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:
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by Observer 3 hours ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by Graham 3 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by Abby Normal 3 hours ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by NickB 3 hours ago.
Catherine Eddowes: "I think I know him" - by DJA 3 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by Abby Normal 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (16 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (7 posts)
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - (6 posts)
Audio -- Visual: Space Ripper - (3 posts)
Catherine Eddowes: "I think I know him" - (2 posts)
General Police Discussion: City of London Police residents of Mitre Square - (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
  #921  
Old 03-30-2017, 11:32 PM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 202
Default

Maybe I should have said "was" eminently solvable, if you were expecting an actual conviction. But I still think, as your namesake would say. "Once you eliminate the impossible whatever remains must be the truth". Even without a name, we can certainly detect a shape and a form to this crime and that in itself should bring us a little closer to a name.

Besides, I'm now on the case and all things are possible.

I started with a theory.
I had no idea whether the person or persons even existed.
I had no idea of their name(s), if they existed.
I had no idea where on the planet they might be, if they existed.
All I knew was that if they existed, they vanished over 80 years ago.

After cogitating the problem and much research, I picked up a phone and dialled a number in Tasmania.
And I was right first time...
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #922  
Old 03-30-2017, 11:43 PM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 202
Default

John G.

Yep. Murphy burst his balls cracking this Rosetta Stone, then claimed anyone could have seen the same in a flash, that Wallace was probably never going to turn up at all...

Ludicrously WRONG on so many levels.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #923  
Old 03-31-2017, 06:15 AM
ColdCaseJury ColdCaseJury is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: England
Posts: 278
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
I find it implausible that they waited and watched several weeks in a row, without abandoning the plan
If Monday 19 was the first stakeout, it seems improbably lucky, as you say. Yet, we're talking about short periods spread across a few Mondays at the most. Nevertheless, your point (I assume) is that the longer this went on, the more implausible it is.

I think the real-terms cash incentive that Parry believed was there during depression-hit Liverpool was possibly more than enough motivation. Yet, if my point about the Tournament Rules is noted, it might well be that Parry devised his plan over the Xmas when he believed Wallace had missed matches, and hence likely to come sometime in the new year. Hence, he stakes out Mon 5 and Mon 19. Speculation, of course, but so is Wallace washing himself down in the bath,for example. There is no evidence for either. These are narrative-building theories.

When the police took the photo of the noticeboard, a postcard of the pyramids was pinned over the 2nd class schedule! (Nothing probative in this, but quite amusing given the attention the schedule has generated since!)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #924  
Old 03-31-2017, 03:54 PM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdCaseJury View Post
When the police took the photo of the noticeboard, a postcard of the pyramids was pinned over the 2nd class schedule!
"So glad you got my message!
Wish you were here...
R.M. Qualtrough"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #925  
Old 03-31-2017, 04:04 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 374
Default

Extreme outlier scenario: Wallace and Parry are working together-- not to murder Julia but to stage a robbery of the insurance takings and split the profit. Julia is in on it. The money is not a significant amount split 2 ways, but it's enough to be worth it and the fact that the amount kept in the Walalce house at the time is not as high as it could be is to divert any suspicion away that it's an inside job. Alon with this, perhaps WHW is involved in other robberies with or without Parry. The Anfield housebreaker stopped after the killings--those who thought the Johnstone's guilty used this as evidence against them (they moved the day after the murder.)

Parry comes to stage the robbery with a bar, smacking things around, but something goes wrong...he's high strung, perhaps Julia catches him snooping around, trying to take something he shouldn't ---he whacks her over the head in panic without thinking.

Wallace knows Parry is guilty, but can't possibly tell the story..not only would he be implicated for robberies, but no one would believe it and think he must be guilty of murder, or at pleast plotting the murder. This makes sense of his diary entries etc as well fingering Parry. It explains the seeming "inside job" nature of this case too.

Do I think this is what happened? No, I doubt it. But you see how I can make a theory semi-consistent with the facts out of thin air? It doesn't make it true or even likely to be true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #926  
Old 04-01-2017, 04:32 AM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
Extreme outlier scenario: Wallace and Parry are working together-- not to murder Julia but to stage a robbery of the insurance takings and split the profit. Julia is in on it. The money is not a significant amount split 2 ways, but it's enough to be worth it and the fact that the amount kept in the Walalce house at the time is not as high as it could be is to divert any suspicion away that it's an inside job. Alon with this, perhaps WHW is involved in other robberies with or without Parry. The Anfield housebreaker stopped after the killings--those who thought the Johnstone's guilty used this as evidence against them (they moved the day after the murder.)

Parry comes to stage the robbery with a bar, smacking things around, but something goes wrong...he's high strung, perhaps Julia catches him snooping around, trying to take something he shouldn't ---he whacks her over the head in panic without thinking.

