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:
Scene of the Crimes: distances between kills.odd - by albie 15 minutes ago.
Scene of the Crimes: distances between kills.odd - by albie 18 minutes ago.
Scene of the Crimes: distances between kills.odd - by albie 22 minutes ago.
Scene of the Crimes: distances between kills.odd - by albie 27 minutes ago.
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - by Rob1n 56 minutes ago.
Bury, W.H.: William Bury website - by Harry D 1 hour and 18 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Mary Jane Kelly: George Hutchinson Shadowing Sarah Lewis' Statement - (17 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Help On Some Details - (10 posts)
Bury, W.H.: William Bury website - (7 posts)
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - (5 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: distances between kills.odd - (4 posts)
General Discussion: JTR's profession - (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
  #11  
Old 11-05-2018, 02:07 PM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,445
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdCaseJury View Post
Thank you, John. And I hope we can discuss the case again.

AMB
Hi Antony,

Defintely. I still have a great interest in the case and would love to discuss your latest book once I've had the opportunity to read it.

Meanwhile, I'm planning a lengthy new post which I hope to submit on the other thread later this week.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-08-2018, 07:34 AM
ColdCaseJury ColdCaseJury is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: England
Posts: 362
Default

I am using these forums less frequently now. If anyone wishes to get in touch with me please visit my website and hit the Contact button. I'll be delighted to hear from you. AMB - 8 Nov 2018.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-09-2018, 08:24 AM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 765
Default

Some great interviews popping up already....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p06nwptp @1:38:40

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p06ng86r @50:30
__________________
"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
  #14  
Old 11-10-2018, 01:48 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is online now
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 3,110
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdCaseJury View Post
I am using these forums less frequently now. If anyone wishes to get in touch with me please visit my website and hit the Contact button. I'll be delighted to hear from you. AMB - 8 Nov 2018.
I can understand why

Debate has degenerated again.

I wonder why
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-12-2018, 01:52 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 680
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
I can understand why

Debate has degenerated again.

I wonder why
There will be a review from me within the next couple weeks up here. It will be in depth.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-12-2018, 09:49 AM
Spitfire Spitfire is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 657
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
There will be a review from me within the next couple weeks up here. It will be in depth.
I will look forward to that.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-14-2018, 05:58 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is online now
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 3,110
Default

I’m half way through Antony’s book and I have to thank him for settling one question about the case through his research. In books by Murphy and the Gannon it was stated that ‘Qualtrough’ asked Beattie for Wallace’s address. This fact hadn’t appeared in any previous book on the case. Those of us who feel that the likeliest culprit for the murder was Wallace said that this would surely eliminate Parry as being provided the address would immediately scupper the plan. Parry could have had no way of knowing that Beattie nor any other member of the club didn’t know their fellow members address. Wallace however knew perfectly well that the only member of the club that knew his address was Caird. He also knew that Caird went to the club after locking up his shop and so he could be certain that the only person that could answer the question wouldn’t have arrived at the club by that time.

Another poster (who believes Parry to have been the caller) felt that Murphy had made this up as it would have been ‘crazy’ for either Parry or Wallace.

Quote:
.
"The caller asked for Wallace’s address."

Not one of the celebrated authors who documented this case supports this assertion, and it was a rather short phone call to document correctly...

Not Lee-Adam. Not Wyndham-Brown. Not Sayers. Not Lustgarten. Not Goodman. Not Wilkes or Radio City.
Gannon or Murphy seem to have made it up [If someone can produce Beattie's actual Police statement I'll happily stand corrected.]

And it would be a crazy thing to do for anyone hoping to advance the criminal design that we know subsequently unfolded, whoever was the culprit
Thanks to Antony we now know that the caller did indeed ask for Wallace’s address as it was in Samuel Beattie’s statement dated 21.1.31.

So we now have to ask ourselves who, from Wallace or Parry, would have felt it ‘safe’ to ask for Wallace’s address after all, unless we go for another culprit, it had to be either them. So I’ll repeat:

Parry had absolutely no way of knowing that neither Beattie or any other club member would have been able to provide Wallace’s address.

Wallace, on the other hand, knew perfectly well that no one knew it except one man and Wallace knew that that one man wouldn’t have been present at the time of his call.

We can surely now eliminate Parry as the caller.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-14-2018, 11:45 AM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 765
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
We can surely now eliminate Parry as the caller.
Fast and loose with the facts, tendentious 'logic' and an unsupportable conclusion, as ever...

I still haven't seen Beattie's actual statement, but I already knew it would make no difference whether or not the caller asked Beattie if he knew Wallace's address.
That's why I said I would happily stand corrected, remember...?

Just the most obvious reason.

If it was Parry on the line, planning a robbery - with an eye to later confuse the Police, he might very well like to leave the impression that the perpetrator was
someone who did NOT already know Wallace's address, and that silly Beattie (he hoped) would get the blame for handing it out to some 'random' criminal...

So, sorry, we can NOT 'surely now eliminate Parry as the caller.'
[aside from the ton of actual evidence that still points to him as the caller, and the additional ton that points away from Wallace...]

Next !!
__________________
"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 : 11-14-2018 at 12:00 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-14-2018, 12:52 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is online now
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 3,110
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
Fast and loose with the facts, tendentious 'logic' and an unsupportable conclusion, as ever...

I still haven't seen Beattie's actual statement, but I already knew it would make no difference whether or not the caller asked Beattie if he knew Wallace's address.
That's why I said I would happily stand corrected, remember...?

Just the most obvious reason.

If it was Parry on the line, planning a robbery - with an eye to later confuse the Police, he might very well like to leave the impression that the perpetrator was
someone who did NOT already know Wallace's address, and that silly Beattie (he hoped) would get the blame for handing it out to some 'random' criminal...

So, sorry, we can NOT 'surely now eliminate Parry as the caller.'
[aside from the ton of actual evidence that still points to him as the caller, and the additional ton that points away from Wallace...]

Next !!
I even suspect that you don’t mean any of that nonsense

This was a guy that was apparently too stupid to see the ways that the plan could crumble at the first hurdle. This was a guy so gullible that he just assumed that Wallace would tell his wife all the details of his evenings adventure (Qualtrough’s name, MGE etc) to ensure access to the house. And now, out of sheer desperation, you suggest that Moriarty Parry comes up with this piece of Machiavellian obfuscation whilst at the time carelessly jeopardising the plan, again.

What Parry wanted, according to you, is the cash....first and foremost. How could anyone seriously suggest that he would potentially throw that away just on the off chance of possibly confusing the police later on?

All the wriggling in the world isn’t getting away from this one.

The fact that the caller asked for Wallace’s address overwhelmingly points to Wallace over Parry.

But then again, we knew it was probably Wallace all along didnt we.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-14-2018, 02:21 PM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 765
Default

“Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”
Sherlock Holmes in The Adventure of the Copper Beeches
And I have solved the Wallace Case...
__________________
"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
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 06:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.