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 Police Discussion: The single source question - by Elamarna 14 minutes ago.
General Police Discussion: The single source question - by Pierre 36 minutes ago.
General Police Discussion: The single source question - by Elamarna 45 minutes ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by PaulB 57 minutes ago.
General Police Discussion: The single source question - by Pierre 59 minutes ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by Elamarna 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - (40 posts)
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - (8 posts)
General Police Discussion: The single source question - (4 posts)
General Victim Discussion: What does this picture remind you of? - (2 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (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
  #1191  
Old 07-23-2017, 12:16 AM
John G John G is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,987
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
A thought about the caller mentioning the "21st birthday". The fact that Parry not only was of that age range, but was securing a birthday party that night, and mentioned it in his statement 2 nights later seems highly suspicious. I strongly suspect Wallce himself, but this is a problem I concede. The best I could come up with besides coincidence and a girl's 21st being a common type of policy is Wallace trying to frame Parry, but this is admittedly a stretch.

However, I can see from earlier on this thread, Antony mentioned there was in fact a Qualtrough whose daughter had a 20th birthday on January 19 1931, the night of the call. This is a VERY strong coincidence to me, stronger than the fact that Parry mentioned getting an invitation to a 21st birthday. Unless Parry knew this Qualtrough's daughter being of roughly the same age (I wonder if that was looked into), I don't think it points more one way or the other to Wallace or Parry. I think it could be argued if Wallace came up with the Qualtrough hoax and wanted to mimic a hoax, he might study the man a bit and come up with the idea of the hoax upon finding out his daughter had a birthday that night. Was there a directory at that time or a census one could look into if one was so inclined? Anyway, 20th might be misheard as 21st. Or perhaps the caller just changed it to the more milestone sounding 21st. Not that the caller could ever hope to implicate Qualtrough himself, but it would be a good part of the plot to mimic a hoaxer who was using personal info from someone he knew named Qualtrough.

Like most parts of the case, this could be seen in 2 opposite ways.

Does this make the coincidental possibility of Parry not being the caller but mentioning securing a 21st birthday that night in his police statement, and the fact that "Qualtrough" also mentioned it more plausible in your eyes?
I think this is a bit of a red herring. As far as I'm aware neither Parry or Wallace were acquainted with this Qualtrough. Moreover, I don't see our "twentieth " could be misheard for "twenty-first" as they sound fundamentally different.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1192  
Old 07-23-2017, 12:53 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is online now
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 275
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
I think this is a bit of a red herring. As far as I'm aware neither Parry or Wallace were acquainted with this Qualtrough. Moreover, I don't see our "twentieth " could be misheard for "twenty-first" as they sound fundamentally different.
Do you think that then the fact the caller mentioned 21st points strongly to Parry as the caller?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1193  
Old 07-23-2017, 02:20 AM
John G John G is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,987
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
Do you think that then the fact the caller mentioned 21st points strongly to Parry as the caller?
I would say only modestly. Thus, as far as I'm aware there's no proven link between Parry and anyone called Qualtrough, which would be much more damning. And the fact that Parry had been invited to a twenty-First birthday may simply be coincidental.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1194  
Old 07-23-2017, 02:36 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is online now
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 275
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
I would say only modestly. Thus, as far as I'm aware there's no proven link between Parry and anyone called Qualtrough, which would be much more damning. And the fact that Parry had been invited to a twenty-First birthday may simply be coincidental.

A small point in favor of WHW being the caller in my view: If WHW was the caller, he had no choice but to call exactly when the call came thru (Leaving at 7:15 for the chess club)

If someone else was, he could have called at any time, unless of course he stalked Wallace.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1195  
Old 07-23-2017, 04:21 AM
ColdCaseJury ColdCaseJury is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: England
Posts: 278
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
A small point in favor of WHW being the caller in my view: If WHW was the caller, he had no choice but to call exactly when the call came thru (Leaving at 7:15 for the chess club)

If someone else was, he could have called at any time, unless of course he stalked Wallace.
I would say these cancel out: Parry saw Wallace leave (walked or hopped in his car) and went to the call box. Wallace walked to call box. It was a 3'50" walk from No. 29, but nothing hinges on this fact.

Perhaps the choice of phone box is more significant. Wallace could choose from any call box in central Liverpool (near to the tram stop). Calling from North John Street might have been risky - chance he is seen by a fellow chess player. By the same logic, the Anfield kiosk is even more riskier - seen by someone locally who knows him. Moore said it was the location of the call box that was the decisive factor in arresting Wallace.

Parry could possibly have other choices of call box too. But he was headed to Lily Lloyd's where he turned up around 7:30pm. So, given this fact, he used a phone box near to Wallace's home and en route to Lloyd's. Anfield 1631 ticks all the boxes.

