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:
Witnesses: Kennedy and Lewis - by Wickerman 32 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Did Mary Kelly meet the Bethnal Green Botherer? - by Wickerman 58 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Did Mary Kelly meet the Bethnal Green Botherer? - by Wickerman 1 hour and 11 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by DJA 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by packers stem 3 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - by c.d. 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - (75 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: distances between kills.odd - (15 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - (9 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - (7 posts)
Levy, Jacob: Jacob the Ripper - (5 posts)
Torso Killings: JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful. - (5 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
  #71  
Old 11-16-2018, 04:31 PM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 589
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Wallace is overwhelmingly the likeliest suspect though none of us would be willing to send him to the gallows on the strength of the evidence.
We already agree he was a suspect.
By "overwhelmingly the likeliest", well yes, if it's just a numbers game. But we don't have trial by numbers, or trial by ordeal, or trial by combat, etc. any more.
We have trial by EVIDENCE.
On the "strength of the evidence", then, and not wishing to "send him to the gallows", etc. you'd be voting "Not Guilty" then?

Or do I misunderstand?

[you can wait until you've heard the rest of the EVIDENCE, if you like. There's really no need to jump the gun]
__________________
"I make a point of never having any prejudices, and of following docilely where fact may lead me."
Sherlock Holmes, in The Adventure of The Reigate Squires

Last edited by RodCrosby : 11-16-2018 at 04:35 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 11-16-2018, 04:42 PM
ColdCaseJury ColdCaseJury is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: England
Posts: 300
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Antony weve had a year of Rod telling us its game over. The Wallace case is solved. Hows that for certainty?

All that Caz, AS and myself have said is that we believe that Wallace is overwhelmingly the likeliest suspect though none of us would be willing to send him to the gallows on the strength of the evidence.

Which side would you say is the more reasoned and fair minded?
In my opinion, it's not game over. I think you and others have made some strong arguments. But these need to be balanced, of course.

But to all parties, I would appeal to this fact. If the verdict was clear, one way or the other, surely there would be a preponderance of opinion endorsing that view. And this convergence has been lacking in this case for over nearly 90 years.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 11-16-2018, 04:46 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,871
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
We already agree he was a suspect.
By "overwhelmingly the likeliest", well yes, if it's just a numbers game. But we don't have trial by numbers, or trial by ordeal, or trial by combat, etc. any more.
We have trial by EVIDENCE.
On the "strength of the evidence", then, and not wishing to "send him to the gallows", etc. you'd be voting "Not Guilty" then?

Or do I misunderstand?

[you can wait until you've heard the rest of the EVIDENCE, if you like. There's really no need to jump the gun]
Yes, we cant convict anyone of the murder with the level of confidence (on the actual evidence) that would be required to send a man to the gallows or even a lengthy prison sentence. We can only way up what we know, we can interpret events and incidents (but only to our own satisfaction) and come to our own conclusions that on balance x is the likeliest suspect (or x and y working together.) So how do you square this, or something like this, with you telling us that its case closed. Youve hardly hedged your bets.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 11-16-2018, 05:04 PM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 589
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Yes, we cant convict anyone of the murder with the level of confidence (on the actual evidence) that would be required to send a man to the gallows or even a lengthy prison sentence. We can only way up what we know, we can interpret events and incidents (but only to our own satisfaction) and come to our own conclusions that on balance x is the likeliest suspect (or x and y working together.) So how do you square this, or something like this, with you telling us that its case closed. Youve hardly hedged your bets.
Oh, I was probably just teasing you. I'm sorry you got upset. I know you're a decent guy, really.

But I always said I had only 'closed' the case, based on the available EVIDENCE. And more than once I publicly recognised the possibility that something new might emerge - completely from left field - upending my conclusion. But it would be a long time in coming, I think we'd agree...

But anyhow, back to the EVIDENCE, and where it might lead.

Do you have anything you'd like to offer?
__________________
"I make a point of never having any prejudices, and of following docilely where fact may lead me."
Sherlock Holmes, in The Adventure of The Reigate Squires
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 11-17-2018, 02:58 PM
etenguy etenguy is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
I'll start you off then...

EVIDENCE: Wallace arrived at Menlove Gardens with 10 minutes in hand for his appointment.

[if anyone disagrees, on the EVIDENCE, shout, or we'll move on to another piece of EVIDENCE]
I am new to this case, and think this approach of collecting the known evidence is a good way to understand the case better. So, not to be a freeloader, I'll add what I think is established fact:

Liverpool central chess club captain, Samuel Beattie, stated he received a call for Wallace on January 19th, from someone calling himself R. M. Qualtrough, stating he wished to meet Wallace at 7.30 on 20th January at 25 Menlove Gardens East to discuss insurance business. The call was received about 25 minutes before Wallace arrived for a scheduled chess game.

Questions which arise from this:
1. Who made the call?
2. How did the caller know Wallace played chess at the cafe?
3. How did the caller know Wallace was playing chess that night?
4. Neither R M Qualtrough nor 25 Menlove Gardens East appear to be real - Beattie's error or a false call?
5. Was Beattie lying about the call?

Answers to these questions are best left until all the evidence is collected together.

Last edited by etenguy : 11-17-2018 at 03:23 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 11-17-2018, 04:48 PM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 589
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by etenguy View Post
I am new to this case, and think this approach of collecting the known evidence is a good way to understand the case better. So, not to be a freeloader, I'll add what I think is established fact:

Liverpool central chess club captain, Samuel Beattie, stated he received a call for Wallace on January 19th, from someone calling himself R. M. Qualtrough, stating he wished to meet Wallace at 7.30 on 20th January at 25 Menlove Gardens East to discuss insurance business. The call was received about 25 minutes before Wallace arrived for a scheduled chess game.

