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:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Abby Normal 3 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by harry 3 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Herlock Sholmes 8 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Abby Normal 9 hours ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by cobalt 9 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by David Orsam 9 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (25 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A 20th Century Word Processor - (8 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring a Life - (7 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (4 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (3 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (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
  #1671  
Old 12-17-2017, 02:07 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,598
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
Well he spent the time trying to be seen by more people you could argue to strengthen his alibi of a genuinely befuddled, searching man. Like Kate Mather who gave him the boot so she could listen to her radio show

Also one could argue if he really was the killer he might have his head racing trying to compose himself to what he would have to do when he gets back...the charade he will have to go thru.
Thatís also a reason that I considered when I wondered why he avoided the Parlour and went straight upstairs when he got into the house. If I recall correctly the Johnstonís said that they saw a light in the lab for a considerable few seconds. Maybe he was just trying to steady his nerves and make sure that he hadnít made any howlers?
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1672  
Old 12-17-2017, 04:11 PM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 846
Default

Ironically the radio programme that Katie Mather was listening to may well have been called: ‘Marriage, Past and Present’.

http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/schedules...try/1931-01-20
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1673  
Old 12-17-2017, 04:37 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 580
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB View Post
Ironically the radio programme that Katie Mather was listening to may well have been called: ĎMarriage, Past and Presentí.

http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/schedules...try/1931-01-20
Hi Nick,

This is some solid sleuthing you've done here, good job.

Quite ironic indeed.

Whenever a past crime has occurred, I often search for the weather history and sunset times etc in the location at that time. But I would have never thought to search for the radio program playing! Pretty cool.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1674  
Old 12-17-2017, 04:41 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 580
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Thatís also a reason that I considered when I wondered why he avoided the Parlour and went straight upstairs when he got into the house. If I recall correctly the Johnstonís said that they saw a light in the lab for a considerable few seconds. Maybe he was just trying to steady his nerves and make sure that he hadnít made any howlers?
I'd imagine his adrenaline would be pumping like mad, maybe that is why he seemed so "agitated" when searching for Menlove Gardens East? Or maybe he was just frustrated at being lost ...

Your scenario about Wallace having another woman helping him, while seeming far fetched, does "reconcile all the facts" just like Rod Crosby claimed with his bogus theory, so it proves that that is not all that there is to it.

Maybe some of the facts we have are wrong; in fact I'd say this is certainly so.

And while your theory is unlikely, this case is so bizarre, that it might very well have been an elaborate scheme like that which was behind this all!

The 1 thing I am resolute in is the feeling that Wallace was most likely guilty. I just can't shake the combination of his odd behavior and the lack of plausibility of anyone else setting into motion this Menlove Gardens charade with the goal of robbery or murder.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1675  
Old 12-17-2017, 04:42 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,598
Default

I have to doff the deerstalker to that piece of research Nick

What if it had been a radio play called ĎHow To Murder Your Wife?í
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1676  
Old 12-17-2017, 11:52 PM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham View Post
I wasn't implying that lack of a visible motive automatically means that the accused is definitely innocent; nor would the presence of an obvious motive imply that he is definitely guilty. But courts do tend to place a degree of importance to motives, or lack of them. As I discovered many years ago when I served on the jury at a murder trial.

Now I've read nowhere near all the published material on this case, but I've read some, and recall that Colin Wilson mentioned that Wallace was intellectually-inclined, and following his study of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations became a stoic. That is, essentially, someone who expects little out of life, but is nevertheless perfectly happy to work hard and, hopefully, prosper; but if prosperity doesn't result, then the person won't be all that disappointed or concerned. Wallace and his wife were, it seems, of studious, intellectual natures, and basically retiring. If they had domestic arguments, then I don't recall reading that either of their next-door neighbours (they lived in a terrace) reported any raised voices, shouts, or sounds of violence. Correct me if I'm wrong on this.

There is, from what I understand of the background to the case, a possible reason that the Wallaces may have had domestic disagreements, and that that he may well have married Julia for her money, which he used to pay off his debts. Now if there is one thing which will arouse domestic ire, it is money.....but I don't see any evidence that the subject of money ever came between them.

Another small but I think germane point: Julia was killed by a number of savage blows to the head. Can't quite relate this to William who, after all, had a home chemistry lab upstairs and, I feel, had he wished to rid himself of Julia would have done it via poison (and then, maybe, claim that she took it by accident when doing housework or whatever). William just doesn't seem the kind of bloke to whack a person to death. But there again, Ruth Ellis didn't seem the sort of person to shoot someone to death.

Intriguing case, to say the least.

