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:
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by Herlock Sholmes 5 hours ago.
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by Elamarna 5 hours ago.
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - by Herlock Sholmes 5 hours ago.
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - by Elamarna 6 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Abby Normal 7 hours ago.
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by Fisherman 8 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - (17 posts)
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - (8 posts)
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - (7 posts)
Rippercast: Oh, Dear Boss: The Ripper Had All The Luck - (3 posts)
General Discussion: Mug Shots from 1908-1911 - (2 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (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
  #1781  
Old 01-19-2018, 06:54 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 614
Default

Hi All,

As you know today is the 87th anniversary of the phone call to the club and tomorrow is the anniversary of the murder,

One further thought I had is that if the killer was not Wallace, the only reason he could have to take the weapon with him would be to avoid fingerprints being found, but there was a mackintosh right there ready made to wipe any off.

It seems unlikely a killer, hoping for a smooth entry and sneak theft would bring a weapon with him. If it was something he found in the house and used in the commission of the killing in a moment of panic or rage, then it simply does not make sense that he would risk taking it with him.

If the killer was Wallace, then it was a risky tactical error to get rid of the weapon in my opinion, but much more understandable how he could think it would be necessary. If this is really what happened, then it was a gamble that ended up working for him (Killers often attempt to get rid of weapons even if the weapon itself could not be proved to have been used by them; cases put forth against any defendant simply "seem" significantly compromised without a weapon being found.)

The lack of signs of a struggle, the money that could have been taken that wasn't (blood smeared notes), the cash box being replaced, the odd mackintosh positioning indicating pre-planning, the containment of the blood (it wasn't tracked out of the parlor), and the weapon being removed seem to me to all point towards careful planning and an inside job.

Last edited by AmericanSherlock : 01-19-2018 at 07:02 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1782  
Old 01-21-2018, 02:38 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,043
Default

Hi AS.

Good points.

I can’t recall which book I read it in but didn’t someone find an iron bar years later pushed to the back of the fireplace? Couldn’t this have been the murder weapon? If so then it would surely have been more likely to have been put there by Wallace. Perhaps he planned to put it there all along after first washing off any blood? I’m unsure though how accessible this part of the fireplace was though? Obviously Wallace wouldn’t have wanted to spend time dismantling the fireplace just to hide the weapon. But if it was fairly easy to get to, hidden amongst the dust and soot, could the police have known how long it had been there? As it happens the police didn’t look there.

It seems to me that if the weapon had been found, even with no prints, the police would have perhaps thought it more likely to have been used by Wallace. That a violent robber, willing to kill, wouldn’t have left it to chance to find a suitable weapon in the house.

On the subject of the mackintosh AS, the more I think about it the more I feel that it might have been used as a shield by Wallace. I can think of no other sensible reason why Julia would have had it with her. The only other suggestion that I mentioned previously was could she have been drying it in front of the fire over the back of a chair? I keep going for ‘shield’ though.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1783  
Old 01-22-2018, 12:58 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
Hi All,

As you know today is the 87th anniversary of the phone call to the club and tomorrow is the anniversary of the murder,

One further thought I had is that if the killer was not Wallace, the only reason he could have to take the weapon with him would be to avoid fingerprints being found, but there was a mackintosh right there ready made to wipe any off.

It seems unlikely a killer, hoping for a smooth entry and sneak theft would bring a weapon with him. If it was something he found in the house and used in the commission of the killing in a moment of panic or rage, then it simply does not make sense that he would risk taking it with him.

If the killer was Wallace, then it was a risky tactical error to get rid of the weapon in my opinion, but much more understandable how he could think it would be necessary. If this is really what happened, then it was a gamble that ended up working for him (Killers often attempt to get rid of weapons even if the weapon itself could not be proved to have been used by them; cases put forth against any defendant simply "seem" significantly compromised without a weapon being found.)

The lack of signs of a struggle, the money that could have been taken that wasn't (blood smeared notes), the cash box being replaced, the odd mackintosh positioning indicating pre-planning, the containment of the blood (it wasn't tracked out of the parlor), and the weapon being removed seem to me to all point towards careful planning and an inside job.
Hi AS,

In respect of the murder weapon, I think it comes back to the basic problem: as regards Wallace, he had an incredibly small area where he could have realisticly disposed of it-essentially the house and the area between his address and tram stop-and this area was thoroughly searched by the police. Therefore, as I see it, baring a miraculous event, Wallace effectively exonerated on this ground alone.