Wallace knows Parry is guilty, but can't possibly tell the story..not only would he be implicated for robberies, but no one would believe it and think he must be guilty of murder, or at pleast plotting the murder. This makes sense of his diary entries etc as well fingering Parry. It explains the seeming "inside job" nature of this case too.

Do I think this is what happened? No, I doubt it. But you see how I can make a theory semi-consistent with the facts out of thin air? It doesn't make it true or even likely to be true.
a) No evidence that Wallace needed money, or had accumulated his existing savings other than by thrift, not theft. Wallace has absolutely no criminal "form".
b) Why pick the worst-possible day, takings-wise, to run this one-time paltry scam? There's only about 100 each for them in today's money.
c) Why would Parry "kill-the-golden-goose"? Surely him and Wallace working together in continued criminal partnership would ensure a bright future?
d) Why use a phone-box that could cast suspicion on one or other of them?
e) Why concoct such a suspicious and complicated alibi for Wallace? The robbery could be arranged to occur while he was surrounded by a dozen witnesses at the chess club.
f) Why risk Parry being seen by neighbours entering/leaving the house if Julia is supposed to claim it was a stranger.
g) Why not just arrange for both Wallace and Julia to be out, and let the "Anfield Housebreaker" work his magic?
h) If Wallace and Julia are "in on it" why do they need Parry at all? They could just invent a phantom visitor/burglar and steal the takings themselves.
i) Parry still has an cast-iron alibi, and couldn't have killed Julia, in any case.
j) Wallace is charged with murder and his life is on the line. What has he got to lose by "fessing up" to the lesser charges and fingering Parry for the murder, if [ignoring his alibi] he actually did it?

I'm rather partial to Swiss Cheese, AS. Thanks!

Last edited by RodCrosby : 04-01-2017 at 04:45 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #927  
Old 04-01-2017, 05:00 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 374
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
a) No evidence that Wallace needed money, or had accumulated his existing savings other than by thrift, not theft. Wallace has absolutely no criminal "form".
b) Why pick the worst-possible day, takings-wise, to run this one-time paltry scam? There's only about 100 each for them in today's money.
c) Why would Parry "kill-the-golden-goose"? Surely him and Wallace working together in continued criminal partnership would ensure a bright future?
d) Why use a phone-box that could cast suspicion on one or other of them?
e) Why concoct such a suspicious and complicated alibi for Wallace? The robbery could be arranged to occur while he was surrounded by a dozen witnesses at the chess club.
f) Why risk Parry being seen by neighbours entering/leaving the house if Julia is supposed to claim it was a stranger.
g) Why not just arrange for both Wallace and Julia to be out, and let the "Anfield Housebreaker" work his magic?
h) If Wallace and Julia are "in on it" why do they need Parry at all? They could just invent a phantom visitor/burglar and steal the takings themselves.
i) Parry still has an cast-iron alibi, and couldn't have killed Julia, in any case.
j) Wallace is charged with murder and his life is on the line. What has he got to lose by "fessing up" to the lesser charges and fingering Parry for the murder, if [ignoring his alibi] he actually did it?

I'm rather partial to Swiss Cheese, AS. Thanks!
The point isn't that I think what I said is plausible. I wasnt seriously advancing is as a theory. I made that clear that that was the point., to show a theory can be consistent with the facts but be logically unsound. Just like yours.

Points E D and possibly B apply to your theory as well.Many other logical objections too. I still think Wallace was guilty. I prefer mozzarella anyhow

Last edited by AmericanSherlock : 04-01-2017 at 05:03 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #928  
Old 04-01-2017, 06:49 AM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 202
Default

Hi AS

b) doesn't apply, because an external robber can simply be unlucky. Wallace robbing himself wouldn't be unlucky, and since he knows there's next-to-nothing there on 20th January, why bother?
d) doesn't apply, if an external robber is forced to use that box, because he is watching and waiting nearby to see Wallace go off to the club, and knows he can not risk speaking to Wallace himself because he is known to Wallace. He has to be certain his message arrives before Wallace does, and that's the safest box from which to achieve that outcome. The negligible risk of being linked to the box is outweighed by the necessity of the external [known] robber to use it. Wallace robbing himself has no such constraints. The call can be made from any box, and Wallace can even receive the call at the chess club himself, pretending he has no idea who is calling.
e) doesn't apply, as an external robber has to maximise his available time by luring Wallace far away on a complicated wild-goose chase. The chess club is too close for comfort. Wallace robbing himself has no such constraint. He could fake a rendezvous at the chess club, and Julia could verify that the 'robber' was only in the house for a few minutes and achieved the robbery while she was unfortunately answering a call of nature, and was gone with the money before she pulled the chain...

You've yet to identify anything that is "logically unsound" with my theory.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #929  
Old 04-01-2017, 08:48 AM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
This board makes no sense to me whatsoever, and I used to play chess, albeit for fun!

I mean, what do all the numbers mean? In fact, if I was to hazard a guess I would say that Wallace played every week -because none of his numbers appear to have been struck through- with the exception of the 15th Dec, where there's an X, whilst conversely, Walsh missed three consecutive weeks from Nov 24 to Dec 15. However, I bet I'm wrong!