Graham
Hi Graham,

Regarding poison as a better option, William made exactly this point himself, emphasising the fact that it would have been easy for him to have committed murder by this means due to his scientific knowledge. Moreover, as I've pointed out before, bludgeoning his wife to death was just about the worst alternative he could have chosen, especially considering the need to then clean the blood away from his person and effectively dispose of the murder weapon, whilst under severe time restraints. Of course, if not poison, then suffocation or strangulation would also be far better alternatives.

This suggests that, from the perspective of William being the killer, the murder was unplanned. However, all things considered, even if it was meticulously planned it's incredibly difficult to envisage how he could have got away with it. If unplanned, I think we really are entering the realm of fantasy if it's to be argued William was the killer.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1677  
Old 12-18-2017, 12:05 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,287
Default

Considering the time available to commit the murder. In an exhaustive analysis of timelines, CCJ concluded in his book that Wallace couldn't possibly have left later than 6:48. Now, according to James Wildman, the time was 6:35 when he looked at the church clock. It took him a further two minutes to reach Wolverton Street, making it 6:37, where he saw Close standing on the step of the Wallace residence, presumably taking to Julia.

That means, William would have had no longer than eleven minutes, and possibly less, to commit a brutal murder- that resulted in so much blood spray that it reached 7 feet in height on the furniture-clean himself up so thoroughly that not a microscopic trace remained; get changed into his suit; stage a robbery; and then spend time effectively disposing of the murder weapon, and doing such a thorough job that it wasn't found despite an extensive police search.

To my mind, it just doesn't seem possible.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1678  
Old 12-18-2017, 01:31 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 580
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Considering the time available to commit the murder. In an exhaustive analysis of timelines, CCJ concluded in his book that Wallace couldn't possibly have left later than 6:48. Now, according to James Wildman, the time was 6:35 when he looked at the church clock. It took him a further two minutes to reach Wolverton Street, making it 6:37, where he saw Close standing on the step of the Wallace residence, presumably taking to Julia.

That means, William would have had no longer than eleven minutes, and possibly less, to commit a brutal murder- that resulted in so much blood spray that it reached 7 feet in height on the furniture-clean himself up so thoroughly that not a microscopic trace remained; get changed into his suit; stage a robbery; and then spend time effectively disposing of the murder weapon, and doing such a thorough job that it wasn't found despite an extensive police search.

To my mind, it just doesn't seem possible.
hi John,

I think the obstacles are more "what did he do with the weapon?" and "how did he avoid blood or clean up without using the drains" more than the time. The timing factor seems a non-issue to my mind. Eleven minutes seems more than enough time (if he had methods for these 2 things which is another story). Keep in mind he makes his timeframe as he goes along, he can take 8 minutes, 11 minutes, or 14 minutes. Only in retrospect, we look back that he had 11 minutes based on the time he reached the tram stop (and therefore when he could have left home at the latest.) He wouldn't be feeling significant time pressure as he works though. Wallace himself gave 6:45 as the time; I agree with Antony that 6:48 is around the latest he could have left.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1679  
Old 12-18-2017, 01:31 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,287
Default

As noted above, if William was the killer then the murder surely had to have been meticulously planned. Except, from the perspective of this scenario, it clearly wasn't!

In fact, it has to be considered as a hairbrained scheme. How could Wallace have hoped to get away with it? For instance, the crime scene clearly indicates the presence of overkill, but why would Wallace continue to bludgeon his wife, knowing that with each strike he risks being covered in blood spots? And, of course, he couldn't possibly have acurately predicted in what direction the blood might spray: for example, his hair might have been covered in blood, resulting in him having a bath in a desperate attempt to clean himself up. How would he have caught the tram in time in these circumstances?

And how did he think he could have disposed of the murder weapon in such a thorough manner it would never be discovered? Particularly when you consider his severely limited options as regards the choice of disposal site.

Other things could also have gone horribly wrong for him. Julia may have had the opportunity to resist or cry out, drawing the attention of the neighbours. Close might have arrived late, or lingered for longer on the doorstep, ffurther cutting in to the incredibly short time frame that he had avaiable to commit all the elements of the crime.

Frankly, if this was really how he planned it, then far from being the evil genius the police tried to paint, he would have to have been a total idiot. And a very lucky one as well!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1680  
Old 12-18-2017, 03:24 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 580
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
As noted above, if William was the killer then the murder surely had to have been meticulously planned. Except, from the perspective of this scenario, it clearly wasn't!

In fact, it has to be considered as a hairbrained scheme. How could Wallace have hoped to get away with it? For instance, the crime scene clearly indicates the presence of overkill, but why would Wallace continue to bludgeon his wife, knowing that with each strike he risks being covered in blood spots? And, of course, he couldn't possibly have acurately predicted in what direction the blood might spray: for example, his hair might have been covered in blood, resulting in him having a bath in a desperate attempt to clean himself up. How would he have caught the tram in time in these circumstances?

