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:
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by Elamarna 22 minutes ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by Abby Normal 27 minutes ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by GUT 28 minutes ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by Wickerman 33 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by Henry Flower 37 minutes ago.
Annie Chapman: Annie's scarf - by Sam Flynn 37 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - (46 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (31 posts)
Annie Chapman: Annie's scarf - (5 posts)
Non-Fiction: Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017) - (3 posts)
Witnesses: Israel Schwartz - new information - (2 posts)
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - (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
  #841  
Old 03-16-2017, 04:21 PM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 146
Default

Anyhow, I spent a pleasant afternoon with Antony (CCJ) today at a Liverpool Police station going through the Wallace file...
Some stuff "missing" (Parry's statement and those of his alibi witnesses), but we worked out where these must be (PRO, Kew, London). No earthshattering discoveries, but a couple of little points I'd not heard of before.
e.g. Florence Johnston saying in her statement that before she and her husband went out and encountered Wallace in the alley, she heard a knock at the back door of Number 29, and she knew it was Wallace, as it sounded just the way he always knocked.

On the way home I stopped off at my local library and took some snaps of the Liverpool "Kelly's" Directory, compiled in December 1930.

Front pages
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wqupi6mc8q...24.06.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9sg1tz96yo...24.30.jpg?dl=0

Qualtroughs
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4wbc9ivmx0...21.41.jpg?dl=0

Wallace
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wkj85w91rs...22.57.jpg?dl=0
Wolverton Street
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6gk9suma5c...31.52.jpg?dl=0

Menlove Gardens
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bdfujfdrti...25.30.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yyq4mqzaxr...39.47.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/t5oczidvek...33.09.jpg?dl=0

Mr. Parry Snr.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/msu5kt6v1l...41.12.jpg?dl=0
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #842  
Old 03-16-2017, 08:26 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
Anyhow, I spent a pleasant afternoon with Antony (CCJ) today at a Liverpool Police station going through the Wallace file...
Some stuff "missing" (Parry's statement and those of his alibi witnesses), but we worked out where these must be (PRO, Kew, London). No earthshattering discoveries, but a couple of little points I'd not heard of before.
e.g. Florence Johnston saying in her statement that before she and her husband went out and encountered Wallace in the alley, she heard a knock at the back door of Number 29, and she knew it was Wallace, as it sounded just the way he always knocked.

On the way home I stopped off at my local library and took some snaps of the Liverpool "Kelly's" Directory, compiled in December 1930.

Front pages
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wqupi6mc8q...24.06.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9sg1tz96yo...24.30.jpg?dl=0

Qualtroughs
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4wbc9ivmx0...21.41.jpg?dl=0

Wallace
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wkj85w91rs...22.57.jpg?dl=0
Wolverton Street
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6gk9suma5c...31.52.jpg?dl=0

Menlove Gardens
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bdfujfdrti...25.30.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yyq4mqzaxr...39.47.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/t5oczidvek...33.09.jpg?dl=0

Mr. Parry Snr.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/msu5kt6v1l...41.12.jpg?dl=0
Hi Rod, thanks for this. Great stuff here.

Would love to meet either 1 of you or anyone here for a pint. Give me a shout if you're ever in the states.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #843  
Old 03-17-2017, 02:57 AM
ColdCaseJury ColdCaseJury is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: England
Posts: 278
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
`What is interesting is that the evidence, such as it was, could support either the prosecution or the defence depending on how you chose to look at it.′
(P. D. James in The Murder Room, through character Conrad Ackroyd).
Which means that no one of sound mind could find beyond a reasonable doubt Wallace guilty. Of course, that is not the interesting question to me nor for Cold Case Jury. What most likely happened?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #844  
Old 03-17-2017, 04:02 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdCaseJury View Post
Which means that no one of sound mind could find beyond a reasonable doubt Wallace guilty. Of course, that is not the interesting question to me nor for Cold Case Jury. What most likely happened?
Alan Close killed Julia...he rằng again after his rounds when he saw Wallace leave. He was sick of never getting a tip.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #845  
Old 03-19-2017, 07:07 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 272
Default

A point about the phone call... it is has been suggested that Wallace wouldn't take the risk that Beattie would recognize his voice, or that someone would see him make the call....but you have to remember he has a "free shot" at it. We know what happened the following night, so we view the call as part of an unbroken, interconnected chain of events. However, if Wallace ran into anyone right outside the phone box, or if Beattie made a comment when he got to the club "That wasn't you having a laugh was it mate?" or something like that, he could easily scrap the plan.