Regarding any other possible suspect, all sorts of scenarios are possible. For instance, as you point out he could have taken the weapon with him becuse of the fingerprints issue; and I don't think wiping it on the heavily bloodstained Macintosh would have been a sensible option as he would have risked transfering even more blood to his person.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1784  
Old 01-22-2018, 01:04 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,289
Default

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

Good points.

I can’t recall which book I read it in but didn’t someone find an iron bar years later pushed to the back of the fireplace? Couldn’t this have been the murder weapon? If so then it would surely have been more likely to have been put there by Wallace. Perhaps he planned to put it there all along after first washing off any blood? I’m unsure though how accessible this part of the fireplace was though? Obviously Wallace wouldn’t have wanted to spend time dismantling the fireplace just to hide the weapon. But if it was fairly easy to get to, hidden amongst the dust and soot, could the police have known how long it had been there? As it happens the police didn’t look there.

It seems to me that if the weapon had been found, even with no prints, the police would have perhaps thought it more likely to have been used by Wallace. That a violent robber, willing to kill, wouldn’t have left it to chance to find a suitable weapon in the house.

On the subject of the mackintosh AS, the more I think about it the more I feel that it might have been used as a shield by Wallace. I can think of no other sensible reason why Julia would have had it with her. The only other suggestion that I mentioned previously was could she have been drying it in front of the fire over the back of a chair? I keep going for ‘shield’ though.
Ah, the iron bar in the fireplace story. It was mentioned in a book but frankly, I think this has to be, to coin a phrase, fake news. Thus, we know the police completely dismantled the fireplace and found nothing. Moreover, the piece of iron that was allegedly found-it wasn't described as an iron bar-was not referred to as being caked in dried blood and gore, as the actual weapon must have been, and as I'm sure this "find" would have been had that been the case.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1785  
Old 01-22-2018, 04:03 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,043
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Ah, the iron bar in the fireplace story. It was mentioned in a book but frankly, I think this has to be, to coin a phrase, fake news. Thus, we know the police completely dismantled the fireplace and found nothing. Moreover, the piece of iron that was allegedly found-it wasn't described as an iron bar-was not referred to as being caked in dried blood and gore, as the actual weapon must have been, and as I'm sure this "find" would have been had that been the case.
Perhaps it is fake news John. Someone looking for their 15 minutes.. But do we know for certain that the police dismantled the fireplace? They might have done but I just can’t recall reading about it (that in no way suggests that it hasn’t been mentioned) As for the bar being caked in blood and gore...Wallace could have wiped the bulk off on the mackintosh then cleaned the rest under the tap in the back kitchen. If it was slightly damp when placed in the grate it would have gotten coated in dust and soot, especially if it was rolled to the back.
I just think that unless we can be certain that this story was a hoax it has to remain a possible explaination. Of course if we are certain that the police looked right to the back of the fireplace (and it would have been criminally remiss of them if they didn’t) then we can dismiss the story.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1786  
Old 01-27-2018, 02:57 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 614
Default

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

Good points.

I can’t recall which book I read it in but didn’t someone find an iron bar years later pushed to the back of the fireplace? Couldn’t this have been the murder weapon? If so then it would surely have been more likely to have been put there by Wallace. Perhaps he planned to put it there all along after first washing off any blood? I’m unsure though how accessible this part of the fireplace was though? Obviously Wallace wouldn’t have wanted to spend time dismantling the fireplace just to hide the weapon. But if it was fairly easy to get to, hidden amongst the dust and soot, could the police have known how long it had been there? As it happens the police didn’t look there.

It seems to me that if the weapon had been found, even with no prints, the police would have perhaps thought it more likely to have been used by Wallace. That a violent robber, willing to kill, wouldn’t have left it to chance to find a suitable weapon in the house.

On the subject of the mackintosh AS, the more I think about it the more I feel that it might have been used as a shield by Wallace. I can think of no other sensible reason why Julia would have had it with her. The only other suggestion that I mentioned previously was could she have been drying it in front of the fire over the back of a chair? I keep going for ‘shield’ though.
Hi Herlock, I agree with your points here. I just can't think what on earth the mackintosh was there for in that position, except as part of a planned shield type thing. It seems to fit with the fact that there was less blood than you would expect outside of the immediate vicinity leading away from the parlor. An effort at containment and minimization of blood splatter.

The only other explanation is Julia was wearing the mackintosh over her shoulders like a shawl for some reason; perhaps she was chilly. Again though, why on earth would a robber, having been caught in the act, attack Julia with her back to him in the process of putting out the fireplace, in a different room altogether from the cashbox, with a mackintosh draped over her head?

