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 harry 12 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: If Mrs. Maxwell Didn't See Mary Who Did She See? - by DJA 37 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: If Mrs. Maxwell Didn't See Mary Who Did She See? - by packers stem 56 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Sam Flynn 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Darryl Kenyon 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by DJA 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (48 posts)
General Discussion: Masonic and the number 39. - (14 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: If Mrs. Maxwell Didn't See Mary Who Did She See? - (5 posts)
Casebook Announcements: Katherine Bradshaw Amin (1980-2018) - (3 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - (1 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (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
  #1441  
Old 12-09-2017, 03:34 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,101
Default

Another question is why did Wallace on entering the house go straight upstairs to look for his wife? This wasnít a mansion. How many downstairs rooms were there? Three I think. Surely most (if not all) would have checked the downstairs rooms first? Why did he check his lab (the Johnstonís saw a light go on) ? Surely he wouldnít have expected Julia to be in there?
Iím not saying that this proves his guilt but for me this is suspicious behaviour.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1442  
Old 12-09-2017, 03:38 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Hi AS,

I’ve done my usual trick of jumping from one book to another. I was in the second hand book shop that I got the Wilkes book from last week and I saw the Goodman book. The owner said that he hadn’t put any new books in the true crime section so I must have missed it last week. Anyway I’m reading the Goodman then it’s back to the Sheppard. Not enough hours in the day!
I’ve just ordered In The Wake Of The Butcher (recommended to me by Howard Brown on the Forum) I’ve also been watching the Zodiac series on the History Channel So I’ve also ordered a Zodiac book.
It seems in the states we don't have as voluminous of a true crime section. Or perhaps, American murder is not as interesting as British murder! I also have been dabbling in different books, just finished reading RFK Jr.s "FRAMED" about Michael Skakel who was convicted of murdering his neighbor Martha Moxley, when both were 15 in 1975. He was sentenced to 20 to life, released in 2013 on appeal citing lack of adequate representation and is in the process of being sent back to prison with appeals going back and forth. It is a mess...

I am intimately familiar with this case as I know the area and some of the peripheral people involved well (although not enough to prejudice me, I think )

I tend to agree with the author's conclusion that Michael Skakel was most likely innocent and certainly should not have been convicted. The book itself is a marvel IMO, one of the most thorough dissections of a case I have ever read.

The author is Skakel's cousin and he gives a full disclosure; the book is intended to exonerate his cousin and he is absolutely biased in that direction but I think as he says "the facts speak for themselves."

Perhaps, you might want to check that out, next? It is probably the best American case where the guilt of the main suspect is in serious doubt since Sam Sheppard IMO.

Last edited by AmericanSherlock : 12-09-2017 at 03:41 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1443  
Old 12-09-2017, 03:46 PM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 315
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Another question is why did Wallace on entering the house go straight upstairs to look for his wife? This wasnít a mansion. How many downstairs rooms were there? Three I think. Surely most (if not all) would have checked the downstairs rooms first? Why did he check his lab (the Johnstonís saw a light go on) ? Surely he wouldnít have expected Julia to be in there?
Iím not saying that this proves his guilt but for me this is suspicious behaviour.
As the least-used room in the house, it would be logical to look in the parlour last...

Poor old Wallace just can't win, can he?

No doubt if he'd gone there first people would be popping up to say "Ha-haaa! Guilty!!!"
__________________
"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
  #1444  
Old 12-09-2017, 03:53 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,101
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
It seems in the states we don't have as voluminous of a true crime section. Or perhaps, American murder is not as interesting as British murder! I also have been dabbling in different books, just finished reading RFK Jr.s "FRAMED" about Michael Skakel who was convicted of murdering his neighbor Martha Moxley, when both were 15 in 1975. He was sentenced to 20 to life, released in 2013 on appeal citing lack of adequate representation and is in the process of being sent back to prison with appeals going back and forth. It is a mess...

I am intimately familiar with this case as I know the area and some of the peripheral people involved well (although not enough to prejudice me, I think )

I tend to agree with the author's conclusion that Michael Skakel was most likely innocent and certainly should not have been convicted. The book itself is a marvel IMO, one of the most thorough dissections of a case I have ever read.

The author is Skakel's cousin and he gives a full disclosure; the book is intended to exonerate his cousin and he is absolutely biased in that direction but I think as he says "the facts speak for themselves."

Perhaps, you might want to check that out, next? It is probably the best American case where the guilt of the main suspect is in serious doubt since Sam Sheppard IMO.
Cheers AS, Iíve made a note.

