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: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - by Paddy 3 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - by Paddy 9 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - by Sam Flynn 34 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - by Paddy 39 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - by Paddy 43 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - by Sam Flynn 1 hour and 21 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Torso Killings: torso maps - (13 posts)
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - (11 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (6 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Was the ripper and also the torsomans crimes totally non sexual in nature? - (4 posts)
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - (3 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (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
  #2451  
Old 05-25-2018, 07:03 PM
Pcdunn Pcdunn is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,659
Default

Herlock,

Re #2 about the eleven blows speaking to the killer being enraged at his victim, and probably a relative or acquaintance, I have come across a case of a serial rapist/murderer/ thief who targeted elderly women, strangers or near-strangers, and always used excessive brutality against them.

His name was Andrew Dillon, and his case was featured on the ID channel's true crime documentary series "The Coroner: I Speak for the Dead" featuring Dr. Graham Hetrick.

http://truthinjustice.org/gladden1.htm

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6739210/?ref_=ttep_ep3

I'm not saying you're wrong in pinning Julia's murder on her husband, but *sometimes* the less common suspect can be to blame. And sometimes burglars turn into murderers.
__________________
Pat D.
---------------
Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
---------------

Last edited by Pcdunn : 05-25-2018 at 07:03 PM. Reason: Spelling error
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2452  
Old 05-26-2018, 01:43 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,255
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pcdunn View Post
Herlock,

Re #2 about the eleven blows speaking to the killer being enraged at his victim, and probably a relative or acquaintance, I have come across a case of a serial rapist/murderer/ thief who targeted elderly women, strangers or near-strangers, and always used excessive brutality against them.

His name was Andrew Dillon, and his case was featured on the ID channel's true crime documentary series "The Coroner: I Speak for the Dead" featuring Dr. Graham Hetrick.

http://truthinjustice.org/gladden1.htm

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6739210/?ref_=ttep_ep3

I'm not saying you're wrong in pinning Julia's murder on her husband, but *sometimes* the less common suspect can be to blame. And sometimes burglars turn into murderers.
Thanks for that Pat

Youre absolutely right of course that nothing is ever black and white and that the brutality of the murder isnt an absolute clincher for the ‘Wallace was guilty’ side. If Parry had a sidekick for eg (which i dont believe he did) he ‘might’ have had a predisposition to excessive violence that came to the fore during the robbery. I do feel that its a likelier pointer to Wallace though.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2453  
Old 05-26-2018, 05:01 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 636
Default

I would say the difference here is that the phonecall the night before implied a cool, calculated and premeditated plan. So the idea of a highly strung robber, who hadn't pre-planned his actions striking 11 times out of panic seems unrealistic.

I don't find the idea of some serial attacker plausible either, since this was the only crime of this type in Liverpool in 1931 and didn't resemble the Anfield Housebreaker either (which was non violent anyway).
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2454  
Old 05-27-2018, 03:37 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,255
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
I would say the difference here is that the phonecall the night before implied a cool, calculated and premeditated plan. So the idea of a highly strung robber, who hadn't pre-planned his actions striking 11 times out of panic seems unrealistic.

I don't find the idea of some serial attacker plausible either, since this was the only crime of this type in Liverpool in 1931 and didn't resemble the Anfield Housebreaker either (which was non violent anyway).
The killer had to be either Wallace or someone that talked his way inside. From what we know of Julia (from Wallace himself) that would have only have been someone that Julia knew (for eg Parry who had an alibi for the time.) The suggestion that this person could have been ‘Qualtrough’ isnt impossible but there is no evidence for it as opposed to the mountain of evidence that points to Wallace.

While not ‘concusive’ the brutality of the attack tends to point us towards anger, resentment, hatred etc rather than the idea of someone caught in the act (especially when the idea of being described/identified to the police would have been an accepted risk when going in.) Its hard to imagine that Julia would have taken much ‘silencing.’ Add to this a question like ‘why would a sneak-thief or thief-killer have taken the time to turn off all the downstairs lights after making the most feeble attempt at a robbery ever?’ and we cant help but turn in the direction of a planned kill with the phonecall as a ruse to allow Wallace to be far away from the crime scene.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2455  
Old 05-30-2018, 02:48 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,273
Default

Hi All,

A guilty Wallace would have had to make absolutely sure he had killed Julia, so the number and force of the blows could have been a combination of repressed rage, finally coming out after all the careful planning, plus the need to ensure they would be fatal. She must have been a tough old bird in some ways if she could pass for a much younger woman.

