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:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 48 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Paddy 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 4 hours ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - by RockySullivan 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (12 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (2 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - (2 posts)
Hutchinson, George: The Enigma That Is Richard Blake - (1 posts)
General Police Discussion: Police Orders 1st October 1888 - (1 posts)
General Police Discussion: J Division Fixed Point Whitechapel Station? - (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
  #1421  
Old 12-06-2017, 01:13 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,106
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
In 1931 there was a wealthy man living in Menlove Gardens...

His name was Parry. He was almost certainly the wealthiest Parry in Liverpool. When he died in 1940, he left the modern equivalent of 4 million.

Wealthy enough to perhaps attract the curiosity of his ne'er-do-well namesake, who perhaps went to gaze at his nice house, and noticed that the address where he lived was an odd 'triangular affair'....?
Hello Rod,

It's an interesting story but something thst holds low evidential value. I mean, in complex cases such as this coincidences abound, particularly if you look hard enough.

Thus, I know you reject any involvement by Wallace, so what of Lily Hall's evidence? For instance, I seriously doubt that she lied to the extent of giving evidence under oath anf under cross examination, particularly as she may have been implicating an innocent man.

But if she was mistaken that means, despite Wallace's distinctive appearance, she must have observed a Wallace lookalike, who just happened to be in more or less the exact place, at the exact time, you would have expected Wallace to be on his return home from the fruitless Qualtrough appointment.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1422  
Old 12-06-2017, 01:41 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,106
Default

Perhaps the biggest argument against Parry acting alone is lack of a sufficient motive. Of course, he may have been caught attempting to steal the money, but can that really explain the ferocity of the response, considering Julia was struck numerous times, in a completely unprovoked assault-as evidenced by the lack of defensive injuries?

And, after all, being caught out in a petty crime seemed to be something of an occupational hazard for Parry.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1423  
Old 12-06-2017, 03:25 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,455
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
Yes, I like to go cross-town and visit wealthy people with the same last names as me to gaze at their houses. That is a common past time.
LOL!

That's cheered me up no end this morning, AS.

Keep 'em coming.

As my name is now Mrs Brown, I'll have my work cut out here in Devon, for the next twenty years, looking up all the posh Brown houses.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1424  
Old 12-06-2017, 03:38 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,455
Default

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

Regarding alibis, Parry had demonstrated a degree of recklessness when he gave a false alibi for the Qualtrough call. I mean, did he just arrogantly assume that his word would be good enough?

I'm also not totally convinced about his alibi for the time of the murder. What is interesting is that Parry, Denison and Brine used very similar wording when referring to the time he left, and that seems rehearsed to me.

Thus, Parry says, "I remained there with Mrs Brine...until about 8:30 pm" Whereas both Brine and Denison state, "He remained till about 8:30pm when he left."

And, as I've noted previously, Brine admitted to knowing Parry for about 2 years, and her husband was conveniently at sea. Parry also stated that he stated at Brine's residence for 3 hours, from 5:30 to 8:30. Why so long? Could it be, all things considered, that Parry and Brine were having an affair? At the very least it would make Brine vulnerable to blackmail, or at least persuasion.

Denison, on the other hand, was only 15. Did he even own a watch? Close and Wildman were similar ages and they didn't posses a watch. And if he didn't, how did he know Parry left at 8:30? Was he just persuaded to go along with Parry's and Brine's account? Considering his young age, coupled with the fact he was related to Brine, I don't think this can be ruled out.
The problem here, John, is that even if Parry was innocent of the murder [but just possibly made the phone call as a prank], he would have realised pretty quickly that he'd be wise to get himself an alibi, and wouldn't necessarily have been able to prove where he was the whole evening if there were periods when he was on his own [and this applies to both nights]. That wouldn't make him guilty, and the prosecution has to put a suspect at the crime scene at the right time to obtain a conviction. So while the onus would not have been on Parry to prove he was elsewhere, that wouldn't stop him worrying and doing his level best in case things got hot for him.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1425  
Old 12-06-2017, 03:54 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,455
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Hello Rod,

It's an interesting story but something thst holds low evidential value. I mean, in complex cases such as this coincidences abound, particularly if you look hard enough.

Thus, I know you reject any involvement by Wallace, so what of Lily Hall's evidence? For instance, I seriously doubt that she lied to the extent of giving evidence under oath anf under cross examination, particularly as she may have been implicating an innocent man.

