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 TomTomKent 47 minutes ago.
Periodicals: Upcoming Article - by TomTomKent 57 minutes ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by NickB 2 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: George Hutchinson Shadowing Sarah Lewis' Statement - by Darryl Kenyon 3 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: George Hutchinson Shadowing Sarah Lewis' Statement - by Wickerman 4 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: George Hutchinson Shadowing Sarah Lewis' Statement - by Wickerman 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Mary Jane Kelly: George Hutchinson Shadowing Sarah Lewis' Statement - (8 posts)
Periodicals: Upcoming Article - (6 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Help On Some Details - (5 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (3 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Most accurate reconstruction (Graphic Warning) - (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
  #1331  
Old 01-10-2019, 10:17 AM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is online now
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 819
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cobalt View Post
When my parents married in 1948 they were required to submit their birth certificates.
They probably just imagined they did, when in fact they did not need to.

I appreciate procedures might have been tightened up a bit after the war, but I don't think it was ever a case of just turning up at a register and offering a name, age and address.
https://www.british-genealogy.com/ar...p/t-66084.html

Regarding the poker and the metal bar, there was not much more the police could do if Wallace claimed that the former had been thrown out and he had no knowledge of the latter. It was simply his word against the cleaning lady's.
His story is not convincing: why throw out a poker unless it is to be replaced? Then again the cleaning lady was being 'led' by the police to notice anything missing from the house, so perhaps wished to helpful and ended up supplying inaccurate information.
Wallace surmised it: "She must have thrown it out with the ashes."
Again, this was women's work in 1931. Men left the running of the house to women (even employing a charwoman, rather than take any interest (let alone assist) in 'menial' work themselves)
As for Wallace taking the bar to Menlove Gardens...
"There is no place, apparently, where he could have dropped it on his way ; the only possible place, the open space between the house and the tram, has been combed, and the drains searched, and no trace can be found of it. How the weapon was disposed of is a mystery. One would have thought that, if he was carrying it, the conductor of the tram-car would have noticed him, if he was carrying an iron bar or a poker, and he did not... "
Mr. Justice Wright, summing-up in Rex v Wallace
__________________
"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 : 01-10-2019 at 10:25 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1332  
Old 01-10-2019, 10:28 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 3,157
Default

The disposal of the weapon is an unknown. This in no way means that Wallace didnít dispose of it. Letís face it, he might have been planning this murder for weeks if not months, giving him plenty of time to find a place to dispose of the weapon.

Isnít it typical of the varying standards applied to this case by Wallace defenders . At any other time during the case the police are utterly useless, corrupt incompetents! And yet when searching for the weapon they are diligent, honest and meticulous.

Strange that
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1333  
Old 01-10-2019, 10:48 AM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is online now
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 819
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
The disposal of the weapon is an unknown. This in no way means that Wallace didn’t dispose of it. Let’s face it, he might have been planning this murder for weeks if not months, giving him plenty of time to find a place to dispose of the weapon.
Like where? Any better fancies than your ash-bins behind the locked gates?
Isn’t it typical of the varying standards applied to this case by Wallace defenders . At any other time during the case the police are utterly useless, corrupt incompetents! And yet when searching for the weapon they are diligent, honest and meticulous.
The Police also enlisted the Sanitary Department's help.
Strange that
Not half as strange as someone who obsessively flogs a dead theory that was laughed out of court in May 1931...
Attached Images
 
__________________
"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 : 01-10-2019 at 11:07 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1334  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:11 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 3,157
Default

a) to say that you know that all gates were definitely locked is a lie.

b) that the case is still debated and only one delusional person says that itís solved does not entitle the suggestion of Wallaceís guilt to be called Ďa dead theory.í

c) a jury found him guilty initially. He was never exonerated properly.

d) cutting and posting is not debating. It shows the absence of debating skills.

e) your getting worse
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1335  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:25 AM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is online now
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 819
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
c) a jury found him guilty initially. He was never exonerated properly.
yawn...

"The case of Mr. Wallace does not differ in principle from that of any other defendant who has been acquitted of a serious charge by the verdict of a jury..."
J.R. Clynes, (Home Secretary), House of Commons, 22nd May 1931

Do you have anything other than disinformation, prejudice or fancy to support your weird obsession?
__________________
"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 : 01-10-2019 at 11:28 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1336  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:48 AM
OneRound OneRound is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
The only 'goggles' I wear are those worn by Justice Wright.

a Cambridge Tripos prize-winning esteemed Judge?
versus
some random obsessive nonentity on the internet...

Tough call....NOT !
Rod - you clearly have a high regard for Wright J. No problem with that but wasn't it open to him to stop the trial and direct the jury to bring in a Not Guilty verdict on the grounds of a lack (you suggest a total lack) of evidence against Wallace? Why didn't he? Furthermore, why didn't Wallace's counsel approach the Judge to do so?

Genuinely interested.

Thanks,
OneRound
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1337  
Old 01-10-2019, 12:07 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 3,157
Default

Please cut and paste us the quote where they say that Wallace was innocent.

Thanks
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1338  
Old 01-10-2019, 12:14 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 3,157
Default

Iím an obsessive?

Remind us again how long youíve been obsessing over this case compared to my twelve months?

Remind us again who filmed himself driving around the streets of Anfield at night?

__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1339  
Old 01-10-2019, 01:04 PM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is online now
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 819
Default

OK, OneRound

it's complex. Hector Munro (Wallace's solicitor) had indeed urged counsel, Roland Oliver KC, to make a "no case" submission.

But there was a risk. If the Judge refused, it would look bad to the jury. And Oliver KC declined to take the risk.

Oliver KC, at the Court of Appeal, stated that he was hoping the Judge himself might dismiss the case of his own volition. Lord Hewart nodded, in apparent agreement.

That was very rare, however. Instead, Mr. Justice Wright had "summed-up for an acquittal", making it clear to the jury, among other things, that:-
"you have a murder so devised and so arranged that nothing remains which would point to anyone as the murderer..."

"a man cannot be convicted of any crime, least of all murder, merely on probabilities, unless they are so strong as to amount to a reasonable certainty. If you have other possibilities, a jury would not, and I believe ought not, to come to the conclusion that the charge is established..."

"Indeed, the evidence is quite consistent with some unknown criminal, for some unknown motive, having got into the house and executed the murder and gone away..."

"..it is no use applying tests to evidence if none of them excludes really the possibility of the innocence of the prisoner. If every matter relied on as circumstantial is equally or substantially consistent both with the guilt or innocence of the prisoner, the multiplication of those instances may not take you any further in coming to a conclusion of guilt..."

"the whole crime was so skilfully devised and so skilfully executed, and there is such an absence of any trace to incriminate anybody, as to make it very difficult to say .. that it can be brought home to anybody in particular..."
But the jury simply didn't like or understand Wallace, and had already made their minds up, based - quite seriously - on the idea that he had impersonated his wife to the milk boy! One of the jurors also claimed that he and three others had been intimated by the rest into bringing in the verdict asap, without any discussion...
__________________
"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
  #1340  
Old 01-10-2019, 01:44 PM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is online now
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 819
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Please cut and paste us the quote where they say that Wallace was innocent.

Thanks
I'm happy to post more than one. It's a very ancient principle, it's part of our Constitution, and it's taken as read for every person, including Wallace...
Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat—"Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies"
Justinian, Digest of Roman Law, 6th Century

"Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt... No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained."
Viscount Sankey, House of Lords, 1948

"Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial..."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, 1948

Do you have anything other than disinformation, prejudice and fancy, or are you done?
__________________
"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 : 01-10-2019 at 01:50 PM.
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 08:03 PM.


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