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:
Mary Jane Kelly: Mary Kellys Inquest - by John Savage 26 minutes ago.
General Discussion: Mug Shots from 1908-1911 - by Simon Wood 37 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Herlock Sholmes 57 minutes ago.
General Discussion: Mug Shots from 1908-1911 - by richardh 1 hour and 4 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Elamarna 2 hours ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by Darryl Kenyon 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - (25 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (5 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Mary Kellys Inquest - (5 posts)
Rippercast: Colin Wilson: Jack the Ripper Conference in Ipswich, 1996 - (3 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: What EAR/ONS teaches us about JtR - (2 posts)
General Discussion: Mug Shots from 1908-1911 - (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
  #511  
Old 11-28-2016, 12:26 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Daniels View Post
If Wallace acted alone -

Then how did Wallace disguise voice sufficiently when calling someone who knew him very well for 8 years?

And how on earth did he murder, stage a robbery, and clean up in 10 minutes max, then casually stroll off to the tram?
These are all very good points, to which I would add: what did he do with the murder weapon, which was not found despite an extensive search? Why was there no forensic evidence? Why did he murder his wife in such an inefficient manner when he could have simply have strangled or suffocated her?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #512  
Old 11-28-2016, 12:41 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 604
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Daniels View Post
If Wallace acted alone -

Then how did Wallace disguise voice sufficiently when calling someone who knew him very well for 8 years?

And how on earth did he murder, stage a robbery, and clean up in 10 minutes max, then casually stroll off to the tram?
You suggested it could have been someone else from the chess club. That would apply to them too. I think he could have done it. The operators said it sounded like an older gentleman.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #513  
Old 11-28-2016, 12:42 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by louisa View Post
Even back in those days?

Yes I can see some flaws in my theory. I'll have to go back to the drawing board.
.
Yes, I was surprised by the accuracy of the forensic testing. The information is from CCJ's book; the test carried out was the Benzidine test, which was applied to the bathroom, back kitchen and drains (Brown, 2016.)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #514  
Old 11-28-2016, 12:44 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 604
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
These are all very good points, to which I would add: what did he do with the murder weapon, which was not found despite an extensive search? Why was there no forensic evidence? Why did he murder his wife in such an inefficient manner when he could have simply have strangled or suffocated her?
I believe it was the bar found later on. there was no DNA back then. This case really comes down to whether you think he could have avoided blood splatter. I think so, clearly you think not. "Inefficient manner" is the way that would make sense if he was staging a robbery.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #515  
Old 11-28-2016, 01:04 AM
Charles Daniels Charles Daniels is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 73
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
You suggested it could have been someone else from the chess club. That would apply to them too.
yes! That little line of thinking was very quickly and effectively squashed.

I think any long standing acquaintance of the person who answered the call could be eliminated from the suspect list of who made the call.

Unless we want to leap to extreme realms, and look into the idea that the person who answered the phone was in on some conspiracy.

Quote:
I think he could have done it. The operators said it sounded like an older gentleman.
Well there would obviously be quite a few older gentlemen in Liverpool at the time. And there may even be younger gentlemen who had experience at acting who could put on a very good older gentleman character voice.

The operators saying it sounded like an older gentleman, doesn't compel me as much as a person who would have recognised a specific voice of someone they knew.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #516  
Old 11-28-2016, 05:58 AM
louisa louisa is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 987
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Daniels View Post

The operators saying it sounded like an older gentleman, doesn't compel me as much as a person who would have recognised a specific voice of someone they knew.
I can't remember the ages of the telephone girls but if they were in their teens or twenties they may have regarded anyone over the age of 40 as 'older'.

On another point - I can't help wondering what would have happened if somebody in the chess club had piped up with "I know that area and there definitely is no Menlove Gardens East".
.
__________________
This is simply my opinion
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #517  
Old 11-28-2016, 12:08 PM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
I believe it was the bar found later on. there was no DNA back then. This case really comes down to whether you think he could have avoided blood splatter. I think so, clearly you think not. "Inefficient manner" is the way that would make sense if he was staging a robbery.
I think this has been discussed before. I assume you are referring to a bar that was allegedly discovered in the fireplace by a subsequent occupier. However, this appears to be little more than hearsay evidence that was referred to in just one book on the subject. Moreover, the police took the fireplace away for examination, so they'd have to be pretty incompetent to have missed the bar (and it would surely have rattled as soon as they picked the fireplace up). In fact, it wasn't even a bar that was missing, but a piece of iron about a foot long.

I think it's pretty much untenable to argue that Wallace wouldn't have got blood on his person considering the ferocity of the attack. In fact, there was even blood on the furniture and on the walls it reached seven foot in height.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #518  
Old 11-28-2016, 01:07 PM
louisa louisa is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 987
Default

Are we to assume that the killer went to the house with the intention of battering Julia to death? Pre-meditated?

If we presume that to be the case then it stands to reason the killer would have brought along an implement to do the job and not relied on something he hoped to pick up in the house. And, of course, he would have taken it with him when he left.

Wallace had a laboratory and if he had wanted to do away with his wife he may have been able to poison her slowly. She was ill anyway so her death would not have alerted anyone's suspicions.

I think you'd have to be of a vicious disposition to pre-mediate killing somebody by bashing their head in over and over again. That doesn't fit the profile of Wallace, not in the books I've read anyway.

If it had been Wallace who killed his wife then it would have had to be a spur of the moment, pent up anger rage. In which case the pre-arranged alibi wouldn't make any sense at all.
.
__________________
This is simply my opinion
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #519  
Old 11-29-2016, 12:23 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
Parry had been sacked from the Pru and was known as a scumbag around town! It was 18 months before, as I point out, so the revenge motive doesn't ring true, but nevertheless he would be a prime robbery suspect. He couldn't possibly think he could try to make it seem like Wallace did it himself or Julia was in on it. Come on. That belies belief.

Again, the robbery motive doesn't compute. The motive was murder and therefore the caller was in on the plot imo. Either Wallace and a conspiracy help who called/killed Julia or Wallace alone. Wallace alone simplest and makes most sense.
Some people bear grudges for years, based upon transgressions or slights-real or imaginary-allowing them to slowly fester before eventually deciding to act. And it's not just the fact that Wallace reported the missing money that may have rankled; Parry may have been angered at being caught out/outwitted by a man he clearly he probably had little respect for.

If Parkes is correct about the hoax calls, the Qualtrough call may have appealed to Parry's perverse sense of humour, i.e. sending Wallace on a wild goose chase. Stealing the money, and hoping Wallace was suspected, could have been the icing on the cake. Of course, he would have been suspected himself, but then it would simply be his word against William's and Julia's.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #520  
Old 11-29-2016, 08:56 AM
Penny_Dredfull Penny_Dredfull is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 90
Default

I think robbery as a motive (with Parry or anyone else as the thief) can safely be ruled out. We only have Wallace's word for the insurance money being in a tin in the kitchen and that it was missing. And according to him it was only four quid! I know four pounds was worth more then than it is now, but even so it was hardly a fortune worth murder and being hanged if caught. Also, Mrs. Wallace's purse with money and silver was lying in plain view on the kitchen table and wasn't taken- neither was her wedding ring. If Parry did it then robbery wasn't the motive and he was acting as Wallace's hired killer. That is a possible theory in my opinion, but too complicated in the end. I think the simplest explanation is that Wallace himself murdered his wife and created red herrings to draw attention away from himself. With robbery removed as a motive, the only person who would want Mrs. Wallace dead and have the means and opportunity is Mr. Wallace.

Last edited by Penny_Dredfull : 11-29-2016 at 08:59 AM.
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 08:22 AM.


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