Leaving very little blood or mess outside the parlour; turning off the downstairs lights; replacing the cash box; and finally removing the murder weapon from the house, all point to someone in the process of carrying out a premeditated crime, but one whose attention to detail was a character trait not easily deviated from, even when his 'tidiness' would have seemed inappropriate for an intruder.

Had there been a trail of blood from parlour to back door, for instance; had the lights been on and the cash box left open on the floor; and had the weapon been left, but with no fingerprints, this would all have been consistent with an intruder wearing gloves.

I don't believe this crime was committed by an intruder who went out of his way to make it look like Wallace, being too fastidious for his own good. It's simpler and makes more sense to see this as Wallace himself, being too Wallace-like for his own good.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2456  
Old 05-31-2018, 02:43 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 636
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Hi All,

A guilty Wallace would have had to make absolutely sure he had killed Julia, so the number and force of the blows could have been a combination of repressed rage, finally coming out after all the careful planning, plus the need to ensure they would be fatal. She must have been a tough old bird in some ways if she could pass for a much younger woman.

Leaving very little blood or mess outside the parlour; turning off the downstairs lights; replacing the cash box; and finally removing the murder weapon from the house, all point to someone in the process of carrying out a premeditated crime, but one whose attention to detail was a character trait not easily deviated from, even when his 'tidiness' would have seemed inappropriate for an intruder.

Had there been a trail of blood from parlour to back door, for instance; had the lights been on and the cash box left open on the floor; and had the weapon been left, but with no fingerprints, this would all have been consistent with an intruder wearing gloves.

I don't believe this crime was committed by an intruder who went out of his way to make it look like Wallace, being too fastidious for his own good. It's simpler and makes more sense to see this as Wallace himself, being too Wallace-like for his own good.

Love,

Caz
X
I agree with the jist of this post.

I would say that the crime scene and structure of the whole story testifies against an intruder committing an unplanned murder due to panic.

Therefore excluding outlier and conspiracy theories, we are left with 2 options.

1. Wallace was the killer and deliberately sought to make it seem like someone else was, but made some mistakes characteristic of 1st time killers out of force of habit.

2. Someone else was a pre-meditated murderer and took enormous added unnecessary risk to make it seem like Wallace was the killer in a bizarre attempt to frame him for his wife's murder.

What makes more sense?

What seems more likely?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2457  
Old 05-31-2018, 01:53 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,255
Default

Hi Caz and AS,

You’ll not be surprised to hear me totally agreeing with your 2 posts.

Everything points to this being an intended kill as opposed to a robbery gone wrong. Of course some go for the former but if we consider the latter to be likeliest there really is only one suspect.

It’s a pity that we can’t add a poll to this thread.

I have heard no argument that puts any serious doubt on Wallace’s guilt. Parry had alibi’s for the Monday and the Tuesday. To doubt them is to accuse people of lying to the police with no good grounds.

95% Wallace and rising.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2458  
Old 06-01-2018, 10:20 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,273
Default

Hi Guys,

All a guilty Wallace really had to do was create just enough reasonable doubt that he could have done the deed in the time between the milk boy's latest possible departure and the earliest possible sighting of himself on the way to meet his non-existent prospective customer. He didn't actually need an alternative identity for Qualtrough, as long as nobody could prove it was Wallace himself. And with any doubt cast over his opportunity to commit the crime [and nothing whatsoever to prove the means or motive], Qualtrough could have been literally anyone. No other suspect is required when one can show reasonable doubt.

