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 Joshua Rogan 37 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by Wickerman 38 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by MrBarnett 42 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by MrBarnett 48 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by Herlock Sholmes 58 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (18 posts)
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - (14 posts)
Witnesses: What EXACTLY did Maurice Lewis say? - (5 posts)
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - (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
  #1521  
Old 12-12-2017, 06:21 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 611
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
So you don't have a problem with Parry stupidly making the Qualtrough call himself, with the result that he wouldn't have an alibi for the Monday? Had this mystery accomplice made the call instead, there were several advantages to be had, besides Parry's opportunity to set up a rock solid alibi for himself, and no disadvantages: nobody would recognise the caller's voice so he could have spoken directly to Wallace; no need to rely on him turning up later, getting a faithful version of the message and deciding to act on it; and a golden opportunity to tempt Wallace with the business proposition and gain his assurances firsthand that he would make the appointment.

And you don't have a problem with Parry being nearly as sloppy on the Tuesday evening, when he could have made sure to be seen out in public for the whole time his accomplice was busy committing the crime for him?

How long did Parry spend planning for this cunning joint enterprise? All of ten minutes?

And how could Parry have known that Julia would recognise the name Qualtrough and let this complete stranger into her home? If Wallace had told her everything, she'd have known the arrangement was for him to go to Qualtrough's house and not the other way round. He may even have mentioned the address and the fact that he'd need to ask on the way for directions. In those circumstances I'd have smelled a rat if Qualtrough turned up on my doorstep unexpectedly while hubby was out trying to find his house!

Love,

Caz
X
The bold is really case closed on this whole embarrassing Accomplice theory as far as I'm concerned. As usual, you make incisive points that I would not have considered myself. I did always think this "theory" had a nutty, conspiracy theory element to it (above and beyond simply involving multiple people.) Come to find out its proponent is an internet famous known conspiracy nut!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1522  
Old 12-12-2017, 06:26 AM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 315
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
So you don't have a problem with Parry stupidly making the Qualtrough call himself, with the result that he wouldn't have an alibi for the Monday? Had this mystery accomplice made the call instead, there were several advantages to be had, besides Parry's opportunity to set up a rock solid alibi for himself, and no disadvantages: nobody would recognise the caller's voice so he could have spoken directly to Wallace; no need to rely on him turning up later, getting a faithful version of the message and deciding to act on it; and a golden opportunity to tempt Wallace with the business proposition and gain his assurances firsthand that he would make the appointment.

And you don't have a problem with Parry being nearly as sloppy on the Tuesday evening, when he could have made sure to be seen out in public for the whole time his accomplice was busy committing the crime for him?

How long did Parry spend planning for this cunning joint enterprise? All of ten minutes?

And how could Parry have known that Julia would recognise the name Qualtrough and let this complete stranger into her home? If Wallace had told her everything, she'd have known the arrangement was for him to go to Qualtrough's house and not the other way round. He may even have mentioned the address and the fact that he'd need to ask on the way for directions. In those circumstances I'd have smelled a rat if Qualtrough turned up on my doorstep unexpectedly while hubby was out trying to find his house!

Love,

Caz
X
Parry had an unusual skillset, which the accomplice didn't have, including:-

a) actor
b) experienced confidence trickster
c) supreme self-confidence
d) knowledge of insurance
e) knowledge of Wallace
f) knowledge of the City Cafe and the Chess Club
g) knowledge of Menlove Gardens

Criminals when working together usually divide their labour according to their strengths. It would be odd indeed for the person ideally suited to making the phone call, to delegate that task to the one unsuited, thereby risking him messing the whole thing up at the get go, still less letting such an unskilled person speak to Wallace directly...

Also, Parry did attempt to set-up an alibi directly after the phone-call, by arriving unexpectedly and purposelessly at Lily Lloyd's house, and leaving almost immediately. It was no more than a three-minute drive by car from the phone box.

Parry's alibi for Tuesday for the time of the intended robbery was unimpeachable...

If Wallace believed in Qualtrough, Julia would too. Telephones in the UK in 1931 were rare and uncertain instruments. It was possible that a 2nd hand message had been passed on incorrectly, and the dutiful, mousy wife would receive Mr. Qualtrough to await her husband's return.
Even if you consider it a long-shot, notwithstanding the different social dynamics of 1931, there was little to be lost in trying such long-shot...
__________________
"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

Last edited by RodCrosby : 12-12-2017 at 06:42 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1523  
Old 12-12-2017, 06:38 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,030
Default

It would also be odd indeed, or just unbelievably lucky, that Parry could find an accomplice so incredibly stupid and gullible as to take all the risks. Any criminal with half a brain would have asked ‘why am I the one showing myself?’

