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:
Torso Killings: torso maps - by RockySullivan 15 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by harry 19 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Abby Normal 39 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Sam Flynn 4 hours ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by jerryd 5 hours ago.
Witnesses: The mysterious Mrs Kennedy... - by rjpalmer 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (30 posts)
Torso Killings: torso maps - (13 posts)
Witnesses: The mysterious Mrs Kennedy... - (3 posts)
Visual Media: A new BBC One documentary about one of the most infamous serial killers of all time. - (2 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: If Mrs. Maxwell Didn't See Mary Who Did She See? - (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
  #2481  
Old 06-21-2018, 07:21 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 635
Default

Herlock and CAZ,

Sorry, but I totally disagree with your recent posts.

Just kidding of course , there won't be much surprise but I concur with both of the points made.

The somewhat friendly and cordial relationship with Parry even after his dismissal from the Pru was distinctly odd in contrast with the picture Wallace paints of him when seeming to finger him as a top suspect.

I would also agree that if Wallace was the killer and architect of the Qualtrough plan it wouldn't make sense for him not to have some sort of a "fall guy type" in mind, if not one person to particularly point the finger at first, at least somebody who would be the type to be Qualtrough. A younger man (remember operators said the caller sounded like an older man though!), someone who worked for the Pru maybe in the past and had a grudge against Wallace etc... these would be all very obvious things a guilty Wallace would think of.

This isn't prejudiced to one's conclusion, because I am not saying this proves or even indicates Wallace was Qualtrough.

Instead, I am asserting if he was, then he would almost certainly have in mind a type of fellow Qualtrough could be, if not a particular man in mind. It would be dumb if he didn't.

Therefore, it is not a stretch to think Wallace if guilty had Parry or a Parry type in mind and might make some of the stuff pointing towards Parry a bit make more sense if the rest of the evidence points towards Wallace.

In other words, it is not a valid objection to say, as I have seen before that it is a reach to think Wallace "framed Parry".

Let's exclude outlier scenarios for a second.

Either the killer was Qualtrough or it was Wallace.

If Qualtrough, he had an elaborate plan to at the very least get Wallace out of the house the next night and enact some sort of criminal enterprise, if not to actively plan to murder JW and frame her husband.

If Wallace, he hoped to murder JW and frame Qualtrough. It would always be part of the plan anyway if Wallace was the guilty party.

Ask yourself: Which of these 2 scenarios seems more in accordance with reality?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2482  
Old 06-22-2018, 05:43 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,104
Default

AS were going to have to find something that we disagree on Our opinions on JTR seems to tally up exactly. Overwhelmingly likely an unknown. Of the known suspects Kosminski and Druitt (I’d add Bury too.)

It certainly can’t be dismissed that Wallace might have had Parry in mind as a fall guy all along. If guilty he set up a scene that would imply a killer/thief who knew where the money was kept and could go straight to it and one that a suspicious Julia would have let in. He points the police in the direction of Parry but never goes so far that the police might suspect him of trying to shift the blame from himself to Parry. Perhaps this is why he became certain of Parry’s guilt only after he’d been convicted and then acquitted. After all, how could he have come into any more information after the appeal that would increase his belief in Parry’s guilt? He made no investigation of the crime and no more info came to light.

Parry was a pretty much made to measure scapegoat. Unfortunately for Wallace though Parry had an alibi and the police eliminated him. How angry might Wallace have been to think that he gave the police Parry on a plate and they didn’t take him. Hence his efforts to accuse Parry after the event.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2483  
Old 06-22-2018, 07:25 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 635
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
AS were going to have to find something that we disagree on Our opinions on JTR seems to tally up exactly. Overwhelmingly likely an unknown. Of the known suspects Kosminski and Druitt (I’d add Bury too.)

It certainly can’t be dismissed that Wallace might have had Parry in mind as a fall guy all along. If guilty he set up a scene that would imply a killer/thief who knew where the money was kept and could go straight to it and one that a suspicious Julia would have let in. He points the police in the direction of Parry but never goes so far that the police might suspect him of trying to shift the blame from himself to Parry. Perhaps this is why he became certain of Parry’s guilt only after he’d been convicted and then acquitted. After all, how could he have come into any more information after the appeal that would increase his belief in Parry’s guilt? He made no investigation of the crime and no more info came to light.

Parry was a pretty much made to measure scapegoat. Unfortunately for Wallace though Parry had an alibi and the police eliminated him. How angry might Wallace have been to think that he gave the police Parry on a plate and they didn’t take him. Hence his efforts to accuse Parry after the event.
Perhaps religion and the cosmos?

I think organized religion is a bit silly.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2484  
Old 06-22-2018, 12:24 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,104
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
Perhaps religion and the cosmos?

I think organized religion is a bit silly.
I’m a member of Humanists UK and so a non-believer. I certainly have more of an issue with organised religion compared to just religion itself. The dangerous ‘my religion is better and more important than your religion’ kind of belief.

On the Cosmos.......I’m convinced of its existence. The evidence is pretty strong.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2485  
Old 06-22-2018, 02:16 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 635
Default

Ah yes, I agree . Cosmos real

And maybe the deviation is I do have some sort of belief in a higher power. The humanists usually go to that. Burden of proof and all.

But I do agree in thinking the belief in any specific dogma based text is just very unlikely that your 1 chosen book is correct and all the others are wrong. Wouldn't pass any sort of critical thinking muster.

Back to Wallace, actually he mentioned a sort of crisis in faith in his diary and the lack of belief in an afterlife worth caring about. I think it was only a few months before the killing when he said something about how even if there was a past life for him he cannot remember it and therefore any future life similarly would have no meaning to him, even if it existed. Perfectly reasonable (hate to resort to centuries old tried and true : blame the atheist!)