In this respect, it was a perfect murder, if Wallace planned to kill his wife and managed to get away with it - eventually. Most spouse killers slip up somewhere along the line because they didn't do enough to create that essential element of doubt, or because it was done in the heat of the moment, which often results in a confession when the evidence against them seems overwhelming.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2459  
Old 06-01-2018, 01:10 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,255
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Hi Guys,

All a guilty Wallace really had to do was create just enough reasonable doubt that he could have done the deed in the time between the milk boy's latest possible departure and the earliest possible sighting of himself on the way to meet his non-existent prospective customer. He didn't actually need an alternative identity for Qualtrough, as long as nobody could prove it was Wallace himself. And with any doubt cast over his opportunity to commit the crime [and nothing whatsoever to prove the means or motive], Qualtrough could have been literally anyone. No other suspect is required when one can show reasonable doubt.

In this respect, it was a perfect murder, if Wallace planned to kill his wife and managed to get away with it - eventually. Most spouse killers slip up somewhere along the line because they didn't do enough to create that essential element of doubt, or because it was done in the heat of the moment, which often results in a confession when the evidence against them seems overwhelming.

Love,

Caz
X
Good points Caz

It might also be said that Wallace was the ‘perfect murderer. The mild-mannered, happily married, intelligent, cultured, chess-playing, respectable middle-aged insurance salesman with health issues.

Doubts were the key. They were all that he really needed. Apparently tight timings - surely he would have been splattered in blood? - what reason did he have to kill her? And it was these ‘doubts’ that saw him acquitted.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2460  
Old 06-02-2018, 03:20 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 636
Default

I think the Qualtrough ruse, while we can poke (correct in my opinion!) holes in the likelihood of its genuineness, was the best alibi Wallace could hope for.

I've seen it argued that if he was really the killer , why not just kill Julia on the way to chess the Monday night and not introduce the whole Qualtrough business. But this offers no "alternative" suspect. The Anfield Housebreaker wasn't violent for example. And, for a self-styled intellectual man like Wallace, I'm sure a complex plot would be more to his liking than a random killing and hoping he could pass it off on an intruder.

The key point however is the Qualtrough plot actively shifts the focus onto an outsider, who could be absolutely anyone. Much more so than the passive suggestion of an intruder by way of staged robbery. (Which of course Wallace necessarily would have to do as well.) Everyone knows that if a spouse kills their loved one and seeks to get away with it, they must stage the crime scene. The "burden of logic" is in a way still on the spouse to demonstrate his innocence from a logical perspective in this scenario, whereas in the Qualtrough scenario, it sort of implies that someone else did the crime, and one has to demonstrate that Wallace masqueraded as Qualtrough.

Note: I'm using "burden of logic" in terms of a logical sense, not legally. It would still be on the prosecution of course to PROVE Wallace's guilt even if the logic points to him. That is the legal "burden of proof." But of course one is best served having the obvious implicit logic point away from him as the most likely perpetrator rather than towards him. The "Qualtrough Ruse" achieves that, whereas a random killing and staging, say on the Monday night would not achieve that. Of course, in my opinion, with careful analysis delving beyond the surface obvious implication that Wallace would not ring himself at the chess club (a significant psychological factor as to why Beattie might have been fooled IMO!), we can deduce that Wallace very likely was Qualtrough indeed. But it requires work and niggling doubts remain. If Wallace was in fact the killer, this was a very cleverly structured plot. However, he did make quite a few mistakes, mostly in execution but also somewhat in planning, although I would say if the killer, the overall jist of his plot was enough to create significant doubt despite these mistakes and therefore could be categorized in a broad sense as the perfect murder. With all I've indicated to point towards his guilt, there is an alternative explanation to each of my points, even if quite unlikely. There is still a sliver of reasonable doubt. I would have to acquit if I were a juror.

PS. Please note that if Wallace was not the killer, then there would be no need for the Qualtrough ruse, as the true killer could have visited on the Monday night himself! It is only Wallace who benefits from this subterfuge, not anyone else. This holds true whether the killing was planned or a robbery gone wrong. Only convoluted scenarios such as a prank call etc. can really reconcile this. This is why I say when one examines the logic in depth of the structure of this case, all signs point back to WHW.
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 07:31 AM.


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