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:
Annie Chapman: Can someone explain to me 'shabby gentile?' - by ChrisGeorge 1 hour and 24 minutes ago.
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - by ChrisGeorge 2 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by caz 2 hours ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: Cecil Hotel, Richard Raminez, Jack Unterweger - by Abby Normal 2 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by caz 3 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by Mike J. G. 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (14 posts)
Bury, W.H.: Mock trial for Bury Feb 3 - (11 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (9 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: RE : Joseph Issacs - (7 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Cecil Hotel, Richard Raminez, Jack Unterweger - (3 posts)
Annie Chapman: Can someone explain to me 'shabby gentile?' - (3 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
  #601  
Old 12-08-2016, 07:16 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,568
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Penny_Dredfull View Post
Caz- I was explaining how Dr. McFall arrived at his estimate of time of death being 6 pm. he stuck to that at trial even when pressed under cross-examination to explain how that could be when Mrs. Wallace was last seen alive by the milk boy at 6:45 pm. Dr. Pierce put time of death at 8pm- ie four hours before her last meal which he estimated to be 6:00 pm based on her stomach contents and Wallace's account.
I'm sorry, Penny, but your timings above simply don't add up or make any sense. I was referring to your claim that the semi-digested food indicated that death took place 0-2 hours after it was eaten (which implies any time between 6 and 8), and wondered why you plumped for the latest possible time of around 8pm, without even mentioning McFall or Pierce as sources. I also assume you meant to write above that Pierce put her death after her last meal, not before. But 8pm isn't four hours after 6pm in any case. That's pretty "Dredfull" arithmetic.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #602  
Old 12-08-2016, 08:13 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,568
Default

Hi All,

One more thought for now...

What was Julia doing in the parlour if Wallace killed her there? Well one could look at it either way. With no evidence of a forced entry, it is assumed she knew her killer and had no qualms about him being in the house. That would apply equally to her husband or a trusted visitor. If it was the latter it makes sense that she would receive him in the parlour, as other guests were received. But of course, if Wallace was trying to plan the perfect murder, he had to make it look like the work of a visitor who would be invited in by Julia - hence the parlour it was.

Knowing that Parry was not only a "plausible" fellow who had a dodgy record with money, but also that he had visited the Wallaces on a number of occasions and would be let in by Julia, and - best of all - had watched as Wallace took the cash box and placed the collected insurance premiums inside, he would make a most convenient scapegoat. Almost too convenient for comfort. Might that not explain why only the cash box money was missing? Was Wallace concentrating a bit too hard on incriminating Parry? Assuming the Wallaces didn't count too many petty crooks and dodgy characters among their friends and associates, he'd have been a bit stuck for alternative ways to lay the blame elsewhere. I would add that I find it a trifle odd that a meticulous chap like Wallace (who instructed Julia to bolt the door or gate behind him) allowed the "plausible" Parry to see where the cash was stashed, putting temptation right in front of him and putting his wife in potential danger on evenings when Wallace left her home alone.

Having said all that, there was still not enough evidence to put Wallace in that parlour when the blows were struck. And that is surely why he didn't hang in the end, and should not have been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. What do they say in such circumstances? "We are not looking for anyone else in connection with this offence." That sums it up for me, because there is even less evidence against Parry or A.N.Other.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 12-08-2016 at 08:24 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #603  
Old 12-08-2016, 09:11 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,120
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by louisa View Post
In order to get the tram at St. Margaret's Church Wallace would have had to have left home at 6.49pm at the latest. That would have given him 4 minutes in which to commit the murder, clean up, bolt the doors etc.

I haven't made up my mind yet whether it was Wallace or Parry who killed Julia but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence which points to Parry. He was fond of making prank phone calls wasn't he?

Motive for either party - well that's something we may never know.

Wallace - if indeed he was the culprit - may have taken great pleasure in working out his plan to the finest detail, possibly long before he carried it out.