I know that I sound like a convinced ĎWallace did ití man but Iím still finding it hard to completely exonerate him in my own mind. Another example is the blood smeared note in the vase upstairs. Itís unthinkable that a killer who Ďstoleí cash would pick up the notes in the vase then put them back. Itís surely equally unlikely that a policeman would search with blood on his hands then transfer it without knowing. As the amount of cash in the vase was at least approximately the same amount that was supposedly in the cash box then the likeliest scenario must be that Wallace in staging a robbery (and letís remember, why would a robber empty a cash box then considerately return it to its high shelf?) took the money from the cash box, not realising he had a bit of blood still on his hand, put the cash upstairs. I canít think of a reasonable alternative.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1445  
Old 12-09-2017, 03:57 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,101
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
As the least-used room in the house, it would be logical to look in the parlour last...

Poor old Wallace just can't win, can he?

No doubt if he'd gone there first people would be popping up to say "Ha-haaa! Guilty!!!"
So he enters the house desperate to find his wife and doesnít check a room that it would have taken, at best, 5 seconds to look into.

He checked his lab before it and she probably never went in there! So the Ďleast used roomí explaination falls flat.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1446  
Old 12-09-2017, 04:03 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Cheers AS, Iíve made a note.

I know that I sound like a convinced ĎWallace did ití man but Iím still finding it hard to completely exonerate him in my own mind. Another example is the blood smeared note in the vase upstairs. Itís unthinkable that a killer who Ďstoleí cash would pick up the notes in the vase then put them back. Itís surely equally unlikely that a policeman would search with blood on his hands then transfer it without knowing. As the amount of cash in the vase was at least approximately the same amount that was supposedly in the cash box then the likeliest scenario must be that Wallace in staging a robbery (and letís remember, why would a robber empty a cash box then considerately return it to its high shelf?) took the money from the cash box, not realising he had a bit of blood still on his hand, put the cash upstairs. I canít think of a reasonable alternative.
Also consider Julia's handbag with money in it and jewelry on her were left untouched. I agree with you...I see the points against Wallace's candidacy that some others have pointed out, but there is too much that smacks of an insidde job/planned murder and does not jibe with a robbery gone wrong scenario. The blood clot on the lavatory pan has also never been satisfactorily explained, just the "a police man must have left it there" excuse, which as you point out, is also unsatisfactory for explaining the blood smeared notes. And if a robber was up there in the first place, why not take the money?!?

The box being replaced as well---another indicator of who was behind this IMO. Also Julia struck from behind with no struggle. And if it was a robber, where did he get the weapon? Did he bring it with him? That doesn't make sense to me, but if not, why did he bring it away with him? If fingerprinting was the issue, fine...but proponents of that theory have suggested a glove was used...

I just can't reconcile all this with some high strung robber.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1447  
Old 12-09-2017, 04:06 PM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 315
Default

Speaking of "stalking", over the years various writers have claimed that either:-
a) it was impossible for anyone to stalk Wallace leaving home for the chess club, or
b) it could only be achieved by loitering conspicuously at one or two particular alley junctions near Wolverton Street.

They are, of course, WRONG. It was the easiest thing to do, and THIS is how it was done...
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8w...Z4dzhINFU/view
__________________
"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 : 12-09-2017 at 04:14 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1448  
Old 12-09-2017, 04:11 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
Speaking of "stalking", over the years various writers have claimed that either:-
a) it was impossible for anyone to stalk Wallace leaving home for the chess club, or
b) it could only be achieved by loitering conspicuously at one or two particular alley junctions near Wolverton Street.

They are, of course, WRONG. It was the easiest thing to do, and this is how it was done...
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8w...Z4dzhINFU/view
Show me 1 person who said it was IMPOSSIBLE. The point is it seems IMPROBABLE someone would go to that trouble on both nights as would be necessary for this type of plan. Dodgy videos in your car don't change the facts of this case.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1449  
Old 12-09-2017, 04:21 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,101
Default

Canít argue that it was possible Rod. It doesnít mean that it happened though. Parry knew when Wallace went out to work. He knew that Julia would have allowed him inside (if we believe Wallace) Why the need for the Phonecall? He could have gone in when Wallace was out on his afternoon route. The only explaination could be darkness. The phonecall, to me at least, speaks of an alibi rather than a necessary plan.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1450  
Old 12-09-2017, 04:24 PM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 315
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
So he enters the house desperate to find his wife and doesnít check a room that it would have taken, at best, 5 seconds to look into.

He checked his lab before it and she probably never went in there! So the Ďleast used roomí explaination falls flat.
Have you forgotten that the lights were off in the parlour? [Yes, obviously ]
And once upstairs, Wallace would naturally check all rooms, before visiting the darkened parlour last.

Nice try, but you can't convict a man solely with prejudice and wrong-thinking...
__________________
"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 01:51 AM.


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