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 1 hour and 12 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Scott Nelson 2 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by MrBarnett 3 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by MrBarnett 3 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by MrBarnett 3 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by GUT 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (38 posts)
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - (9 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (4 posts)
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - (2 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Mary Kellys Inquest - (2 posts)
Letters and Communications: I'm not a butcher, I'm not a Yid...... - (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
  #1431  
Old 12-09-2017, 01:35 PM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 315
Default

People in the club attempted to give Wallace directions. No-one said "it doesn't exist." [They might well have done, as some lived in the vicinity - again tending to point away from murderous plan of Wallace's, hingeing on such a contingency...]

Goodman and others have replicated the hoax on their friends, with identical results...
__________________
"I make a point of never having any prejudices, and of following docilely where fact may lead me."

Sherlock Holmes, in The Adventure of The Reigate Squires
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1432  
Old 12-09-2017, 02:08 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 602
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
People in the club attempted to give Wallace directions. No-one said "it doesn't exist." [They might well have done, as some lived in the vicinity - again tending to point away from murderous plan of Wallace's, hingeing on such a contingency...]

Goodman and others have replicated the hoax on their friends, with identical results...
The main point if Wallace was guilty was this was a plan that would take him to another neighborhood some distance away from home and cast doubt on whether or not he could have committed the crime. The bogus address may or may not be important and it is not impossible the caller made a mistake and meant to say West instead of East. Or Beattie misheard it. As Murphy notes, Wallace initially says "West" and was corrected to "East" by Beattie when hearing about the call and the address...

It doesn't really matter, because the call was bogus either way, there was no Mr. Qualtrough looking for an insurance policy anywhere. And even if Wallace meant to say East as it was relayed to him, your argument that he wouldn't hinge a plan on such a contingency of it not existing is flimsy when you consider he could have claimed to have gone searching for it anyway. I personally wouldn't bother in such a situation, as the call would probably seem like a prank, but Wallace could have easily overthought the perfect murder. And if he did consult a directory and found out the address did not exist and wanted to hunt for it anyway (and not forfeit a possible hefty commission), you would expect him to have left much earlier than he did, allowing for searching time. Of course if he was guilty, he could not leave until the milk boy had come and gone...

If in Wallace's shoes as I said, the call would seem like a prank/not worth it to me (Wallace apparently made 100s of calls on the day of the murder) but if I really was hard up and thought the "girls 21st" could be promising, then I certainly would allow more time or have more knowledge of where I was going and not just start asking desperately on trams with the timing tight.

Wallace's actions the night of the murder were deeply suspicious.

As far as Goodman, his replication of the hoax is about as convincing as your Parry Accomplice Theory.

First of all, Wallace is working with everything on his side. He knows that if he is recognized at all, if Beattie for a second says "who is this?...Wallace??" or if he shows even an ounce of suspicion at the club when relaying the message to Wallace, then WHW can scrap the plan. He has nothing to lose by trying it. The set-up and the context are also completely in his favor as it would be very weird to imagine Wallace calling himself on a business matter.

Second of all, phone lines were very different back in 1931 compared to whenever Goodman tried this (60 or 70s). Particularly an old phone booth on a wintry night calling more of a slight acquaintance than a friend who would have no reason to suspect it's you.

Very, very different from Goodman putting apple slices in his mouth and mumbling to his friend, who recognized him. Also Goodman said he tried the bogus address business and all his friends fell for it--again very, very different from getting a random odd sounding call and going on supposed business without checking the address or allowing proper time etc. etc.

Last edited by AmericanSherlock : 12-09-2017 at 02:10 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1433  
Old 12-09-2017, 02:13 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 602
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
On the night of the murder, when Wallace was searching for the non-existent Menlove Gardens East, he eventually went into a newsagents to check a directory which told him that the address didnít exist. When Wallace was given the message by Beattie they asked around the club and no one had heard specifically of Menlove Gardens East. Wallace was an intelligent man and we get the impression of him as an efficient, meticulous, well organised one too.
Why then didnít he simply check a directory during the day of the murder? He would have wanted to plan his journey after all. He could have gone into any number of post offices or newsagents and he could have also asked people that he spoke to during the day.
Obviously this doesnít prove his guilt but it seems a bit out of character for the kind of person Wallace appeared to be.
I concur completely. Wallace's actions were extremely odd at best, deeply suspicious and implicating at worst.

How are you enjoying the Sheppard book, my friend ?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1434  
Old 12-09-2017, 02:21 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 602
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
It's surprisingly easy to discover huge coincidences when you're the one determining the criteria: for instance, three important witnesses, by a huge coincidence, all happened to glance at the same clock at a crucial moment: Close, Hall and Wildman.