He was familiar with the route to the tram stop and may have already selected a hiding place for the iron bar to be disposed of. Maybe he had seen a suitably deep crevice in somebody's front garden by an old wall or something. All he would need to do is drop it into the hole, push the soil over it with his foot and maybe put a bin on top. He had probably rinsed the weapon before he left home and concealed it up his sleeve.


A couple of small points.....why would the murderer have extinguished the gas lights in the parlour before he made his escape? And presumably he turned off the gas fire as well because there is no mention of it being on when Wallace (or the Johnstons) first went into the parlour.

The gas fire must have been lit when the murderer was present because the mackintosh got burned and so did Julia's skirt.

And why did Wallace light the right hand lamp instead of the left? He would have had to step over Julia's body - surely?
Yes, and I also believe that he would need a significant amount of time to recover from his exertions, considering his poor health and the fact that the assault on Julia was frenzied and sustained.

Regarding the murder weapon, it's difficult to see how he could have rinsed it so thoroughly in the time available, especially as it would have been heavily blood stained. And, if he didn't, there would have been blood evidence on his clothing, which would have been noticed during the police inspection.

I think he would have been extremely fortunate to have found a deep crevice. And where would the soil come from? There would have to be a considerable amount for it to have sufficiently concealed the weapon to the extent it was never found. Wouldn't he have then needed a spade? Even if he pushed the soil over with his shoes, wouldn't they have been heavily soiled? Wouldn't this have taken a considerable amount of time? Wouldn't he have drawn attention to himself?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #604  
Old 12-08-2016, 09:22 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,120
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Hi All,

One more thought for now...

What was Julia doing in the parlour if Wallace killed her there? Well one could look at it either way. With no evidence of a forced entry, it is assumed she knew her killer and had no qualms about him being in the house. That would apply equally to her husband or a trusted visitor. If it was the latter it makes sense that she would receive him in the parlour, as other guests were received. But of course, if Wallace was trying to plan the perfect murder, he had to make it look like the work of a visitor who would be invited in by Julia - hence the parlour it was.

Knowing that Parry was not only a "plausible" fellow who had a dodgy record with money, but also that he had visited the Wallaces on a number of occasions and would be let in by Julia, and - best of all - had watched as Wallace took the cash box and placed the collected insurance premiums inside, he would make a most convenient scapegoat. Almost too convenient for comfort. Might that not explain why only the cash box money was missing? Was Wallace concentrating a bit too hard on incriminating Parry? Assuming the Wallaces didn't count too many petty crooks and dodgy characters among their friends and associates, he'd have been a bit stuck for alternative ways to lay the blame elsewhere. I would add that I find it a trifle odd that a meticulous chap like Wallace (who instructed Julia to bolt the door or gate behind him) allowed the "plausible" Parry to see where the cash was stashed, putting temptation right in front of him and putting his wife in potential danger on evenings when Wallace left her home alone.

Having said all that, there was still not enough evidence to put Wallace in that parlour when the blows were struck. And that is surely why he didn't hang in the end, and should not have been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. What do they say in such circumstances? "We are not looking for anyone else in connection with this offence." That sums it up for me, because there is even less evidence against Parry or A.N.Other.

Love,

Caz
X
Hi Caz,

I still maintain that Wallace is the least likely suspect. In fact, all the evidence points to the fact that it would have been physically and scientifically impossible for him to have committed the crime.

Moreover, I find it absolutely bizarre that he was ever charged at all. The police had no motive, no confession, no forensic evidence, no witnesses, and not even a murder weapon. In other words they had nada. Frankly, the police conduct throughout this inquiry leaves a lot to be desired-they made their mind up very early on that Wallace was responsible and this clearly effected their judgement and objectivity.

Parry knew where the insurance money was kept, because during a time when William was ill-he had frequent periods of illness-he took over part of his insurance round. He would then call at the Wallaces' to pay in the takings and William would then deposit them in the cash box at the top of the bookcase.

I think overall Parry makes a far better suspect. He had a long criminal record, his alibi for the Qualtrough call is shaky-he also had an interest in amateur dramatics and, according to Parkes, had a reputation for making hoax calls from the garage phone- and he is deeply implicated by the evidence of John Parkes.