We also can't be sure that the perpetrator ever visited the cafe. For instance, the call was made from a phone box just 400 yards from where Wallace lived. It's not therefore a reasonable proposition that the perpetrator was stalking Wallace on that particular night, assuming the caller wasn't Wallace himself of course!

And if the caller was Parry, he possibly knew about the chess matches, and the days they were held, on account of his familiarity with the Wallace's.
Well, according to Professor Murphy, the renowned Egyptologist...

underlined take Black [the board helpfully says this]
The numbers refer to the relevant opponent scheduled for each match.
L and W and D indicate "Lost" or "Won" or "Draw", although sneakily these refer to the owner of the number next to which they appear, not the owner of the row in which they appear.
X means a "bye".
[what the possible strikeouts are is anyone's guess, and may just be artefacts of the image, or someone's slovenly pen]

Of course, he can have no idea with what diligence the board had been updated throughout the tournament [the photo was obviously only taken sometime after the murder], and 5th and 19th January results still seem unrecorded, suggesting that no-one was in any particular hurry to update the board. Had they ever been in any hurry?

Just as fatal for Murphy, the shown results are obviously only of completed matches, giving no indication of when they were actually played, or who was actually present in the club on any particular date. Anyone who has ever engaged in a shambolic, piffling tournament such as this one would recognise this as being all quite normal.

Taken literally, the board indicates Wallace had failed to show on the 19th. But of course that was nonsense. It was his scheduled opponent Chandler who failed to show, so Wallace played McCartney instead, and Wallace's match and presence in the club went unrecorded... [The outcome of the McCartney-Wallace match, originally scheduled for 24th Nov, is still not recorded by the time the photo was taken, which again suggests no-one was taking any of this remotely seriously. Who failed to turn up on the 24th Nov, btw? Wallace or McCartney? Both? Who can tell?]

Therefore Murphy's thesis that anyone looking at the board at any particular time would have any idea of anyone's likely future attendance - in particular, Wallace's - by correctly deducing their previous pattern of attendance goes up in smoke, accompanied by the sound of laughter...

Putting this nonsense to one side, and looking at the facts, we know Wallace was never away from the club for long. It was his major social outlet, and had been for years... [One author even goes as far to assert that Wallace had helped found the damn thing!]

Wallace states that the last time he saw Parry in the club was in November, which would be not long after the tournament schedule was posted on the board. He was actually crossing the room where the players, including Wallace, were seated at their boards.

"He wasn't playing chess.", noted Wallace, laconically - leaving us to ponder the real reason for his presence...

All Parry had to do was to note the eight dates of the scheduled matches, and watch and wait.

Last edited by RodCrosby : 04-01-2017 at 09:17 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #930  
Old 04-01-2017, 10:05 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 374
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
Hi AS

b) doesn't apply, because an external robber can simply be unlucky. Wallace robbing himself wouldn't be unlucky, and since he knows there's next-to-nothing there on 20th January, why bother?
d) doesn't apply, if an external robber is forced to use that box, because he is watching and waiting nearby to see Wallace go off to the club, and knows he can not risk speaking to Wallace himself because he is known to Wallace. He has to be certain his message arrives before Wallace does, and that's the safest box from which to achieve that outcome. The negligible risk of being linked to the box is outweighed by the necessity of the external [known] robber to use it. Wallace robbing himself has no such constraints. The call can be made from any box, and Wallace can even receive the call at the chess club himself, pretending he has no idea who is calling.
e) doesn't apply, as an external robber has to maximise his available time by luring Wallace far away on a complicated wild-goose chase. The chess club is too close for comfort. Wallace robbing himself has no such constraint. He could fake a rendezvous at the chess club, and Julia could verify that the 'robber' was only in the house for a few minutes and achieved the robbery while she was unfortunately answering a call of nature, and was gone with the money before she pulled the chain...

You've yet to identify anything that is "logically unsound" with my theory.
But in the case of b), Parry would be part of the plan and as an insurance agent who worked closely with Wallace in the past, he would know when the most profitable times were. As it was Wallace said Thursday was actually the day premiums were turned in, so a Wednesday night would have been even better...and anyway this week was not the peak time of the month. Something Parry would have known or could have easily found out about.

In d), this contradicts where you said that Qualtrough had to be someone unknown to JW, so he could claim to be Qualtrough to be let in. (shaky premise to begin with imo.) Because if it was someone working with Parry and unknown to JW, he would very likely also be unkown to WHW.

In e) the same argument can and has been made with respect to WHW being behind the murder; that if he was guilty, why didn't he murder her the Monday night? The answer is that the "Qualtrough" ruse naturally diverts suspicion away from him and onto an unknown mystery man.

I think WHW was guilty, but if I had to choose between Parry acting alone or with someone else, I would choose alone.
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 07:10 PM.


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