But it does show a man grappling with life's questions and perhaps the impeding ending of his. This was around the same time he noted Julia failed to grasp "the master Builder" play they both witnessed. Although to be fair he does seem to show concern about her being out late 1 night and fear she was in an accident---or perhaps did that fear put an idea in his head on reflection??

As we know, this was a man whose favorite work he lived by was Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. Marcus has a quote there about leading a good life and nothing would be lost if there are no Gods...and if there are and just, they wouldnt care how fervently one believed. Sort of a twist on Pascal's Wager

Well, killing one's spouse might not be considered be leading a good life.

On the other hand, Wallace's cold, stoic personality might have made getting rid of a "problem" easier, no?

Last edited by AmericanSherlock : 06-22-2018 at 02:32 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2486  
Old 06-24-2018, 02:53 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,104
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
Ah yes, I agree . Cosmos real

And maybe the deviation is I do have some sort of belief in a higher power. The humanists usually go to that. Burden of proof and all.

But I do agree in thinking the belief in any specific dogma based text is just very unlikely that your 1 chosen book is correct and all the others are wrong. Wouldn't pass any sort of critical thinking muster.

Back to Wallace, actually he mentioned a sort of crisis in faith in his diary and the lack of belief in an afterlife worth caring about. I think it was only a few months before the killing when he said something about how even if there was a past life for him he cannot remember it and therefore any future life similarly would have no meaning to him, even if it existed. Perfectly reasonable (hate to resort to centuries old tried and true : blame the atheist!)

But it does show a man grappling with life's questions and perhaps the impeding ending of his. This was around the same time he noted Julia failed to grasp "the master Builder" play they both witnessed. Although to be fair he does seem to show concern about her being out late 1 night and fear she was in an accident---or perhaps did that fear put an idea in his head on reflection??

As we know, this was a man whose favorite work he lived by was Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. Marcus has a quote there about leading a good life and nothing would be lost if there are no Gods...and if there are and just, they wouldnt care how fervently one believed. Sort of a twist on Pascal's Wager

Well, killing one's spouse might not be considered be leading a good life.

On the other hand, Wallace's cold, stoic personality might have made getting rid of a "problem" easier, no?
I agree AS. Maybe this was a guy constantly reminding himself and re-enforcing the belief that there was no fiery pit awaiting him for killing Julia?
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2487  
Old 06-24-2018, 03:11 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,104
Default

As we have already listed around 6 ways that the Qualtrough plan could have fallen at the first hurdle (Beattie forgetting to pass on the message, Wallace deciding not to go, someone telling him for a fact that MGW didn’t exist etc) I think that we can add another way that the plan could have failed later on and specifically with regard to the sneak-thief theory.

This ‘plan’ relies on the fact that Julia would at least heard the name Qualtrough with regard to Wallace’s business that evening at Menlove Gardens West. That familiarity would have, according to the plan, meant that Julia would have let him in. But what if she had never heard the name?

Julia was known to have taken little or no interest in Wallace’s business affairs so how could Parry (as the mastermind) have known that Wallace would have gone into any detail? After all he might have just said “oh by the way I have to go out on business this evening. I shouldn’t be too long though.” That being possibly the case then Julia would have been extremely unlikely to have asked Qualtrough in.

Another fault in this brilliant plan.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2488  
Old 06-24-2018, 03:27 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,104
Default

I don’t have my books with me at the moment so I’ll ask a question. Was it ever stated that Wallace ever knocked on the front door, or even the back door? If he was as worried as he said he was surely he would have done some pretty vigorous knocking on the front door in case Julia had fallen asleep. Maybe even a bit of shouting through the letterbox? Isn’t that what anyone who was concerned for the safety of his wife would have done?
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2489  
Old 06-24-2018, 08:57 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 635
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
As we have already listed around 6 ways that the Qualtrough plan could have fallen at the first hurdle (Beattie forgetting to pass on the message, Wallace deciding not to go, someone telling him for a fact that MGW didn’t exist etc) I think that we can add another way that the plan could have failed later on and specifically with regard to the sneak-thief theory.

This ‘plan’ relies on the fact that Julia would at least heard the name Qualtrough with regard to Wallace’s business that evening at Menlove Gardens West. That familiarity would have, according to the plan, meant that Julia would have let him in. But what if she had never heard the name?

Julia was known to have taken little or no interest in Wallace’s business affairs so how could Parry (as the mastermind) have known that Wallace would have gone into any detail? After all he might have just said “oh by the way I have to go out on business this evening. I shouldn’t be too long though.” That being possibly the case then Julia would have been extremely unlikely to have asked Qualtrough in.

Another fault in this brilliant plan.

It's just a plan that no one of sound mind would ever come up with. Dolty criminals would never think of something this in depth and complex. And smart or sane people would see its obvious faults. Saying that "criminals have to take risks" doesn't explain how these criminals were bright enough to conceive of, yet couldn't see how it was doomed to failure.

It is only something that a person married to an idea might concoct decades after... not anything remotely plausible IRL
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2490  
Old 06-24-2018, 08:58 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 635
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
I don’t have my books with me at the moment so I’ll ask a question. Was it ever stated that Wallace ever knocked on the front door, or even the back door? If he was as worried as he said he was surely he would have done some pretty vigorous knocking on the front door in case Julia had fallen asleep. Maybe even a bit of shouting through the letterbox? Isn’t that what anyone who was concerned for the safety of his wife would have done?
I don't believe so re the front door, and we know the show with the back door and the Johnstons. Totally contrived behavior IMO.
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 02:58 AM.


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