Regarding Lily Hall's evidence, it's quite obvious that, when summing up, Wright J fell into error as I shall now demonstrate it great detail.

Thus, Wright J acknowledges that Hall, "No doubt [said] what she thinks she saw." However, he adds "It was night, and there is no special reason, apparently, why Miss Hall should have made these observations, or even regard to the time that she should be accurate."

But this is what Hall said in her statement:

"I looked at the Holy Trinity clock. Which is near the tram stop, and saw it was then 8:30. I walked straight home along Richmond Park and as I was passing the entry leading from Richmond Park to the middle of Wolverton Street, I saw the man I know as Mr Wallace talking to another man I do not know...When I got into our house,, our clock was just turned 8:40 pm but it is always five minutes fast. It takes me no more than three minutes to walk from the tram stop to our house."

There is therefore every reason to suppose that Hall accurately fixed the time. Moreover, as regards it being night time, she pointed out in her evidence that there was a light, something the judge appears to have inexplicably disregarded. As for the observations, she saw two men, one of whom she recognized, having a chat. Why is it remarkable that she wouldn't subsequently note and remember this simple sighting?

And here's another thing. Whose evidence do you think is likely to be more reliable? A witness who came forward within days of the murder, and who was prepared to give evidence under oath and allow herself to be subjected to a rigorous cross examination, without hesitation or confusion-unlike Alan Close, for example, a witness who got hopelessly confused when subjected to cross examination. Or a "witness" who decides it would be prudent not to give evidence in court under oath, and not to allow himself to be subjected to cross examination, but nonetheless, almost half a century later, after the individual who could have contradicted him has died, and at a time when his memory must have been decidedly hazy, decides to tell his story to the media. It's not a difficult choice, is it?

Furthermore, it's absolutely untenable to argue that Hall was coached by the police, not that you have any evidence for this anyway. The reason is this: if the jury accepted Hall's evidence, which implies that Wallace acted not alone, but with an accomplice, then the they would have had no choice but to acquit, as this scenario contradicts the prosecution argument that Wallace acted alone.

As for Wallace meeting an accomplice immediately after the execution of a crime, that is not an argument that can be made out. For instance, we have no idea as to what time Julia was killed. As Wright J alluded to in his summing up, the medical testimony on this point was all over the place, with contradictory conclusions. This led him to give this advice to the jury: " You may think that [time of death] is evidence from which you can derive no assistance in considering that aspect of it, and you must act upon other considerations."

Still, it's interesting that you now consider it "ludicrous on it's face", that an assailant would rendezvous with an accomplice on the "threshold of a crime", as that's pretty sums up your own theory in a nutshell! At least no one could accuse you of a lack of objectivity in this regard.

As for Brine, I seriously doubt that Parry had been regularly visiting her household for several months because he'd struck up a friendship with 16 year old Denison or 13 year-old school girl Savona. And who knows how many times he may have visited this women, whose husband was conveniently away at sea, when Savona was at school and without Denison in tow. In fact, even on the night in question he [Denison] arrived an hour after Parry.

Regarding the clock, regardless of whether it chimed or went "tick tock" no one was paying any attention to it anyway. Not Brine, who could only say Parry left "about 8:30." Not Parry, who could only say he left "about 8:30". Not Denison, who could only say Parry left "about 8:30."

As for the possibility of these not being verbatim accounts, well that just implies police negligence, as does the fact that they failed to check any of Parry's other numerous "alibis" for the evening, which was a bit remiss don't you think, considering he gave a false alibi for the Qualtrough call?
John, I agree totally, we need more than this level of "coincidence" to point towards anybody. Particularly, in a case rife with them and as you point out if one is looking thru a certain lens, one can come up with all sorts of this type of nonsense. (Look at some of the Ripper theories based on weird conspiracies stemming from "coincidences!"). I would hope I am never judged by a jury of my peers that buy into this type of stuff!

To address your other points you made in the next post, I think you raise some good thoughts and things to overcome if one believes in Wallace's guilt, or at least in his sole guilt.

I think we have agreed to disagree in the past about the timing and the blood.

As far as the easier methods of killing Julia, I would just suggest that other methods would not have the added appeal of casting doubt onto an unknown suspect. I think if Wallace was guilty, he was actively trying to make other(s) seem guilty which would obviously help his case, but also as CAZ suggests, he could have had a particular man in mind.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1435  
Old 12-09-2017, 02:26 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 602
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Ah, well of course Parry - having drama connections - would have made sure to have a Mr Y in place, who was a Wallace lookalike, so any nosey female like Lily Hall would genuinely believe she had spotted him talking to a man [Mr X], leaving Parry to play hide the sausage for hours with the comely Mrs Brine.

