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:
Periodicals: Upcoming Article - by TomTomKent 1 hour and 23 minutes ago.
Periodicals: Upcoming Article - by TomTomKent 2 hours ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by NickB 2 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: George Hutchinson Shadowing Sarah Lewis' Statement - by Darryl Kenyon 3 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: George Hutchinson Shadowing Sarah Lewis' Statement - by Wickerman 5 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: George Hutchinson Shadowing Sarah Lewis' Statement - by Wickerman 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Mary Jane Kelly: George Hutchinson Shadowing Sarah Lewis' Statement - (7 posts)
Periodicals: Upcoming Article - (6 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Help On Some Details - (4 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (3 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Most accurate reconstruction (Graphic Warning) - (1 posts)
Casebook Announcements: Server Switching and Reprogramming.. - (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
  #1721  
Old Today, 07:22 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is online now
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 3,158
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
Common sense suggests the default assumption in the mind of a caller would be that a call might be logged, certainly if it was a 'problem' call.

In 1931 in Liverpool there was no direct-dial (and indeed no dial at all on telephones!). To get through to anywhere, you had to speak to an operator.

At the trial, the operators confirmed it was routine procedure to log 'problem' calls.
No it doesn’t. It’s simply that it suits your viewpoint. No one could assume that the call would be recorded. There’s also no reason for certainty that the issue with the call was intentional. This is wish-thinking.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1722  
Old Today, 07:25 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is online now
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 3,158
Default

Quote:
. Common sense suggests the default assumption in the mind of a caller would be that a call might be logged, certainly if it was a 'problem' call.
It would have been ‘common sense’ for an innocent Wallace to have checked the Parlour before he went upstairs but he didn’t.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1723  
Old Today, 07:33 PM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 819
Default

Yawn...

If you are asking a human-being in officialdom to do something for you, common-sense suggests it might be recorded, certainly if it is an out of the ordinary request.

Or do you imagine officialdom keeps no records?
__________________
"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
  #1724  
Old Today, 07:44 PM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 819
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
It would have been ‘common sense’ for an innocent Wallace to have checked the Parlour before he went upstairs but he didn’t.
Lol. I've exploded that nonsense enough times...

Even the Police agreed there was a perfectly good reason for him to go upstairs first.

And of course, had Wallace in fact gone to the parlour first, you would no doubt be effusing "See, Guilty!"

"Heads we win, tails Wallace loses" coin-tricks don't cut it, obviously.
__________________
"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
  #1725  
Old Today, 08:01 PM
etenguy etenguy is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 418
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
"He'd pick the phone up and he'd ring someone up - who he never knew - and he'd ring them up and talk to them...
And he could change his voice like you changing a shilling!"

John Parkes, 1981
Given that we are reasonably certain the phone call could have been made by one of two people, either Wallace or Parry, is there anything in the content of the call that can help us identify which of the two it was.

The voice was described as a man's voice, confident and gruff - very different to Wallace's voice, but also an older man's voice that sounded normal (presumably that means no foreign accent etc...). Whoever made the call was disguising their voice and so this probably doesn't help much but suggests, in my view, it was slightly more likely to be Parry than Wallace.

In terms of other content - I have suggested those elements that I think suggest Parry is more likely and those which I think suggest Wallace is more likely. Other elements I do not think suggest one over the other. It would be interesting to know if posters believe the lists correct/incorrect and how they might change the lists.

Suggests Parry
* mention of a daughter's 21st birthday

Suggests Wallace
* request for Wallace's address
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1726  
Old Today, 08:11 PM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by etenguy View Post
Given that we are reasonably certain the phone call could have been made by one of two people, either Wallace or Parry, is there anything in the content of the call that can help us identify which of the two it was.

The voice was described as a man's voice, confident and gruff - very different to Wallace's voice, but also an older man's voice that sounded normal (presumably that means no foreign accent etc...). Whoever made the call was disguising their voice and so this probably doesn't help much but suggests, in my view, it was slightly more likely to be Parry than Wallace.

In terms of other content - I have suggested those elements that I think suggest Parry is more likely and those which I think suggest Wallace is more likely. Other elements I do not think suggest one over the other. It would be interesting to know if posters believe the lists correct/incorrect and how they might change the lists.

Suggests Parry
* mention of a daughter's 21st birthday

Suggests Wallace
* request for Wallace's address
hi eten
good idea. I agree and will continue it.


Suggests Parry
* mention of a daughter's 21st birthday(this is a bigee for me-I mean whats the chance?)

* possible revenge/robbery motive

* criminal behavior/record

Suggests Wallace
* request for Wallace's address

* Call made from that call box

* missing bar and iron/wallace dosnt bring this up to police
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1727  
Old Today, 08:24 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is online now
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 3,158
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
Yawn...

If you are asking a human-being in officialdom to do something for you, common-sense suggests it might be recorded, certainly if it is an out of the ordinary request.

Or do you imagine officialdom keeps no records?
Nope.

This was 1931 and not today’s world where we are all conditioned to accept layers of bureaucracy. Getting a call put through just because there appeared to be a problem would have appeared a pretty normal thing. It was a matter of a few seconds and not a major issue. There’s no way that we can assume that the caller would expect the call to be recorded just because it suits one side of an argument.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
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 08:38 PM.


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