Last edited by John G : 12-08-2016 at 09:42 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #605  
Old 12-08-2016, 11:24 AM
Penhalion Penhalion is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: South Suburbs of Chicago
Posts: 154
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Penny_Dredfull View Post
Penhalion- It's not exact, as I said. But estimating time of death by milk boy isn't so reliable either.
False equivalency. The food isn't saying anything it simply is there and it is up to us to use it's presence and degree of digestion for our purposes. The quote I posted explains in detail why using stomach contents/degree of digestion is not reliable for determining time of death especially in this case where a few minutes either way makes or breaks the case.

If both the stomach contents and the milk boy are flawed as witnesses to Julia's last minutes, then why are you using one but dismiss the other?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #606  
Old 12-08-2016, 12:13 PM
louisa louisa is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 987
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Yes, and I also believe that he would need a significant amount of time to recover from his exertions, considering his poor health and the fact that the assault on Julia was frenzied and sustained.

Regarding the murder weapon, it's difficult to see how he could have rinsed it so thoroughly in the time available, especially as it would have been heavily blood stained. And, if he didn't, there would have been blood evidence on his clothing, which would have been noticed during the police inspection.

I think he would have been extremely fortunate to have found a deep crevice. And where would the soil come from? There would have to be a considerable amount for it to have sufficiently concealed the weapon to the extent it was never found. Wouldn't he have then needed a spade? Even if he pushed the soil over with his shoes, wouldn't they have been heavily soiled? Wouldn't this have taken a considerable amount of time? Wouldn't he have drawn attention to himself?
The 'doing away with Julia' idea may have just started as a tiny thought in his mind as he plodded his way around Clubmoor in all weathers. A pleasant thought that grew and grew, and he added more and more details of how it could be achieved and how he could make it foolproof, until one day his plan grew legs (so to speak) and had a life of it's own. It became irresistible. A compulsion. He knew he could commit the perfect crime.

We don't know what he saw on his rounds regarding crevices and holes. Maybe he spotted something that he thought would make a wonderfully suitable place to conceal an iron bar. Who knows? On the night of the murder it would have been dark and he could have planned to drop the bar and cover it. We'll never know. The blood would be fairly easy to wash off when it was new and still in it's liquid form.

I'm still not saying that I am 100% convinced he did it though! Just a theory.
__________________
This is simply my opinion
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #607  
Old 12-08-2016, 08:17 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 373
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Hi All,

One more thought for now...

What was Julia doing in the parlour if Wallace killed her there? Well one could look at it either way. With no evidence of a forced entry, it is assumed she knew her killer and had no qualms about him being in the house. That would apply equally to her husband or a trusted visitor. If it was the latter it makes sense that she would receive him in the parlour, as other guests were received. But of course, if Wallace was trying to plan the perfect murder, he had to make it look like the work of a visitor who would be invited in by Julia - hence the parlour it was.

Knowing that Parry was not only a "plausible" fellow who had a dodgy record with money, but also that he had visited the Wallaces on a number of occasions and would be let in by Julia, and - best of all - had watched as Wallace took the cash box and placed the collected insurance premiums inside, he would make a most convenient scapegoat. Almost too convenient for comfort. Might that not explain why only the cash box money was missing? Was Wallace concentrating a bit too hard on incriminating Parry? Assuming the Wallaces didn't count too many petty crooks and dodgy characters among their friends and associates, he'd have been a bit stuck for alternative ways to lay the blame elsewhere. I would add that I find it a trifle odd that a meticulous chap like Wallace (who instructed Julia to bolt the door or gate behind him) allowed the "plausible" Parry to see where the cash was stashed, putting temptation right in front of him and putting his wife in potential danger on evenings when Wallace left her home alone.

Having said all that, there was still not enough evidence to put Wallace in that parlour when the blows were struck. And that is surely why he didn't hang in the end, and should not have been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. What do they say in such circumstances? "We are not looking for anyone else in connection with this offence." That sums it up for me, because there is even less evidence against Parry or A.N.Other.

