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:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wont kill in Whitechapel? - by MrBarnett 7 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wont kill in Whitechapel? - by MrBarnett 19 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wont kill in Whitechapel? - by Darryl Kenyon 20 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wont kill in Whitechapel? - by Darryl Kenyon 26 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wont kill in Whitechapel? - by Batman 28 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - by Batman 32 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wont kill in Whitechapel? - (131 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - (17 posts)
Non-Fiction: Jack and the Thames Torso Murders: A New Ripper? - (6 posts)
Bury, W.H.: The Spooners - (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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #2671  
Old 11-08-2018, 10:29 AM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 336
Default

In fact, it should now be obvious to the discerning reader that this thread was a kind of "clickbait", to flush out any maladjusted, ignorant, individual - to allow them to make a public fool of themselves in answering the question...

'Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?'

...in the affirmative.

Because, we already knew that since 19th May 1931 the legal position has been that there was NO EVIDENCE against Wallace (and nothing has come to light to disturb that view)

Hence the only people who would answer in the affirmative in the absence of any evidence are, at best, dreamers with too much time of their hands, and little grasp of the case, or the simply prejudiced...

The more profitable question is therefore, not 'Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?', but...

'Who killed Julia Wallace?'

and that is the question I have answered, using the actual evidence (some of which is relatively new), and abductive reasoning...

Anyhow, you can read all about it, soon enough.

For me, it's been a worthwhile and satisfying exercise...
__________________
"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
  #2672  
Old 11-08-2018, 11:50 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,651
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
In fact, it should now be obvious to the discerning reader that this thread was a kind of "clickbait", to flush out any maladjusted, ignorant, individual - to allow them to make a public fool of themselves in answering the question...

'Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?'

...in the affirmative.

Because, we already knew that since 19th May 1931 the legal position has been that there was NO EVIDENCE against Wallace (and nothing has come to light to disturb that view)

Hence the only people who would answer in the affirmative in the absence of any evidence are, at best, dreamers with too much time of their hands, and little grasp of the case, or the simply prejudiced...

The more profitable question is therefore, not 'Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?', but...

'Who killed Julia Wallace?'

and that is the question I have answered, using the actual evidence (some of which is relatively new), and abductive reasoning...

Anyhow, you can read all about it, soon enough.

For me, it's been a worthwhile and satisfying exercise...
I really can’t waste anymore time arguing with an idiot. The evidence is obvious. It’s the evidence that you’ve been kicked out and banned from virtually every Forum or group on the net for being an offensive, no-nothing Troll. You, in your warped way, see it as a badge of honour, whereas anyone else see it as anything but.

You have proved absolutely nothing except your own mental deficiencies. I’m heartily sick of the ease at which I’ve repeatedly kicked your arse over the last few months on here over your laughable theory. For someone who clearly throws his toys out of the pram when he’s disagreed with its surprising that you keep coming back for more.

The pattern is regular. You turn up, get humiliated then you disappear (as you did last time when it became obvious that you had no answers.) Again - And a note here to Antony - you arrive back on the thread and straight away it’s just mindless insults mixed in with a few cut and paste quotes - nothing that requires any thinking of course.

So before you send your reply, which with brilliant insight and wit, will probably talk about ‘crashing and burning’ or ‘trolls’ or any other crap, save yourself the time.

You don’t debate because you don’t have the ability (anyone can read the threads and see this.)
You can’t converse because you aren’t evolved enough (anyone can read the threads and see this.)
You’ve ‘solved’ nothing. A ‘scenario’ isn’t a ‘solution.’ You lose again joker
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message
  #2673  
Old 11-08-2018, 12:01 PM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 336
Default

As I've said, gentle reader.

"I rest my case."
__________________
"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
  #2674  
Old 11-08-2018, 12:54 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,651
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
As I've said, gentle reader.

"I rest my case."
And as Ive said, Ive destroyed your arguments so many times that Im not prepared to waste my time doing it again. Everyone is free to re-read this thread.

Others are free to converse with you if they wish to but if your included I wont be. Theres only so much of your life you can waste on a pointless Troll.

IGNORED.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message
  #2675  
Old 11-08-2018, 01:41 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 680
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
And as I’ve said, I’ve destroyed your arguments so many times that I’m not prepared to waste my time doing it again. Everyone is free to re-read this thread.