That Beattie relayed the information without suspicion would be all the verification Wallace needed to know he was in the clear and go thru with the plan.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #846  
Old 03-20-2017, 01:32 AM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 146
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
A point about the phone call... it is has been suggested that Wallace wouldn't take the risk that Beattie would recognize his voice, or that someone would see him make the call....but you have to remember he has a "free shot" at it. We know what happened the following night, so we view the call as part of an unbroken, interconnected chain of events. However, if Wallace ran into anyone right outside the phone box, or if Beattie made a comment when he got to the club "That wasn't you having a laugh was it mate?" or something like that, he could easily scrap the plan.

That Beattie relayed the information without suspicion would be all the verification Wallace needed to know he was in the clear and go thru with the plan.
Perhaps, but that is assuming Beattie thought the call was entirely innocuous and had no reason to give it much thought.

Once the seriousness of the situation became apparent, and that the call was in fact a prelude to murder, how could Wallace know that, on reflection, Beattie would not wilt under intense interview and cross-examination, and concede that he could not be certain it was not Wallace?

I believe Beattie's unshakeability on the point was the single critical factor which saved Wallace's neck at the Court of Appeal.

But who in their right mind would risk all upon such an contingency?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #847  
Old 03-20-2017, 07:05 PM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 146
Default

Some medical information on Urinary Incontinence

http://www.aafp.org/afp/2013/0415/p543.html

"Stress... 24 to 45 percent in women older than 30 years... Loss of small amount of urine during physical activity or intra-abdominal pressure (coughing, sneezing, jumping, lifting, exercise); can occur with minimal activity, such as walking or rising from a chair

Urge... 31 percent in women older than 75 years... Bladder contractions may also be stimulated by a change in body position (i.e., from supine to upright) or with sensory stimulation (e.g., running water, hand washing, cold weather, arriving at the front door)"

What then were the chances of this elderly woman, already recovering from a cold, on this cold winter's night, rising from her chair, opening her front door, to receive an unexpected guest, then having an episode which necessitated her visiting the toilet, giving the guest - as he expected - his opportunity to steal from the cashbox?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #848  
Old 03-20-2017, 07:33 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
Some medical information on Urinary Incontinence

http://www.aafp.org/afp/2013/0415/p543.html

"Stress... 24 to 45 percent in women older than 30 years... Loss of small amount of urine during physical activity or intra-abdominal pressure (coughing, sneezing, jumping, lifting, exercise); can occur with minimal activity, such as walking or rising from a chair

Urge... 31 percent in women older than 75 years... Bladder contractions may also be stimulated by a change in body position (i.e., from supine to upright) or with sensory stimulation (e.g., running water, hand washing, cold weather, arriving at the front door)"

What then were the chances of this elderly woman, already recovering from a cold, on this cold winter's night, rising from her chair, opening her front door, to receive an unexpected guest, then having an episode which necessitated her visiting the toilet, giving the guest - as he expected - his opportunity to steal from the cashbox?
Rod,

If "Qualtrough" had his opportunity to steal from the cashbox and was then caught and had to kill Julia, why was she attacked with her back to her killer, seemingly having just lit the fire, and with no defensive wounds?

Furthermore, you asked how could Wallace count on various factors in planning the murder, do you think counting on Julia needing to use the bathroom was a surefire bet? It might be morbidly humorous to think so , but doubt someone would plan a robbery on that.

And where did the iron bar come from? If "Qualtrough" brought it in the house with him, then he must have been prepared to use it...it would be cumbersome and he would have to hide it at first to not alarm suspicion while judging if it needed to be used or not. This seems unlikely to me. If he found the weapon in the house and picked it up in a rage or desperation to silence Julia, then her positioning facing away from her attacker, and the lack of a struggle is even more baffling.

I think Julia Wallace was an intended murder victim.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #849  
Old 03-20-2017, 07:59 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
Perhaps, but that is assuming Beattie thought the call was entirely innocuous and had no reason to give it much thought.

Once the seriousness of the situation became apparent, and that the call was in fact a prelude to murder, how could Wallace know that, on reflection, Beattie would not wilt under intense interview and cross-examination, and concede that he could not be certain it was not Wallace?

I believe Beattie's unshakeability on the point was the single critical factor which saved Wallace's neck at the Court of Appeal.