Questions which arise from this:
1. Who made the call?
2. How did the caller know Wallace played chess at the cafe?
3. How did the caller know Wallace was playing chess that night?
4. Neither R M Qualtrough nor 25 Menlove Gardens East appear to be real - Beattie's error or a false call?
5. Was Beattie lying about the call?

Answers to these questions are best left until all the evidence is collected together.
We could add, and answer some
6. How did the caller know the telephone number of the cafe? It was not in the directory.
Answer: Wallace might know, as might any other frequenter of the cafe (or someone in cahoots with either, possibly) Therefore, it seems impossible that the caller was not intimate with the cafe.
2. There were other events, from other groups e.g. amateur dramatics, held at the cafe. Wallace had been playing chess there for approximately 8 years. Many frequenters of the cafe already knew each other, for diverse reasons. Either they had worked together, or lived near each other, etc. (Wallace also obviously knew he played chess at the club!) [and see 3]
3. The chess schedule had been displayed prominently, immediately next to the phone kiosk, since at least November 1930. Wallace was due to play a match on Monday 19th January 1931, which happened to be his last Monday-night match in the tournament. No-one, except Wallace of course, could be absolutely certain he would show up, purely from inspecting the schedule.
4. Beattie corrected Wallace from MG "West" to "East", when relaying the message, so he seemed certain of the details of the call. Beattie was Captain of the club, a well-to-do cotton broker, an upstanding, successful person, who lived on the opposite side of Liverpool to Wallace. It is unanimously agreed that the call was a hoax, made either by Wallace or someone else.
5. Not possible, really. The call was initially received by waitress Gladys Harley, who summoned Beattie to the phone to deal with the call...
__________________
"I make a point of never having any prejudices, and of following docilely where fact may lead me."
Sherlock Holmes, in The Adventure of The Reigate Squires

Last edited by RodCrosby : 11-17-2018 at 05:17 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 11-17-2018, 05:46 PM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 589
Default

[INTERLUDE]
Liverpool itself continues to have an enduring fascination with one of the world's most baffling murders...
Only yesterday.
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news...house-15406678
[/INTERLUDE]
__________________
"I make a point of never having any prejudices, and of following docilely where fact may lead me."
Sherlock Holmes, in The Adventure of The Reigate Squires
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 11-17-2018, 06:11 PM
etenguy etenguy is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
We could add, and answer some
6. How did the caller know the telephone number of the cafe? It was not in the directory.
Answer: Wallace might know, as might any other frequenter of the cafe (or someone in cahoots with either, possibly) Therefore, it seems impossible that the caller was not intimate with the cafe..
It seems sensible to infer that whoever made the call was someone who frequented the cafe, or was informed by somebody who frequented the cafe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
2. There were other events, from other groups e.g. amateur dramatics, held at the cafe. Wallace had been playing chess there for approximately 8 years. Many frequenters of the cafe already knew each other, for diverse reasons. Either they had worked together, or lived near each other, etc. (Wallace also obviously knew he played chess at the club!) [and see 3].
3. The chess schedule had been displayed prominently, immediately next to the phone kiosk, since at least November 1930. Wallace was due to play a match on Monday 19th January 1931, which happened to be his last Monday-night match in the tournament. No-one, except Wallace of course, could be absolutely certain he would show up, purely from inspecting the schedule.
These two points serve to strengthen the reasons to believe that the call was made by someone who frequented the cafe, or was informed by somebody who frequented the cafe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
4. Beattie corrected Wallace from MG "West" to "East", when relaying the message, so he seemed certain of the details of the call. Beattie was Captain of the club, a well-to-do cotton broker, an upstanding, successful person, who lived on the opposite side of Liverpool to Wallace. It is unanimously agreed that the call was a hoax, made either by Wallace or someone else.
This seems the most plausible explanation and I do not seriously mean to undermine it, but for the sake of keeping an open mind, there is always the possiblity Beattie misheard or misunderstood some of the call.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
5. Not possible, really. The call was initially received by waitress Gladys Harley, who summoned Beattie to the phone to deal with the call...
Indeed, but we rely on Beattie for the contents of the call.

Being new to the case, just keeping an open mind until what is obvious to anyone who has studied the case is also obvious to me.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 11-17-2018, 07:38 PM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 589
Default

I removed these, because certain people were abusing my goodwill. So now that everyone is sensible again, we may resume..

At 6.30pm on 20th January 1981, fifty years - to the hour - after the murder of Julia Wallace, a Liverpool radio station broadcast an extraordinary drama-documentary*

'Who killed Julia? - Part 1'
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wPn...ew?usp=sharing

I ask only two things.

a) please listen at least twice before commenting.
b) anyone who goes out of their way to misrepresent what is said should be subject to some sanction.

*the actual recording you will hear is from a re-broadcast made five weeks later, but it is identical, save that it is now split into two parts.
__________________
"I make a point of never having any prejudices, and of following docilely where fact may lead me."
Sherlock Holmes, in The Adventure of The Reigate Squires
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 11-18-2018, 03:02 AM
etenguy etenguy is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
I removed these, because certain people were abusing my goodwill. So now that everyone is sensible again, we may resume..

At 6.30pm on 20th January 1981, fifty years - to the hour - after the murder of Julia Wallace, a Liverpool radio station broadcast an extraordinary drama-documentary*

'Who killed Julia? - Part 1'
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wPn...ew?usp=sharing

I ask only two things.

a) please listen at least twice before commenting.
b) anyone who goes out of their way to misrepresent what is said should be subject to some sanction.

*the actual recording you will hear is from a re-broadcast made five weeks later, but it is identical, save that it is now split into two parts.
Interesting piece. Do you have part 2 and the programme that claims to have new evidence?
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 07:33 PM.


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