Others are free to converse with you if they wish to but if your included I won’t be. There’s only so much of your life you can waste on a pointless Troll.

IGNORED.
I have put Rod on ignore as well
Quick reply to this message
  #2676  
Old 11-08-2018, 01:57 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,651
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
I have put Rod on ignore as well
I can go into a pub and find people hurling insults at each other so Im not getting drawn into it on here again.

A Rod-free world is a better world
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message
  #2677  
Old 11-08-2018, 03:34 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 680
Default

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

Good post. I'll reply in more detail as soon as I have more time (McFall wasn't the only forensic expert called, and as the police expert it's pretty obvious from the trial transcript that he tried to make the best possible case against Wallace, even to the extent of changing the time of death.) However, to be fair, I think you've made the most convincing argument in favour of Wallace that could be made. My preferred theory would he roberry gone wrong, with Parry having the role of Qualtrough. I'd not completely rule out Parry working alone, although that essentially comes down to a Brine for Parkes debate.

Let me ask you a question. Regarding the Qualtrough call , how do you think Wallace could have controlled the situation?

Thus, let's say Wallace made the call. Now he has an immediate problem: if his voice is recognized the plan essentially fails.

What about Parry making the call as a hoax, which Wallace suspected and simply took advantage of the situation or, say, being tricked into it by Parry?

In that case I don't see how he can use it to his advantage, i.e. by relying on Close as a kind of alibi, as there are simply too many variables. Thus, if Close arrives too early the police would argue he has plenty of time to kill his wife. If he arrives too late, then Wallace misses the tram to get him to the appointment on time, which would be disastrous, as the police would argue that he was late on account of murdering his wife.

And all of this relies on Close being aware of the time he arrived and telling the truth. Ironically none of those things happened-Wallace had to rely on Wildman's fortuitous evidence, something he couldn't possibly have predicted.

What if the Qualtrough call was just a coincidence, which had nothing to do with the murder, and Wallace therefore had no intention of using Close as an alibi? In that case, why delay to the last possible moment? Why not just kill Julia as soon as he arrived home at 6:00pm.
Thanks John. I'm trying to lower the temperature down here and resume normal conversation with an opposing POV.


You make some good points especially regarding Close and the tenuousness of a possible albi for WHW in the event he was guilty.

As far as the call, yes it could be tickets for the plan if his voice was recognized. On the other hand, he has a free shot at it, and will see Beattie later that night and have the message passed on. He will be able to tell if Beattie looks at him oddly or says something like "come on man was that you having a laugh?" He can tell if Beattie suspects nothing. It is a somewhat risk free plan. Now, of course if Beattie does recognize his voice, it puts Wallace in an awkward position (I doubt he would care what Beattie thinks of him too much and could contrive some explanation for the odd behavior) but it makes it difficult for him to enact any other murder plan, at least in the near future, since Beattie could come forward and describe "the odd incident" of Wallace suspiciously trying to hoax the club. I think it boils down to if one thinks A) Wallace could hoax Beattie (I think definitely especially in 1931 and with the context of the call) and B) He was willing to risk the plan being nixed right at the start and perhaps to make future other plans difficult for Wallace as well. I think this would be a risk Wallace was willing to take if he was ailing, and desperate to get rid of his elderly wife that he may have cared little for.

Keep in mind that the "Qualtrough call" has made little sense to many because clearly whether the caller was Wallace/someone working for him or it was someone else and Wallace was innocent, clearly on the face of it the better move would be to strike the Monday night. I mean if it was someone else, they were relying on Wallace heading to the club that night (I wonder how this other caller could be so sure he would go and get the message though, perhaps he would have been better waiting at a callbox near the club and seeing Wallace pass THERE. This would probably a risk Wallace himself wouldn't want to take!!!) But even though I think it a tenuous plan, if the caller was someone else, he was relying on Wallace's appearance at the club to receive the message in the 1st place. So why not just go that night? In fact this person if known to JW could visit any time Wallace was at work etc. The ONLY explanation for this is that the caller as someone JW knew did not want to risk being identified and was not planning a murder but a robbery. This is how the whole Parry and accomplice theory was dreamed up I suppose---to explain the call as a method to set up an unknown accomplice to JW to be able to gain admittance the following night. That is the best I can say for this theory---my objections to it are numerous but I will wait to read Antony's book to fully respond to it with my criticisms.


