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 David Orsam 46 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by David Orsam 50 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by David Orsam 55 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by David Orsam 55 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by rjpalmer 2 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by rjpalmer 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (19 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Cecil Hotel, Richard Raminez, Jack Unterweger - (4 posts)
Annie Chapman: Can someone explain to me 'shabby gentile?' - (3 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (3 posts)
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - (2 posts)
General Police Discussion: City of London Police residents of Mitre Square - (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
  #1571  
Old 12-12-2017, 03:40 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,201
Default

Oh, so hes a very flexible troll then
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1572  
Old 12-12-2017, 03:50 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 374
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
“So we have from his boss that Wallace was a scrupulously honest, dedicated long-serving employee of the Prudential. Aside from any personal benefit that might accrue in the quest for Qualtrough, Wallace knew [or honestly believed] he was first and foremost on Prudential business. Such dedicated company man would naturally leave no stone unturned, out of his own sense of professionalism, and not least in case "Qualtrough" magically re-appeared the following day with a complaint that Wallace had not kept the appointment.”

He wouldn’t have course have thought it strange that a potential customer from a pretty affluent area should choose to contact him by telephone in a cafe? Would he not have thought, even for a few minutes ‘how would this bloke know that I attend a chess club here?’ Or ‘why didn’t he just send a letter to my house?’ Or ‘why especially me? Why didn’t he just contact the Pru at their office?’
Even dedicated company men who were always thought to be scrupulously honest have committed crimes.
As well as being dedicated he was also intelligent. A policeman says the place doesn’t exist, he goes home.
How could the Pru possibly criticise him? All he had to say was ‘I searched for ages and a policeman told me there was no such place.’
Simple really......and logical
This is an important point. Wallace could have been forgiven for not going AT ALL on the odd business. He made hundreds of calls on the very day of JW's murder, so this would be just another 1--perhaps more lucrative sounding than the others, but also much more suspicious. If I were in Wallace's shoes, I would assume it was a prank.

But not only does he decide to go, he doesn't at least check a directory, a map, anything! He just starts asking excitedly all over the place on his journey.

Here is a brief article James Murphy wrote last year for a magazine summarizing his position. There are some slight points of debate I would challenge him on, mainly the timing I think he is trying to extend to bolster his case, but in general the jist of what he has written is powerful.

It runs from pages 10-16.

In particular, it shows just how aberrant Wallace's behavior was on his journey; how out of character. It included details I did not know before.

https://casebookclassiccrime.files.w...er-sept-15.pdf

Even if you think Wallace innocent, it is not intellectually honest to disregard his behavior as not strange or very suspicious-- that is one of the hallmarks of what makes this such a celebrated case!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1573  
Old 12-12-2017, 03:53 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,201
Default

Oh hes gone, the pub car park beckons.

I can chuck this away then.



Night all
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1574  
Old 12-12-2017, 03:59 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
This is an important point. Wallace could have been forgiven for not going AT ALL on the odd business. He made hundreds of calls on the very day of JW's murder, so this would be just another 1--perhaps more lucrative sounding than the others, but also much more suspicious. If I were in Wallace's shoes, I would assume it was a prank.

But not only does he decide to go, he doesn't at least check a directory, a map, anything! He just starts asking excitedly all over the place on his journey.

Here is a brief article James Murphy wrote last year for a magazine summarizing his position. There are some slight points of debate I would challenge him on, mainly the timing I think he is trying to extend to bolster his case, but in general the jist of what he has written is powerful.

It runs from pages 10-16.

In particular, it shows just how aberrant Wallace's behavior was on his journey; how out of character. It included details I did not know before.

https://casebookclassiccrime.files.w...er-sept-15.pdf

Even if you think Wallace innocent, it is not intellectually honest to disregard his behavior as not strange or very suspicious-- that is one of the hallmarks of what makes this such a celebrated case!
If you are strange yourself then its perhaps understandable that you cant recognise strangeness in others

If you were say an accountant and somebody left a message at your local to go to their house the next night at 7.30, an address that no one has heard of, to conduct some accountancy business, what would most normal people do?

Cheers for the link AS Ill have a read in the morning
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1575  
Old 12-13-2017, 12:13 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,120
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
Repeating and adding to your falsehoods won't make them true.

Have you forgotten Dolly Atkinson? Or is she lying too about her own moral equivocation back in 1931? Why?

I am too clever to use the word "proof", and have never done so. So more inane lies.

This is like shooting some decidedly odd fish in a barrel.

Most satisfying and amusing.
Are you still winding me up with your nonsense. As I've explained to you before, Dolly Atkinson's own recollections were from half a century after the events in question question, therefore questionable. Not that she remembered very much anyway; just talked vaguely about "the blood."

