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:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by rjpalmer 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by rjpalmer 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by harry 4 hours ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by RockySullivan 4 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: If Mrs. Maxwell Didn't See Mary Who Did She See? - by Wickerman 4 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Ben 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (35 posts)
Torso Killings: torso maps - (13 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (4 posts)
Non-Fiction: Walter Dew's account...... - (3 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: If Mrs. Maxwell Didn't See Mary Who Did She See? - (3 posts)
Research Related: Henry Kelly - (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
  #2351  
Old 04-04-2018, 01:06 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,103
Default

If points that go against Wallace are to be countered they have to be countered with unbiased reason.

It can’t just be said that ‘the majority said that the Wallace’s appeared a devoted couple,’ for example and just dismiss opposing opinions on weight of numbers. The Wallace’s weren’t exactly the Kardashians. They didn’t have a hectic social life. They weren’t great mixers. Until the night of the murder the Johnston’s didn’t even know Julia’s first name. Like most couples, even if they had argued, they would have been on best behaviour on social occasions; keeping up appearances, like the Crippens. The doctor and the nurse however saw them over a period time; in their natural environment as it were. Also, as doctors and nurses have a duty of confidentiality, the Wallace’s might have felt less need to put on a show. Their opinions of the Wallace’s are in stark contrast to others and can’t easily be discarded unless bias is involved. Also Mather, an ex-colleague of Wallace’s described him as ‘soured,’ amongst other things. Also that he had a bad temper. Now Mather may have held some kind of grudge against Wallace, we have no way of knowing, but we can see no motive for Curwen and Wilson to lie. Especially knowing the possible consequences for Wallace. This is why it’s almost impossible to call Lillian Hall a liar. Mistaken possibly, probably even, but to lie about a possibly innocent man facing the gallows, and with no reason.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

Last edited by Herlock Sholmes : 04-04-2018 at 01:15 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2352  
Old 04-05-2018, 02:27 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,103
Default

I find myself going back to the issue of the lights. I canít recall it being pointed out as important in any of the books but that could just be my memory. I still canít think of a feasible reason why a sneak-thief or indeed anyone apart from Wallace might have wanted to leave the house in darkness. (Iím not near any books at the moment so I canít be sure but wasnít there a very low light on in the kitchen?) If Julia had a light on in the back kitchen and the kitchen (and if she was moving around in the house would she have kept turning the gas up and down or on and off? Surely not) then the sneak-thief /killer would have had to walk from the parlour to the kitchen and back kitchen to turn them off/down. It makes no sense. What would it achieve?

I suppose that might say that he wanted to ensure that Wallace and no one else found the body (then again he says that his motive was purely financial I believe?)

Wallace is really the only person who needed to be the one who found Juliaís body as late as possible in the evening. The last thing that he would have wanted was someone like his sister-in-law turning up for a visit 5 or 10 minutes after he had left and then raising the alarm when she got no response from a house with the lights on.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2353  
Old 04-05-2018, 03:13 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 635
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
I find myself going back to the issue of the lights. I canít recall it being pointed out as important in any of the books but that could just be my memory. I still canít think of a feasible reason why a sneak-thief or indeed anyone apart from Wallace might have wanted to leave the house in darkness. (Iím not near any books at the moment so I canít be sure but wasnít there a very low light on in the kitchen?) If Julia had a light on in the back kitchen and the kitchen (and if she was moving around in the house would she have kept turning the gas up and down or on and off? Surely not) then the sneak-thief /killer would have had to walk from the parlour to the kitchen and back kitchen to turn them off/down. It makes no sense. What would it achieve?

I suppose that might say that he wanted to ensure that Wallace and no one else found the body (then again he says that his motive was purely financial I believe?)

Wallace is really the only person who needed to be the one who found Juliaís body as late as possible in the evening. The last thing that he would have wanted was someone like his sister-in-law turning up for a visit 5 or 10 minutes after he had left and then raising the alarm when she got no response from a house with the lights on.
Herlock,

I would agree that both the lights being turned off and the cash box replaced on the hi shelf both hint towards an inside job. It looks like someone who, while staging a robbery, was acting on force of habit and didn't consider how certain things would look while in a rush.

There are plausible counter arguments; perhaps a "sneak thief" was hoping to not be noticed and that's why he replaced the cash box; it was only later for some reason he was caught or some argument ensued and he committed the murder. Perhaps after striking the blows, he freaked and wanted to beat a hasty retreat, instinctively turning the lights out in response to what he had done...

Just ask yourself how much exactly are these arguments plausible? For me it's just barely, but definitely not likely.