But if she was mistaken that means, despite Wallace's distinctive appearance, she must have observed a Wallace lookalike, who just happened to be in more or less the exact place, at the exact time, you would have expected Wallace to be on his return home from the fruitless Qualtrough appointment.
Ah, well of course Parry - having drama connections - would have made sure to have a Mr Y in place, who was a Wallace lookalike, so any nosey female like Lily Hall would genuinely believe she had spotted him talking to a man [Mr X], leaving Parry to play hide the sausage for hours with the comely Mrs Brine.

Seriously though, I do think Parry would have been able to come up with a much sounder alibi for himself if he had someone else doing the really dirty work. He'd know when Mr X planned to knock on Julia's door, so why not spend the next hour or so in a pub a good way away, nursing a half of mild if he didn't want to spend more than he hoped to make from the robbery?

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1426  
Old 12-06-2017, 06:54 AM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Hello Rod,

It's an interesting story but something thst holds low evidential value. I mean, in complex cases such as this coincidences abound, particularly if you look hard enough.

Thus, I know you reject any involvement by Wallace, so what of Lily Hall's evidence? For instance, I seriously doubt that she lied to the extent of giving evidence under oath anf under cross examination, particularly as she may have been implicating an innocent man.

But if she was mistaken that means, despite Wallace's distinctive appearance, she must have observed a Wallace lookalike, who just happened to be in more or less the exact place, at the exact time, you would have expected Wallace to be on his return home from the fruitless Qualtrough appointment.
In 1931 there were approximately 200,000 households in Liverpool. Around 450 of these were headed by someone named Parry. Menlove Gardens had 57 households. The question is:-
What were the chances that Menlove Gardens contained, not just any old Parry, but probably the wealthiest Parry in the city, and the address then featured prominently in a crime, in which a prime suspect, a known financial scammer, had the same surname, purely by coincidence? I'd be interested to see your calculations...

The Thomas Parry in Menlove Gardens was the executor of a trust fund, and this information was publicly available in Kelly's Directory. It is at least possible that this prominent and successful Parry attracted the curiosity of Richard Gordon Parry (perhaps with a view to a scam), and his strange address reconnoitred, and its features memorised. Not proved, I accept, but a tantalising reasonable possibility nonetheless, which has lain in plain sight since 1931 until noticed by me.

As for Lily Hall's evidence, I am content, as Mr. Justice Wright was, to "put it aside." The idea that a complicit Wallace would supposedly rendezvous with the killer on literally the threshold of the crime, immediately after its execution, is ludicrous on its face. To be told what exactly? "Aye, the deed is done"...or "sorry, I messed up, she's still alive." - either outcome a complicit Wallace would already be prepared for with equanimity...

Furthermore, an innocent - or for that matter a guilty - Wallace would have no reason to lie about a purely innocent encounter with a passing stranger, if it actually occurred, in the expectation that the stranger would in time come forward. Hall didn't make a good witness on the stand, and the reasonable inference is that she was mistaken (perhaps genuinely) about what she claimed she saw, or was coached by the Police, desperate to nail some tiny inconsistency in Wallace's otherwise impeccable testimony.

As for Brine, people having clandestine affairs usually "get down to business" at their secret assignations. They don't usually sit around with young family members, and a visitor to the household, smoking cigarettes and chatting for three hours about nothing in particular. Denison (who was 16, not 15) may or may not have had a watch. He almost certainly didn't need one, as every household in those days had a clock on the mantlepiece which went "tick-tock", and even chimed!

"Their statements are consistent, so they must have lied" won't fly either, as they are written in Police-speak, which is to be expected, and they would have had no reason to lie, since it is extremely improbable that Brine and Parry were having an affair, not least for the reasons I have given above...
__________________
"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
  #1427  
Old 12-06-2017, 08:27 AM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 202
Default

I've created some videos reconstructing the crime.

Firstly, Richmond Park where Lily Hall claimed to have seen Wallace on Tuesday 20th January 1931.

This was also the route (from the entry at the top of Wolverton Street) that Wallace said he took to the tram stop for the Chess Club on Monday 19th January 1931.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8w...ew?usp=sharing
__________________
"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
  #1428  
Old 12-07-2017, 10:01 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,106
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
In 1931 there were approximately 200,000 households in Liverpool. Around 450 of these were headed by someone named Parry. Menlove Gardens had 57 households. The question is:-
What were the chances that Menlove Gardens contained, not just any old Parry, but probably the wealthiest Parry in the city, and the address then featured prominently in a crime, in which a prime suspect, a known financial scammer, had the same surname, purely by coincidence? I'd be interested to see your calculations...