And due to the interviewer's failure to ask pertinent questions, we have no idea how she first came across Parkes' story, who informed her, how accurately they may have retold the story or, indeed, when she found out.

And didn't Dolly Atkinson say that they would have come forward after the appeal, which is bizarre in itself considering the fact that they allowed Wallace to go through the trial and be condemned to death without giving evidence? Because that's different to what Parkes said: He reckons he came forward after the trial.

Anyway, getting back to basics, what does your "evidence" for an accomplice amount to? Not that you even have a clue who this accomplice was!

Oh, I know. Parkes' memory from half a century previously that he had some perception or notion that Parry and AN Other were intimidating him! And on this thin thread your theory depends.

And have you bothered to consider why Atkinson allegedly advised Parkes not to come forward immediately but only if Wallace was found guilty? Because on the face of it, it was a monstrous thing to elect to do, considering he was prepared to allow Wallace go through the trauma of a trial, be found guilty, and sentenced to death before coming forward. Could it be that he didn't really believe Parkes himself, or considered that he might have been the victim of a hoax?

Look, I'm sorry to have demolished your theory so completely, but now at least you'll be able to abandon this nonsense and utilize the free time to take up a more rewarding pastime, like fishing or dominions, for example.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1576  
Old 12-13-2017, 01:05 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,120
Red face

I simply don't buy into thime argument that Wallace was the meticulous sort, and therefore would have been expected to consult a map prior to the Qualtrough call. It simply echoes the police argument that Wallace was an evil criminal genius on the basis he was an average chess player.

Moreover, we should remember that Wallace was in two minds whether to even attend the appointment. Did he suspect a hoax? He opined to James Caird that Qualtrough is a funny name, "I've never heard of it. Have you?"

He also had every reason to believe that Menlove Gardens East was located on the Menlove Gardens Estate, which he clearly did know how to find. And as he said to Deyes, who came from Allerton, but wasn't familiar with the street name, "It's alright, I've got a tongue in my head, I csn enquire." Which, of course, is precisely what he did.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1577  
Old 12-13-2017, 06:00 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,575
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
Brine's house was "a stone's throw" by car, which is the relevant consideration.
The only relevant consideration here is your capacity for talking bollocks.

A stone's throw away by car??? How does that even work?

You are having a hat and scarf.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1578  
Old 12-13-2017, 07:06 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,575
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
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...
And yet this unskilled buffoon, who could mess up a very simple scam phone call, was supposedly trusted by Parry to commit the actual crime without mishap, which first relied on his ability to charm his way into an unknown woman's home under false pretences? Clearly he messed that one up royally, if the intent was a mere robbery with a 50/50 split, but ended up with a defenceless old dear needing to have her head caved in. No wonder Parry panicked when he found out what a total numbnuts he had chosen for the job.

Quote:
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.
So not so smart then. I suppose that fits with choosing Numbnuts T. to do the deed for him on the Tuesday.

Quote:
If Wallace believed in Qualtrough, Julia would too.
Not the point. Wallace would have believed in Qualtrough being where he said he'd be at 7.30, in which case Julia would have believed the same, and Mr Q would be the last person she'd expect to be knocking at her door. There could hardly have been an innocent mix-up with the arrangements by either party, given that Mr Q had included an address along with the time. And if it's true that Julia hated the insurance business and wanted no part in it, as one witness claimed, there'd have been even less reason to let in a total stranger while Wallace was out on a fruitless mission to find this same stranger at his own place! And of course there's no guarantee Wallace would have given his wife the details anyway. Did he always tell her the names of prospective new clients he went to see? Or just when they had an unusual surname?

Quote:
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.
I find that unlikely, given the nature of the message. Julia would assume Wallace was not best pleased to find no Mr Q at the given address, and would be even less amused to return home and find the idiot sitting there waiting for him.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1579  
Old 12-13-2017, 07:16 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
The only relevant consideration here is your capacity for talking bollocks.

A stone's throw away by car??? How does that even work?

You are having a hat and scarf.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1580  
Old 12-13-2017, 07:17 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,575
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
You need to study this case a little more before expounding on it, grasshopper.

OLIVER: Had you at that time considered the possibility of a man coming and giving the name Qualtrough to your wife ? Looking at it now, if someone did come and give the name of Qualtrough to your wife on that night, do you think she would have let him in ?
WALLACE: Seeing I had gone to meet a Mr. Qualtrough, I think she would, because she knew all about the business.

OLIVER: If she had let him in, where would she have taken him ?
WALLACE: Into the front room. There is no question about that.
Well he would say all that if he was the mysterious Qualtrough, wouldn't he? He'd hardly have observed that Julia would never have invited Mr Q in, or that she'd never have gone into the front room with him.

Love,

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


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 02:02 PM.


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