Love,

Caz
X
That's right, Caz. The case was not proved against Wallace IMO, and the court was right to oveturn the verdict. But, I think he was very likely guilty. There was certainly less evidence against anyone else, including Parry.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #608  
Old 12-08-2016, 11:50 PM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,120
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by louisa View Post
The 'doing away with Julia' idea may have just started as a tiny thought in his mind as he plodded his way around Clubmoor in all weathers. A pleasant thought that grew and grew, and he added more and more details of how it could be achieved and how he could make it foolproof, until one day his plan grew legs (so to speak) and had a life of it's own. It became irresistible. A compulsion. He knew he could commit the perfect crime.

We don't know what he saw on his rounds regarding crevices and holes. Maybe he spotted something that he thought would make a wonderfully suitable place to conceal an iron bar. Who knows? On the night of the murder it would have been dark and he could have planned to drop the bar and cover it. We'll never know. The blood would be fairly easy to wash off when it was new and still in it's liquid form.

I'm still not saying that I am 100% convinced he did it though! Just a theory.
The difficulty is that Julia was the victim of an extremely violent and sustained attack. The murder weapon must therefore have been covered in both blood and gore, which would have taken a significant period of time to thoroughly wash off. And then we're back to the problem that not even microscopic traces were found in the sink or drains.

The police also thoroughly searched the locality and, of course, the locals would have been aware of what had happened. With. The ridiculously limited amount of time Wallace had available-almost certainly too little time to be guilty anyway-he wouldn't have been able to thoroughly hide the weapon. Therefore, anyone who subsequently discovers it is surely going to hand it in to the police.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #609  
Old 12-09-2016, 05:02 AM
louisa louisa is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 987
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
The difficulty is that Julia was the victim of an extremely violent and sustained attack. The murder weapon must therefore have been covered in both blood and gore, which would have taken a significant period of time to thoroughly wash off. And then we're back to the problem that not even microscopic traces were found in the sink or drains.

The police also thoroughly searched the locality and, of course, the locals would have been aware of what had happened. With. The ridiculously limited amount of time Wallace had available-almost certainly too little time to be guilty anyway-he wouldn't have been able to thoroughly hide the weapon. Therefore, anyone who subsequently discovers it is surely going to hand it in to the police.
I disagree that it would have taken considerable time to wash an iron bar of blood under running water. The blood would have been fresh after all. If he had kept the water running then all residue of blood would have been down the drains and into the sewers.

It may be possible to detect a tiny speck of blood in these circumstances these days but this was back in 1931.

As for hiding it - whoever hid the weapon did a good job. Or maybe builders found it and thought it wasn't significant. It could have simply been part of a load picked up by a JCB when an area of land was being redeveloped.
__________________
This is simply my opinion
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #610  
Old 12-11-2016, 11:22 AM
Penny_Dredfull Penny_Dredfull is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 90
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
I'm sorry, Penny, but your timings above simply don't add up or make any sense. I was referring to your claim that the semi-digested food indicated that death took place 0-2 hours after it was eaten (which implies any time between 6 and 8), and wondered why you plumped for the latest possible time of around 8pm, without even mentioning McFall or Pierce as sources. I also assume you meant to write above that Pierce put her death after her last meal, not before. But 8pm isn't four hours after 6pm in any case. That's pretty "Dredfull" arithmetic.

Love,

Caz
X
Caz- As I've explained before, I'm only putting forward the opinions of Drs McFall and Pierce- NOT as MY opinion, but merely as evidence. We can agree or disagree with them, but that is the evidence we have to work with in this case.

Having said that- consult any textbook on forensic science as relates to establishing time of death and you will see that gastric contents which are still recognizable and are undigested indicate a time of death 0-2 hours after consumption. As Mrs Wallace's gastric contents conform to this, I can estimate that she died not long after consuming her last meal of tea and scones. That's all I can say about that.
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 12:05 PM.


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