It’s equally as unbelievable as you’re suggestion that the thief intended to steal the cash and leave Julia unharmed. With this doltish accomplice described in detail to the police.

But she caught him in the act. Luckily for Parry Mr X wasn’t the kind of crook just to scarper with at least a chance of not being found or even if he was found being charged with attempted burglary. No luckily he was a violent madman who repeatedly bludgeoned a defenceless women to death.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1524  
Old 12-12-2017, 06:42 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 611
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
It would also be odd indeed, or just unbelievably lucky, that Parry could find an accomplice so incredibly stupid and gullible as to take all the risks. Any criminal with half a brain would have asked ‘why am I type one showing myself?’

It’s equally as unbelievable as you’re suggestion that the thief intended to steal the cash and leave Julia unharmed. With this doltish accomplice described in detail to the police by Julia.

But she caught him in the act. Luckily for Parry Mr X wasn’t the kind of crook just to scarper with at least a chance of not being found or even if he was found being charged with attempted burglary. No luckily he was a violent madman who repeatedly bludgeoned a defenceless women to death.
Also, where did he get the weapon from? If he brought it with, obviously he intended to use it or at least had it as an option. Where did he hide it so he would be let in with no fuss?

If he didn't bring a weapon, then how did he easily have a weapon of opportunity right there. Remember Julia was hit from behind while putting out the fireplace.

Also why did he carry the blood soaked weapon out with him when he could have left it there? Fingerprints? In Rod's crackpot theory, he has this Mr. X wearing gloves that cause him to fumble with the coins he's trying to steal
"alerting Julia"(yes he presented that in depth fantasy as absolute 100 percent not to be questioned truth as well)

Also, let's note this violent co-conspirator, willing to beat an innocent woman to death does not take the jewelry off her body or money from her handbag and makes witha measly 4 pounds after replacing the cash box.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1525  
Old 12-12-2017, 06:46 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,030
Default

As Caz said, in this plan how could they be sure that Julia would let ‘Qualtrough’ in. Even if she recalled the name she didn’t actually know him. Wallace was clear that she would only admit people that he knew. It’s even possible that Parry knew that too. Nope this plan doesn’t hold water.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1526  
Old 12-12-2017, 06:48 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,030
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
Also, where did he get the weapon from? If he brought it with, obviously he intended to use it or at least had it as an option. Where did he hide it so he would be let in with no fuss?

If he didn't bring a weapon, then how did he easily have a weapon of opportunity right there. Remember Julia was hit from behind while putting out the fireplace.

Also why did he carry the blood soaked weapon out with him when he could have left it there? Fingerprints? In Rod's crackpot theory, he has this Mr. X wearing gloves that cause him to fumble with the coins he's trying to steal
"alerting Julia"(yes he presented that in depth fantasy as absolute 100 percent not to be questioned truth as well)

Also, let's note this violent co-conspirator, willing to beat an innocent woman to death does not take the jewelry off her body or money from her handbag and makes witha measly 4 pounds after replacing the cash box.
Good points. Also, how is the mackintosh’s presence explained in this ‘plan?’
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1527  
Old 12-12-2017, 06:50 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 611
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
As Caz said, in this plan how could they be sure that Julia would let ‘Qualtrough’ in. Even if she recalled the name she didn’t actually know him. Wallace was clear that she would only admit people that he knew. It’s even possible that Parry knew that too. Nope this plan doesn’t hold water.
Absolutely. It is relying on too many moving parts and too convoluted.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1528  
Old 12-12-2017, 06:50 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 611
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Good points. Also, how is the mackintosh’s presence explained in this ‘plan?’
It isn't.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1529  
Old 12-12-2017, 06:52 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,030
Default

A simple point.

For it to be ‘case solved’ we would have to conclusively disprove any other theory. Parry could have done it on his own. Therefore....case unsolved
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1530  
Old 12-12-2017, 06:57 AM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 315
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
It would also be odd indeed, or just unbelievably lucky, that Parry could find an accomplice so incredibly stupid and gullible as to take all the risks. Any criminal with half a brain would have asked ‘why am I the one showing myself?’

It’s equally as unbelievable as you’re suggestion that the thief intended to steal the cash and leave Julia unharmed. With this doltish accomplice described in detail to the police.

But she caught him in the act. Luckily for Parry Mr X wasn’t the kind of crook just to scarper with at least a chance of not being found or even if he was found being charged with attempted burglary. No luckily he was a violent madman who repeatedly bludgeoned a defenceless women to death.
"Odd indeed"...
So there has never been such a crime or criminal in human experience. Not one?

Tosh. Such crimes are all too commonplace. Ten a penny...
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=mu...hrome&ie=UTF-8

__________________
"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
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 09:06 AM.


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