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:
Periodicals: Upcoming Article - by J6123 11 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Most accurate reconstruction (Graphic Warning) - by Harmonica 1 hour and 26 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Help On Some Details - by Michael W Richards 4 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Help On Some Details - by Michael W Richards 4 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: George Hutchinson Shadowing Sarah Lewis' Statement - by Sam Flynn 6 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Help On Some Details - by Wickerman 6 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Mary Jane Kelly: George Hutchinson Shadowing Sarah Lewis' Statement - (9 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Help On Some Details - (7 posts)
Periodicals: Upcoming Article - (5 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: distances between kills.odd - (3 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Most accurate reconstruction (Graphic Warning) - (1 posts)
Non-Ripper Books by Ripper Authors: "Prey Time" - (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
  #1431  
Old 01-12-2019, 11:21 AM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is online now
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 813
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer View Post
My apologies for the rather basic question; I'm no expert, nor even a competent amateur, when it comes to the Wallace case (I certainly have a lot of reading to do) but here goes.

The defense theory is that the whole 'Qualtrough' episode was a ploy to get Wallace out of the house on Tuesday night. Fair enough; it is reasonable argument.

However, Wallace was already out of the house on Monday night, and 'Qualtrough' was evidently even aware of this fact, having called down to the chess club.

So why not just bump off Julia or rob the house on Monday night? Did anyone come up with a credible theory as to why Tuesday would have been preferable to Monday for the murder? Was a payment due to be made into the cash box, or something along those lines?
Yes. I did.

Murder was not the objective... Burglary was.

The Qualtrough call served two purposes. To get Wallace out, and get 'Qualtrough' in, which obviously could not have been achieved on the Monday.
Moreover, Tuesday should also have presented jackpot taking for the burglar, and a Monday night chess-game for Wallace presented an opportunity and a motive for the phone call, too good to ignore.

But as often in such cases, something went wrong in the execution, and Julia Wallace lost her life...

Both logic and the evidence indicate the burglar/killer was not Parry, but an accomplice.
__________________
"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 : 01-12-2019 at 11:37 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1432  
Old 01-12-2019, 01:35 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 3,151
Default

This is simply a theory not a fact.

To say that the call served to get ‘Qualtrough’ in ignores a very inconvenient but a very obvious fact.

For the planner (Richard Gordon Parry as per Rod’s scenario) the idea is that after the phone call Wallace tells Julia about RM Qualtrough and his business trip to 25 Menlove Gardens East to meet him. After Wallace leaves on the Tuesday evening the accomplice turns up at 29 Wolverton Street claiming to be Qualtrough saying that there had been a mix-up and that he’d always intended to come to Wallace. Julia (who Wallace had stated would only admit someone to the house whilst she was alone if she actually knew them) would then let ‘Qualtrough’ in to await Wallace’s return. Whilst there he would steal the money from the cash box.

The problem with this ‘plan’ of course is that there’s absolutely no way that Parry could have been even remotely confident that Wallace would have mentioned RM Qualtrough let alone Menlove Gardens East. Julia was known to take no interest in William’s business dealings. There would have been every likelihood that he might have just said ‘I have to go out on business tonight.’ Thus, no reason for Julia to admit Qualtrough. It can barely be called a stab in the dark.

As we know plans attempt to eliminate the need for luck as far as possible. This requirement of such a massive slice of it is built right in and so it’s hard to see how it can realistically be called a plan.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1433  
Old 01-12-2019, 01:44 PM
moste moste is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Vancouver Island British Columbia.
Posts: 648
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
This is simply a theory not a fact.

To say that the call served to get ‘Qualtrough’ in ignores a very inconvenient but a very obvious fact.

For the planner (Richard Gordon Parry as per Rod’s scenario) the idea is that after the phone call Wallace tells Julia about RM Qualtrough and his business trip to 25 Menlove Gardens East to meet him. After Wallace leaves on the Tuesday evening the accomplice turns up at 29 Wolverton Street claiming to be Qualtrough saying that there had been a mix-up and that he’d always intended to come to Wallace. Julia (who Wallace had stated would only admit someone to the house whilst she was alone if she actually knew them) would then let ‘Qualtrough’ in to await Wallace’s return. Whilst there he would steal the money from the cash box.

The problem with this ‘plan’ of course is that there’s absolutely no way that Parry could have been even remotely confident that Wallace would have mentioned RM Qualtrough let alone Menlove Gardens East. Julia was known to take no interest in William’s business dealings. There would have been every likelihood that he might have just said ‘I have to go out on business tonight.’ Thus, no reason for Julia to admit Qualtrough. It can barely be called a stab in the dark.

As we know plans attempt to eliminate the need for luck as far as possible. This requirement of such a massive slice of it is built right in and so it’s hard to see how it can realistically be called a plan.
Mmhhh, I wonder if there is anything to be read into the fact that the Qualtrough caller asked for Wallaces address,? I presume this was a juvenile attempt to have people believe (after the fact,) that he really didn't know Wallaces address
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1434  
Old 01-12-2019, 01:49 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 3,151
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
I defy anyone to read Mather's over-the-top bile, and not conclude that he was motivated by malice, for some reason known only to himself.

He was the same age as Wallace, but described as "retired Prudential agent." Had he been any good at his job?

Not that any of it matters. It's of no evidential value regarding the murder.

We don't convict people based on smears, or pay any heed to such trivia.
It is categorically impossible to know Mather’s motive. He might have had every reason to dislike Wallace. Wallace might have done him some kind of disservice? Again you are dismissing the inconvenient without reason.

I therefore dismiss the Johnston’s as they were barely nodding acquaintances. Mrs Johnston probably only ever saw Julia during the day whilst William was out. She only entered the house 3 times in 10 years and didn’t even know Julia’s first name so any ‘testimony’ about the Wallace’s was near worthless.