On the other hand, if the caller was Wallace, while on the face of it he could have just done the whole ploy the Monday night and then rush off to the chess club, hoaxing a robbery (perhaps hoping it looked like the Anfield housebreaker), the reality is in this situation he has not cast suspicion on anyone else.


With the introduction of Qualtrough, Wallace gets to imply that there is another strong specific suspect out there---a man who posed as Qualtrough and someone who knew where Wallace's insurance money was. He names Parry, Marsden, and Young as possible suspects.

The advantage of the Qualtrough plan for Wallace therefore is the creation of a strongly implied alternative suspect and motive for someone else.


I see the advantage of such a plan for another suspect, say Parry, as less obvious and the whole possible spoils as inadequate reward for such a convoluted and complicated plan. I also wonder how he enlisted someone else to do the dirty work for him??? As I said, I will wait and reserve judgement before lobbying further critcisms in depth against this theory.


As far as Close, I believe Jon Goodman has made a similar point. Close normally came nearer 6:15 I believe and only did not show up due to a malfunction on his bike that occurred the night before; he had to deliver the milk by foot. Clearly, Wallace could not have foretold this. However, the time frame for committing the murder quickly and casting doubt by being seen soon after doesn't really change. As soon as Close leaves, Wallace springs into action. He is seen at the tram stop (perhaps by making sure to make a note of himself???) the same amount of time after, regardless of when precisely comes. In fact, one could argue Wallace was bordering on suspiciously late for his appointment as he had no idea where he was going and just arrived in the neighborhood barely on time if he knew his precise destination; this an appointment for official business for the punctual Wallace! If Wallace was guilty, he COULDN'T act until Close had come and gone---and we find the timing line up with that chain of event. If Close has come much later, say after 7, Wallace may have had to scrap the plan.


Now another good question might be, could Wallace ever rely on Close at all as an alibi? To rely on a 14 year old boy or friends who might be with him/neighbors who might have seen him as an alibi to make the timing seem tight may seem very tenuous and shaky. However, I would argue that Wallace may have seen Close as not so much of an alibi, but an obstacle to get out of the way. He simply CAN'T kill Julia until Close has come and gone. A bonus would be to have doubt cast on the timing by Close, but he will always be seen on the journey and at the tram stop if he makes himself known as he did. It would be impossible for Wallace to "outpace reality" in the event he was the killer, so the real hope would be to get all obstacles out the way, make the timing seem as tight as possible, and crucially cast reasonable doubt by the introduction of "Qualtrough" as the obvious fall guy.
Quick reply to this message
  #2678  
Old 11-08-2018, 03:38 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,651
Default

I just received a copy of Murder In Mind - the Wallace edition which I hadnt seen before.

Looking at the photograph on page 11 I was again struck by the space between Julias body and the sideboard. When we take the chair and put it in its original position and see the very narrow gap that would have existed and the sizeable pool of blood its hard to see how Wallace could have avoided stepping into the it unless he knew that it was there of course.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message
  #2679  
Old 11-08-2018, 03:52 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,651
Default

Quote:
. In fact, one could argue Wallace was bordering on suspiciously late for his appointment as he had no idea where he was going and just arrived in the neighborhood barely on time if he knew his precise destination; this an appointment for official business for the punctual Wallace! If Wallace was guilty, he COULDN'T act until Close had come and gone---and we find the timing line up with that chain of event. If Close has come much later, say after 7, Wallace may have had to scrap the plan.
This is a point worth emphasising AS. Catching the 7.06 tram does appear to be leaving it a bit late for a 7.30 appointment considering that Wallace didnt know exactly where Menlove Gardens East was. The impression that we unmistakably get of Wallace is of someone who does everything by the book. Can any of us see Wallace as anything other than a man that would hate to be late for a business appointment as it would make him appear unprofessional? Surely therefore Wallace would have left the house earlier to give himself ample time to find Menlove Gardens East. Better 10 minutes early than 10 minutes late?

So we have to ask ourselves why did he leave it so late to set off? I think that its quite a powerful point.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message
  #2680  
Old 11-08-2018, 04:18 PM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 336
Default

Yawn...

"...it is difficult to see that any idea can be obtained of his guilt from the mere fact that he did not step on the body or step in the blood....
I have not heard that any one of these police officers or doctors did actually step in the blood, and if they did not I do not see why he should."
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
Quick reply to this message
Closed Thread


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 04:32 AM.


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