And how did he think he could have disposed of the murder weapon in such a thorough manner it would never be discovered? Particularly when you consider his severely limited options as regards the choice of disposal site.

Other things could also have gone horribly wrong for him. Julia may have had the opportunity to resist or cry out, drawing the attention of the neighbours. Close might have arrived late, or lingered for longer on the doorstep, ffurther cutting in to the incredibly short time frame that he had avaiable to commit all the elements of the crime.

Frankly, if this was really how he planned it, then far from being the evil genius the police tried to paint, he would have to have been a total idiot. And a very lucky one as well!
It wouldn't matter how long Close stayed nor would it shorten the time frame. The time frame begins when Close leaves and he can take as long as he wants (within reason). The time frame is only close AFTER the fact looking back on it. The only time constraint he has is the loose one of being in the Menlove area for show around 7:30.

Nonetheless, I think your overarching point is good...one point I have made in the past is that blunt force head/face trauma is EXTREMELY common in spousal homicide and extremely UNCOMMON in other sorts of crimes, including home invasions/botched robberies. I've contrasted the Wallace case with the Sam Sheppard one to point out that there are some strong similarities IMO, in both cases one could argue the accused was guilty and poorly staged a robbery/home invasion and in both cases there was blunt force trauma that is extremely consistent with domestic homicide.

The critical point you make is, that unlike the Sheppard murder which was almost certainly a spur of the moment crime, if Wallace was guilty it appears he PLANNED it. That probably lowers the commonality of blunt force trauma in this type of crime. And as you point out, it seems on the face of it a risky thing for Wallace to PLAN out.

My arguments would still be this: if Wallace was guilty, he clearly planned this murder carefully. Perhaps ailing with a couple years left to live, he wanted to devise "the perfect murder." Methods such as poisoning or strangulation would probably immediately arouse suspicion onto him (as well as being plebeian and simple.) Why not devise a "genius" plot, complete with a mysterious fictitious "Qualtrough", a hoax phone call, and try to divert suspicion onto the sticky-fingered lad that Wallace had seen flirting with his Missus. To make it look like a thief had committed the crime, posioning or strangulation wouldn't make sense. A high strung robber, panicking would have limited choices to attack. If he had a weapon, he could attack, but it would create noise Wallace couldn't afford to risk. The best bet for him would be blunt force trauma causing immediate death. This would be the most effective combination of instant death, a surprise attack, and no noise. Also, blunt force trauma is extremely common in domestic homicide because of the personal nature of it--the resentment that has built up over the years etc. Let's not understimate that angle of it.

Does this scenario seem far fetched that Wallace could have conceived and done all of this, and gotten rid of the weapon or somehow hid it in plain sight, avoided or cleaned blood splatter without using the drains by somehow using the macintosh or thru some other method and made his way on his journey? Somewhat, but I'd argue the other explanations are even less plausible.

For example, we both agree Parry would have to have been an idiot to go to Parkes and confess. But if we discount that, what evidence is there really linking him to the crime? He HAD an alibi for the night of the murder with 3 separate people. His clothes were examined down to the seams in his pants, underneath his fingernails etc. The police were satisfied and cleared him.

Even if we explain this away and somehow put him in the picture, what happened then? What weapon did he use? Did he bring one with him? If not, where did he get it? Unless we think he planned this murder and aimed to frame Wallace for it in a soap-opera esque evil mastermind plan, the murder must have happened in a spur of the moment rage at being denied money or a burst of fear at being caught stealing. What did he do, pick up a random bar lying around and bash her head in while still in a rage or panic? How come she was in a different room from the cash-box which was replaced, with her back to anyone else, seemingly attending to the fireplace?

And then finally, why was so little money taken? I can understand that perhaps if Parry had freaked out and bashed her head in, he might panic and want to get out of there, but apart from the money upstairs where the blood smear was (I concede it is debatable if the killer went upstairs), there was also the roll of pound notes, Julia's handbag, and jewelry on her body. None of that was taken. If the killer really was in a panic, you would expect a frenzy, yet the crime scene seems the work of someone calm, clear headed, and in control. There is no track of blood leading away from the parlor, no bloody footprints tracked out of the house, no sign of struggle.

Also the combination of the cash-box being replaced and Julia being in another room facing the fireplace implies to me that the killing did not happen due to an immediate "temper" or "caught in the act" moment.

I don't think any of this jibes with Parry being denied money, getting angry over it, and deciding to whack her (in which case he would have taken all of the other money/valuables there), nor with Parry being caught stealing and freaking out due to fear (in which case we would more likely see a frenzied scene or some sort of struggle etc.) The control of the scene also implied pre planning to me as does the macintosh. I think it is very likely the macintosh was used in an attempt to shield blood splatter.

Julia Wallace was an intended victim IMO.

Cui Bono?
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 PM.


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