Caird would have seen them on ‘formal’ visits where the Wallace’s would have been on their best behaviour ‘keeping up appearances’ and not wishing to cause gossip about any marital discord. These opinions cannot be viewed as ‘gospel.’ Honestly given, yes, but not difinitively accurate.

They could have produced 100 people who claimed that the Wallace’s appeared devoted couple (with ‘appeared’ being the important word) and it still couldn’t possibly guarantee the truth of their opinions. Only one dissenting voice though introduces doubt. Three or four introduces more.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1435  
Old 01-12-2019, 01:56 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 3,151
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moste View Post
Mmhhh, I wonder if there is anything to be read into the fact that the Qualtrough caller asked for Wallaces address,? I presume this was a juvenile attempt to have people believe (after the fact,) that he really didn't know Wallaces address
Hi Moste,

Even Antony accepts that this point favours Wallace over Parry. Only Wallace could have been certain of not receiving an answer and the question appears superfluous. Of course if Parry had received the address it wouldn’t categorically have meant plan over but Beattie might have asked “why do you need his address if you want him to come to your house?” In relaying this information to Wallace it may have caused doubt in Wallace’s mind about the genuineness of the call.

On the other hand, why would Wallace ask for his own address if he’d made the call? I can only suggest that he might have been trying to show that Qualtrough was, at the same time, trying to find out where this insurance agent he’d been told about with cash in the house lived and then plan to get him out of the house. Wallace might simply have been trying to create an impression for the police.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1436  
Old 01-12-2019, 01:59 PM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is online now
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 813
Default

a) We do know Wallace said much more to Julia than "I have to go out on business tonight"
http://www.coldcasejury.com/case03/amywallace.asp

b) Wallace mentioning 'Qualtrough' to her was not absolutely necessary for success, and we don't know that he didn't. But the perps certainly hoped he might.
possibilities...
i) Wallace omits to mention 'Qualtrough' to Julia
ii) Julia omits to mention 'Qualtrough' to Amy
iii) Amy omits to mention 'Qualtrough' to the Police
iv) the Police omit to ask Amy about 'Qualtrough'
[only the last two are reasonably certain]

c) We know, as the judge explained, that crimes are often speculative, and almost risk-free.
__________________
"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
  #1437  
Old 01-12-2019, 02:05 PM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is online now
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 813
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moste View Post
Mmhhh, I wonder if there is anything to be read into the fact that the Qualtrough caller asked for Wallaces address,? I presume this was a juvenile attempt to have people believe (after the fact,) that he really didn't know Wallaces address
Certainly possible. If a 3rd party perp, he would also know Wallace was not there (yet), but he still asked "Is Mr. Wallace there?"
So [needless to say], lies and obfuscation would have been inherent in this individual...
__________________
"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 : 01-12-2019 at 02:19 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1438  
Old 01-12-2019, 02:23 PM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is online now
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 813
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
It is categorically impossible to know Mather’s motive. He might have had every reason to dislike Wallace. Wallace might have done him some kind of disservice? Again you are dismissing the inconvenient without reason.
And how is any of that - even if true - relevant to figuring who killed Julia?

And I'd be cautious about putting words in someone's mouth, btw. I doubt he'll put up with it any more than I do...
__________________
"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 : 01-12-2019 at 02:32 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1439  
Old 01-12-2019, 02:32 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 3,151
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
a) We do know Wallace said much more to Julia than "I have to go out on business tonight"
http://www.coldcasejury.com/case03/amywallace.asp

Much more’ amounts to “Mr Wallace, had a telephone message while he was at the chess club the previous night to call somewhere in the Calderstones district sometime that evening,” from Amy. And “Wallace also stated that he believed his wife would admit someone called Mr Qualtrough because "she knew all about the business" which obviously comes from Wallace himself and so is of little value.

b) Wallace mentioning 'Qualtrough' to her was not absolutely necessary for success, and we don't know that he didn't. But the perps certainly hoped he might.

But the whole point of the plan was to get someone into the house past a very wary and reticent Julia who, according to Wallace himself, would only admit someone that she knew (like Parry.) Even though she didn’t ‘know’ Qualtrough your scenario had it built in that she would have at least heard the name Qualtrough and so would have let him in.

possibilities...
i) Wallace omits to mention 'Qualtrough' to Julia
ii) Julia omits to mention 'Qualtrough' to Amy
iii) Amy omits to mention 'Qualtrough' to the Police
iv) the Police omit to ask Amy about 'Qualtrough'
[only the last two are reasonably certain]


c) We know, as the judge explained, that crimes are often speculative, and almost risk-free.

It’s more than a stretch to categorise this as ‘speculative.’ This is a plan where Parry got himself an accomplice who was believable enough to convince a nervous Julia and was willing to take all the risks/ he would have studied the trams to judge how long Wallace would be away, he came up with the phone call idea to get Wallace out of the house and he apparently arranged to pick up his accomplice after the crime. This isn’t a stab in the dark. It’s a plan. You don’t come up with this kind of involved plan knowing that it’s reliant on a huge chunk of unforeseen luck.
No one comes up with this kind of plan with the attitude “you never know, it might work, but if it doesn’t hey-ho.”
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1440  
Old 01-12-2019, 02:35 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 3,151
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
And how is any of that - even if true - relevant to figuring who killed Julia?

And I'd be cautious about putting words in someone's mouth, btw. I doubt he'll put up with it any more than I do...
Firstly, if it’s not in any way ‘relevant’ why are you so vociferous in claiming that Mather was a man with some kind of grudge?

Secondly, what words into who’s mouth? Are you talking about Wallace and Mather?
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
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 02:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.