Seriously though, I do think Parry would have been able to come up with a much sounder alibi for himself if he had someone else doing the really dirty work. He'd know when Mr X planned to knock on Julia's door, so why not spend the next hour or so in a pub a good way away, nursing a half of mild if he didn't want to spend more than he hoped to make from the robbery?

Love,

Caz
X
Another solid point and one in line with you reasoning for being skeptical of Wallace working with others---surely he could have come up with a better alibi for himself on both the night of the call and the night of the murder if that were the case.

Similarly, if Parry had his Mr. X. doing the dirty work, then he could have made sure to be seen drinking and partying it up across town.

Playing hide the sausage with a cougar isn't as good of an alibi, as fun as it may be

A conspiracy doesn't make sense. Either Wallace acted alone or someone else did. My money is on Wallace.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1436  
Old 12-09-2017, 03:08 PM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 315
Default

Lol. Wallace was well in time for his appointment. He had no reason to leave earlier, as he knew vaguely, and had been told exactly where Menlove Gardens were.

Even the tram conductor, Thompson, who put Wallace off at Menlove Gardens West told him that "Menlove Gardens East is probably in that direction...

Such basic ignorance of the facts renders further discussion pointless, once again, as I suspected.

Btw, my theory has been reviewed by police officers and crime writers. I have no doubt it will be generally accepted by reasonable, intelligent people as the final solution to the Wallace mystery. Watch this space...
__________________
"I make a point of never having any prejudices, and of following docilely where fact may lead me."

Sherlock Holmes, in The Adventure of The Reigate Squires
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1437  
Old 12-09-2017, 03:18 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 602
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
Lol. Wallace was well in time for his appointment. He had no reason to leave earlier, as he knew vaguely, and had been told exactly where Menlove Gardens were.

Even the tram conductor, Thompson, who put Wallace off at Menlove Gardens West told him that "Menlove Gardens East is probably in that direction...

Such basic ignorance of the facts renders further discussion pointless, once again, as I suspected.

Btw, my theory has been reviewed by police officers and crime writers. I have no doubt it will be generally accepted by reasonable, intelligent people as the final solution to the Wallace mystery. Watch this space...
If one goes on your Wikipedia page, one would see it is an embarrassment. Filled with you arguing with people and getting flagged and warned left, right, and center for the same ugly behavior you have displayed in this thread. You clearly have issues from a social standpoint. Perhaps you are on the spectrum a bit?

I have yet to have met or even heard of one person who concurs with your opinion, much less views it as the "Final solution to the Wallace Mystery".

Nevertheless, in the beginning I treated your theory with some respect as a possible, although unlikely scenario. You do not return the same respect to others and seem intent on bullying them into agreeing with you, otherwise they are subject to derisive and unpleasant taunts. It appears you are incapable of agreeing to disagree on any point. You also do not respond well to others giving you back a small dose of the same medicine you vomit out everywhere and inflict on others.

Whenever you come on this thread it ruins and kills discussion, just like the numerous blogs and wikipedia articles where you have been warned and people turned against you. It is not for no reason, my friend. Why do you think it keeps happening? Perhaps try to solve that mystery instead of the Wallace Case.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1438  
Old 12-09-2017, 03:24 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
I concur completely. Wallace's actions were extremely odd at best, deeply suspicious and implicating at worst.

How are you enjoying the Sheppard book, my friend ?
Hi AS,

Iíve done my usual trick of jumping from one book to another. I was in the second hand book shop that I got the Wilkes book from last week and I saw the Goodman book. The owner said that he hadnít put any new books in the true crime section so I must have missed it last week. Anyway Iím reading the Goodman then itís back to the Sheppard. Not enough hours in the day!
Iíve just ordered In The Wake Of The Butcher (recommended to me by Howard Brown on the Forum) Iíve also been watching the Zodiac series on the History Channel So Iíve also ordered a Zodiac book.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1439  
Old 12-09-2017, 03:25 PM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 315
Default

Oh gawd, now I have a stalker....
__________________
"I make a point of never having any prejudices, and of following docilely where fact may lead me."

Sherlock Holmes, in The Adventure of The Reigate Squires
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1440  
Old 12-09-2017, 03:30 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 602
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
Oh gawd, now I have a stalker....
Trust me, I have better things to do than "stalk" an awkward old man with personality disorders. You yourself linked blogs where you posted and you posted under this same moniker under. the TALK section of the Wallace Case in Wikipedia

Don't dodge my point. Look at what you wrote verbatim. "I have no doubt it will be generally accepted by reasonable, intelligent people as the final solution to the Wallace mystery." So anyone who doesn't accept your far out there proposal 100 percent is neither reasonable, nor intelligent, huh? That certainly seems to be the attitude you have displayed here. Thanks for putting it out there, so we can all see where you stand.
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 07:54 PM.


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