This is not a decisive factor. I do suggest the 21st birthday is a modest pointer in believing Parry more likely made the call, however. In fact, I list 5 for Parry and 4 for Wallace.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1196  
Old 07-23-2017, 09:10 AM
John G John G is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,987
Default

If the caller wasn't Wallace they had limited opportunities for arranging the bogus meeting. They could contact his employer, however, both Marsden and Parry had worked for the Prudential so their voices might be recognized. Moreover, how frequently did Wallace check in with the main office, considering that he was essentially a door-to-door salesman?

The chess club was the only other viable option, but this also presented problems. Thus, phone too early and the perpetrator risked the message being forgotten, or misremembered, thereby not being effectively passed on. Furthermore, Wallace wasn't a reliable attendee, therefore it would make sense for them to observe him on the night of the match, otherwise their was the obvious possibility that Wallace wouldn't receive the message.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1197  
Old 07-23-2017, 03:46 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is online now
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 275
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdCaseJury View Post
I would say these cancel out: Parry saw Wallace leave (walked or hopped in his car) and went to the call box. Wallace walked to call box. It was a 3'50" walk from No. 29, but nothing hinges on this fact.

Perhaps the choice of phone box is more significant. Wallace could choose from any call box in central Liverpool (near to the tram stop). Calling from North John Street might have been risky - chance he is seen by a fellow chess player. By the same logic, the Anfield kiosk is even more riskier - seen by someone locally who knows him. Moore said it was the location of the call box that was the decisive factor in arresting Wallace.

Parry could possibly have other choices of call box too. But he was headed to Lily Lloyd's where he turned up around 7:30pm. So, given this fact, he used a phone box near to Wallace's home and en route to Lloyd's. Anfield 1631 ticks all the boxes.

This is not a decisive factor. I do suggest the 21st birthday is a modest pointer in believing Parry more likely made the call, however. In fact, I list 5 for Parry and 4 for Wallace.
Yes I agree with you, the location of the call box seems more critical than the timing upon reflection.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1198  
Old 07-23-2017, 10:55 PM
John G John G is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,987
Default

Regarding the Qualtrough call. I've just been looking at CCJ's book, and mention is made of three factors which I think point to Parry having made the call. Firstly, he was a member of an amateur dramatics society, so disguising his voice shouldn't have been a problem. Secondly, the amdram society met in the same cafe as the chess club this giving Parry an ideal opportunity to check the dates when Wallace was down to play. Thirdly, as has been discussed before, he lied about his whereabouts at the time of the call, claiming he'd been with his girlfriend between 5:30 and 8:30, when he actually arrived at 7:35, minutes after the call had been made.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1199  
Old 07-24-2017, 12:04 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is online now
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 275
Default

The problem for me is it seems it would take someone to go out of their way to stalk Wallace, wait for him to leave, and then call. Had the person tried this ruse before? It seems not because the chess club never received a prior call...but if not, the caller got lucky since the one and only night he called was the night Wallace showed up to the club, received the message, and fell for the trap hook, line, and sinker. Keep in mind Wallace has missed the last few meetings...

Perhaps the caller had tried the watching and stalking before and Wallace had not left home so he did not call the chess club? But then this would imply a lengthy and complicated plot. If it was for a prank, it seems too convoluted. If it was truly to engage in a criminal enterprise, it seems too unreliable.

One theory could be that Parry killing time before visiting Lily (she said in her statement he came during a music lesson she was giving which was sacrilege, perhaps he wasnt due until 8 and bored) happened to see Wallace leave by chance and decided to prank the old codger who he harbored a minor grudge towards. He figured WHW must be headed to the chess club he's seen the postings of and has a laugh while diddling the phone to try to get his money back.

It is only some time later, perhaps that night, perhaps even on the 20th that he realizes it is a good opportunity to hit up Julia for cash or try to rob her. A twist on the PD James theory with the "pranker" as guilty, but perhaps he didn't plan it out like that to even be a robbery, let alone a murder. This might explain why parts of the theory don't make sense to us.

Of course, the problem is Parry's alibi the following night. I guess this is where the theory of an accomplice comes in. But then that implies a lengthy pre planned plot, which I again find hard to wrap my brain around for aforementioned reasons. And If the call really was a spur of the moment thing, then I doubt Parry could find a willing accomplice to do the dirty work in such short notice.

Last edited by AmericanSherlock : 07-24-2017 at 12:25 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1200  
Old 07-24-2017, 04:26 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 725
Default

AS,

To me the logical conclusion of your ponderings is that a Parry prank call was followed by an unconnected visitor.

When I suggested this before you said that would be too much of a co-incidence. But if it wasn’t Wallace, does there need to be a causal link between the phone call and the murder?

I think the trouble is we want there to be a causal link because it makes the case far more interesting.
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 01:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.