But who in their right mind would risk all upon such an contingency?
Well the thing is if Wallace was in fact the killer, he would have had to come up with a clever plan. There would be no avoiding risk entirely.

I've seen it argued that whoever killed Julia, whether it was Wallace or it was someone else (not hired by Wallace)...that in either case, it was to the killer's advantage to kill Julia on the Monday night, when it was known Wallace would be at the club.

The argument goes that if the killer was someone else, if he was confident enough Wallace would be at the club to receive the message the Monday night, then why not rob/kill Julia that night?

And if the killer was Wallace himself, why not just kill Julia that night with the chess club as alibi? Obviously if Wallace was the killer, he couldn't really create a perfect alibi for himself, since as I've said before one can't "outpace reality". The risk he would have to take was there would be doubt--reasonable doubt as to the timing... there is no reason the argument goes that the fixed chess club time of 7:45 couldn't be used just as well as a 7:30 appointment the next night to meet Qualtrough?

So why go to all the trouble of the Qualtrough call business? Here is another thing that smacks of Wallace's guilt to me...I agree if the killer was NOT Wallace then there is no advantage to not trying to commit the robbery on the Monday night. A possible extra day of insurance takings doesn't seem to me to pass muster as a plausible reason, not when it would not be even known if Wallace would go the following night, and yet the caller if not Wallace had to be confident enough that Wallace was at the chess club on the Monday night to receive the message in the first place. (And as an aside I don't see how he could be outside of stalking Wallace, which seems implausible, which is another reason I think the caller was Wallace himself.)

However, if the caller/killer was Wallace, then it actually does make sense to me. Because, the Qualtrough business, at least in his mind, would created the reasonable doubt of another suspect. It also allowed him to have the 7:30 time across town at a strange address, and have a shot at strengthening his alibi (if he acted fast, soon after Alan Close came and could verify seeing Julia alive, which was expected a little after 6) and was seen around town at the tram stop at 6:30 or so...he'd have a much better reason for being out at that time.

If he commits the murder on the Monday night before the chess club, he doesn't have a reason to be out early for a 7:45 chess club, the address of which he was familiar. He would lose the "reasonable doubt" Close could possibly provide him by seeing Julia alive, shortly before Wallace would be seen by Liverpudlians out on his journey.

The fact that Close was late due to his bike malfunctioning does not change this as Close's arrival, whenever it is, is point A and point B is the time when Wallace is 1st seen at the tram stop. The difference between these two times is the critical aspect; nothing else.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #850  
Old 03-21-2017, 05:07 AM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 146
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
Rod,

If "Qualtrough" had his opportunity to steal from the cashbox and was then caught and had to kill Julia, why was she attacked with her back to her killer, seemingly having just lit the fire, and with no defensive wounds?

Furthermore, you asked how could Wallace count on various factors in planning the murder, do you think counting on Julia needing to use the bathroom was a surefire bet? It might be morbidly humorous to think so , but doubt someone would plan a robbery on that.

And where did the iron bar come from? If "Qualtrough" brought it in the house with him, then he must have been prepared to use it...it would be cumbersome and he would have to hide it at first to not alarm suspicion while judging if it needed to be used or not. This seems unlikely to me. If he found the weapon in the house and picked it up in a rage or desperation to silence Julia, then her positioning facing away from her attacker, and the lack of a struggle is even more baffling.

I think Julia Wallace was an intended murder victim.
The idea she was attacked while lighting the fire was put forward by Oliver KC. McFall, while conceding it was possible, had stated his own view that Julia was attacked while sitting on the chair to the left of the fireplace, and the evidence is more suggestive of that. There was no bloodstaining in the right corner of the room, near the window and chaise-longue, to the right of the fireplace, where the valve for the gas fire was. The bloodstains were mostly to the left of the fireplace, behind the left chair, with some between the door and the piano.

It becomes less doubtful if the visitor - or the planner of the crime - was an intimate acquaintance of the Wallaces, and had observed her frequent need to urinate on many previous occasions. Also, the visitor had a backup, if Julia didn't perform as expected. He could ask to use the toilet, giving him another opportunity to leave the parlour and effect a robbery in the middle kitchen. A commonplace ruse, found in many similar crimes.

The evidence is suggestive that a bar from the fireplace was used, and taken away by the killer, which if correct tends to indicate the killing was a spur of the moment thing.
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 01:29 PM.


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