Consider there was also plenty of stuff at the scene that could have been taken that wasn't, there was a cabinet broken for no reason etc... panic...or staging...???
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2354  
Old 04-05-2018, 08:02 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,103
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
Herlock,

Hi AS

I would agree that both the lights being turned off and the cash box replaced on the hi shelf both hint towards an inside job. It looks like someone who, while staging a robbery, was acting on force of habit and didn't consider how certain things would look while in a rush.

Plus it could be argued that Wallace felt a little rushed as Alan Close had turned up later than expected.


There are plausible counter arguments; perhaps a "sneak thief" (you forgot the ) was hoping to not be noticed and that's why he replaced the cash box true but I’ve just thought of something else. How did a sneak-thief hope to pull off the door of the cupboard and not be heard by Julia in the next room? If it’s being postulated that Julia caught someone in the act and he killed her in panic, then we might assume that he fled (not that he went back into the kitchen) After all Rod doesn’t think that he went upstairs now. ; it was only later for some reason he was caught or some argument ensued and he committed the murder. Perhaps after striking the blows, he freaked and wanted to beat a hasty retreat, instinctively turning the lights out in response to what he had done... possibly, why turn off the lights in the kitchen and back kitchen?

Just ask yourself how much exactly are these arguments plausible? For me it's just barely, but definitely not likely. Couldnt agree more AS. For me it’s far more plausible for Wallace himself to have turned off the lights.

Consider there was also plenty of stuff at the scene that could have been taken that wasn't, there was a cabinet broken for no reason etc... panic...or staging...??? I think we both know which option I would go for.
The killer definitely turned out the lights. To me it’s much more of a stretch to think of a reason why anyone other than Wallace would have bothered.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

Last edited by Herlock Sholmes : 04-05-2018 at 08:07 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2355  
Old 04-05-2018, 11:16 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 635
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
The killer definitely turned out the lights. To me itís much more of a stretch to think of a reason why anyone other than Wallace would have bothered.
Herlock, your point about the cupboard is an important one. The whole idea of a "sneak thief" (I also cant help but chuckle at the term) would go against the ransacking of the house. The only explanation is this was done after JW was killed, but then wasn't the explanation for why the killer didnt take anything else, including obvious money in JW's handbag or her jewelry because he freaked out? If so, smashing a cupboard looking for money wouldn't make sense at all.

It just doesn't add up. A typical poorly staged domestic homicide IMO.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2356  
Old 04-05-2018, 11:43 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,103
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
Herlock, your point about the cupboard is an important one. The whole idea of a "sneak thief" (I also cant help but chuckle at the term) would go against the ransacking of the house. The only explanation is this was done after JW was killed, but then wasn't the explanation for why the killer didnt take anything else, including obvious money in JW's handbag or her jewelry because he freaked out? If so, smashing a cupboard looking for money wouldn't make sense at all.

It just doesn't add up. A typical poorly staged domestic homicide IMO.
It’s unthinkable that our sneak-thief would try to break open a cupboard with Julia in the next room and hope to remain undetected. And let’s not forget, according to Mr X was specifically targeting the cash box (this was the target of the plan. We would have to conclude therefore that the cupboard was broken open after Julia was dead. This raises points.

claims that Mr X panicked after killing Julia and that ‘explains’ why he picked up the weapon and took it away with him when he had absolutely no need to. And yet he wasn’t panicked enough to stop him going back into the kitchen and breaking open a cupboard (despite not having a clue what it contained.)

We also have our sneak-thief going back into the kitchen to break off the door of a random cupboard whilst not bothering to search anywhere else (including the blindingly obvious Julia’s bag!)

He also leaves no blood on the cupboard or indeed anywhere else in the kitchen despite taking no precautions.

Every time you look at a certain aspect of the case other points pop-up......and they all point away from anyone else killing Julia other than William.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2357  
Old 04-05-2018, 11:51 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,103
Default

likes to supply us with a pointless graph or piece of pseudo-maths. Hereís a nice simple sum from me.

Points made against Wallace + Defence points destroyed + Bias exposed = An absent

__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2358  
Old 04-05-2018, 01:41 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 635
Default

Dunce is working on the definitive book



To be released in 2030
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2359  
Old 04-05-2018, 02:49 PM
Mayerling Mayerling is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Flushing, New York
Posts: 2,756
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
Dunce is working on the definitive book



To be released in 2030
Shouldn't it be in 2031? Centennial year that one.

Jeff
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2360  
Old 04-05-2018, 04:42 PM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 900
Default

Replacing the cash box and turning off the lights are suggestive of Wallace acting out of habit, but not conclusive evidence of such.

To my mind the Ďrobberí (either a genuine robber or the one Wallace was impersonating) smashed the door to the cabinet, saw there was nothing in there and so continued looking and found the cash box. Thinking that he had now found the main treasure pot in the house, even though it was disappointingly bereft, he took the contents and left Ė not wanting to hang around long anyway.
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 11:01 PM.


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