only interested in their valuables, but generally in those cases the criminal either breaks in not knowing anyone is at home, or they are hardened, vicious types, who go prepared to use violence against the vulnerable person they know is inside, and have no conscience about doing so if it makes it easier for them to get away with the spoils - all the available spoils.

In the Wallace case something just doesn't add up, because the killer presumably knew in advance that Mrs Wallace would be at home, and might need to be 'dealt with', and he would not have wanted to leave without taking everything of value, if that had been the whole point of getting Wallace out of the house and getting his wife to let him in.

It screams 'domestic' to me, by someone who had to get himself into the mind of the type of intruder he needed for the job, but who ended up with an awkward, implausible hybrid of the petty sneak thief and violent, hardened criminal. Too clever by half, but missing the mark.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 03-14-2018 at 04:17 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2060  
Old 03-14-2018, 08:15 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
One possible flaw, HS - why wouldn't Wallace have got Qualtrough to call the chess club when he was already there, and say: "Good evening, I have a business proposition for a Mr Wallace for tomorrow evening. Could I possibly have a word with him or leave a message?" That would have given Wallace the perfect alibi for the Monday evening. The belief at the time was that if Wallace didn't make that call, he was innocent, and whoever Qualtrough was, must have been Julia's killer.

Love,

Caz
X
Can’t argue with that one Caz. Good point
__________________
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 04:09 PM.


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