Does anyone think its possible the mackintosh was used to cover the weapon?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1787  
Old 01-27-2018, 03:04 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 614
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Hi AS,

In respect of the murder weapon, I think it comes back to the basic problem: as regards Wallace, he had an incredibly small area where he could have realisticly disposed of it-essentially the house and the area between his address and tram stop-and this area was thoroughly searched by the police. Therefore, as I see it, baring a miraculous event, Wallace effectively exonerated on this ground alone.

Regarding any other possible suspect, all sorts of scenarios are possible. For instance, as you point out he could have taken the weapon with him becuse of the fingerprints issue; and I don't think wiping it on the heavily bloodstained Macintosh would have been a sensible option as he would have risked transfering even more blood to his person.
What about a garbage bin anywhere along the way? Keep in mind it was pitch black in Liverpool at that time. Or the grate theory that was applied to Parry based on Parkes testimony? I'm assuming you mean that in particular the route Wallace would have travelled at least on the way to the tram was known and therefore it would be extremely difficult for him to get rid of the weapon somewhere along the way without it being found. That is a good point indeed. And clearly it is difficult to imagine him carrying the weapon with him on the tram lol.

Or did Wallace have some plan and a place to hide it in the meantime until he could execute (no pun intended) his plan later? Remember he was only apprehended 2 weeks later. A culprit other than Wallace would definitely have an easier time in immediately getting rid of the weapon.

On the other hand, however I do find it quite odd the weapon was never found. It was either the iron bar (which I agree with you it probably was not) or it was something that was effectively disposed of (perhaps in a body of water etc.) so that it has never been found. This is not something I would tend to associate with a killer that has just committed likely his first murder and an unplanned one at that. I would expect a more messy disposal and the weapon being found eventually.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1788  
Old 01-27-2018, 03:07 PM
OneRound OneRound is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 499
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
Hi All,

As you know today is the 87th anniversary of the phone call to the club and tomorrow is the anniversary of the murder,

One further thought I had is that if the killer was not Wallace, the only reason he could have to take the weapon with him would be to avoid fingerprints being found, but there was a mackintosh right there ready made to wipe any off.

It seems unlikely a killer, hoping for a smooth entry and sneak theft would bring a weapon with him. If it was something he found in the house and used in the commission of the killing in a moment of panic or rage, then it simply does not make sense that he would risk taking it with him.

If the killer was Wallace, then it was a risky tactical error to get rid of the weapon in my opinion, but much more understandable how he could think it would be necessary. If this is really what happened, then it was a gamble that ended up working for him (Killers often attempt to get rid of weapons even if the weapon itself could not be proved to have been used by them; cases put forth against any defendant simply "seem" significantly compromised without a weapon being found.)

The lack of signs of a struggle, the money that could have been taken that wasn't (blood smeared notes), the cash box being replaced, the odd mackintosh positioning indicating pre-planning, the containment of the blood (it wasn't tracked out of the parlor), and the weapon being removed seem to me to all point towards careful planning and an inside job.
Hi AS and all - I certainly take the points in the highlighted paragraph. From examination of Julia's wounds, was any estimate able to made of the size and length of the murder weapon?

It would seem reasonable to think that the murder weapon would have to be fairly small if carried by and hidden on him by a sneak thief.

It also seems unlikely that a sneak thief picked up something in the house to kill Julia and then took it with him when he left. Had that occurred, wouldn't an innocent Wallace at some point have noticed it was missing and reported it to the police?

With thanks and best regards,

OneRound
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1789  
Old 01-28-2018, 06:29 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,043
Default

I still find it extremely difficult to accept the ‘sneak thief’ scenario. The thief/killer could have been easily identified by Julia during any investigation. It’s even less likely if we accuse Parry (how could he have expected to steal the cash and remain uncharged?)
I also can’t help thinking that the savagery of the attack and the amount of blows point to more than ‘silencing.’ How many blows would it have taken a man with a heavy object to kill a slightly built and frail old lady like Julia?

Answering AS’s question about whether the mackintosh could have been used to cover the weapon- it could have been but I still favour it being used as a shield. Could Wallace (or whoever) have put the mackintosh over Julia’s head and bludgeoned her through it?
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1790  
Old 01-28-2018, 08:34 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 614
Default

Hi Herlock and One Round,

I agree with many of the points both of you made. It seems to me Julia Wallace was an intended victim. It is difficult therefore to see Wallace as innocent, because then that means someone else went there with the intention of murdering JW and framing WHW. Not so likely 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 12:36 PM.


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