The Thomas Parry in Menlove Gardens was the executor of a trust fund, and this information was publicly available in Kelly's Directory. It is at least possible that this prominent and successful Parry attracted the curiosity of Richard Gordon Parry (perhaps with a view to a scam), and his strange address reconnoitred, and its features memorised. Not proved, I accept, but a tantalising reasonable possibility nonetheless, which has lain in plain sight since 1931 until noticed by me.

As for Lily Hall's evidence, I am content, as Mr. Justice Wright was, to "put it aside." The idea that a complicit Wallace would supposedly rendezvous with the killer on literally the threshold of the crime, immediately after its execution, is ludicrous on its face. To be told what exactly? "Aye, the deed is done"...or "sorry, I messed up, she's still alive." - either outcome a complicit Wallace would already be prepared for with equanimity...

Furthermore, an innocent - or for that matter a guilty - Wallace would have no reason to lie about a purely innocent encounter with a passing stranger, if it actually occurred, in the expectation that the stranger would in time come forward. Hall didn't make a good witness on the stand, and the reasonable inference is that she was mistaken (perhaps genuinely) about what she claimed she saw, or was coached by the Police, desperate to nail some tiny inconsistency in Wallace's otherwise impeccable testimony.

As for Brine, people having clandestine affairs usually "get down to business" at their secret assignations. They don't usually sit around with young family members, and a visitor to the household, smoking cigarettes and chatting for three hours about nothing in particular. Denison (who was 16, not 15) may or may not have had a watch. He almost certainly didn't need one, as every household in those days had a clock on the mantlepiece which went "tick-tock", and even chimed!

"Their statements are consistent, so they must have lied" won't fly either, as they are written in Police-speak, which is to be expected, and they would have had no reason to lie, since it is extremely improbable that Brine and Parry were having an affair, not least for the reasons I have given above...
It's surprisingly easy to discover huge coincidences when you're the one determining the criteria: for instance, three important witnesses, by a huge coincidence, all happened to glance at the same clock at a crucial moment: Close, Hall and Wildman.

Regarding Lily Hall's evidence, it's quite obvious that, when summing up, Wright J fell into error as I shall now demonstrate it great detail.

Thus, Wright J acknowledges that Hall, "No doubt [said] what she thinks she saw." However, he adds "It was night, and there is no special reason, apparently, why Miss Hall should have made these observations, or even regard to the time that she should be accurate."

But this is what Hall said in her statement:

"I looked at the Holy Trinity clock. Which is near the tram stop, and saw it was then 8:30. I walked straight home along Richmond Park and as I was passing the entry leading from Richmond Park to the middle of Wolverton Street, I saw the man I know as Mr Wallace talking to another man I do not know...When I got into our house,, our clock was just turned 8:40 pm but it is always five minutes fast. It takes me no more than three minutes to walk from the tram stop to our house."

There is therefore every reason to suppose that Hall accurately fixed the time. Moreover, as regards it being night time, she pointed out in her evidence that there was a light, something the judge appears to have inexplicably disregarded. As for the observations, she saw two men, one of whom she recognized, having a chat. Why is it remarkable that she wouldn't subsequently note and remember this simple sighting?

And here's another thing. Whose evidence do you think is likely to be more reliable? A witness who came forward within days of the murder, and who was prepared to give evidence under oath and allow herself to be subjected to a rigorous cross examination, without hesitation or confusion-unlike Alan Close, for example, a witness who got hopelessly confused when subjected to cross examination. Or a "witness" who decides it would be prudent not to give evidence in court under oath, and not to allow himself to be subjected to cross examination, but nonetheless, almost half a century later, after the individual who could have contradicted him has died, and at a time when his memory must have been decidedly hazy, decides to tell his story to the media. It's not a difficult choice, is it?

Furthermore, it's absolutely untenable to argue that Hall was coached by the police, not that you have any evidence for this anyway. The reason is this: if the jury accepted Hall's evidence, which implies that Wallace acted not alone, but with an accomplice, then the they would have had no choice but to acquit, as this scenario contradicts the prosecution argument that Wallace acted alone.

As for Wallace meeting an accomplice immediately after the execution of a crime, that is not an argument that can be made out. For instance, we have no idea as to what time Julia was killed. As Wright J alluded to in his summing up, the medical testimony on this point was all over the place, with contradictory conclusions. This led him to give this advice to the jury: " You may think that [time of death] is evidence from which you can derive no assistance in considering that aspect of it, and you must act upon other considerations."

Still, it's interesting that you now consider it "ludicrous on it's face", that an assailant would rendezvous with an accomplice on the "threshold of a crime", as that's pretty sums up your own theory in a nutshell! At least no one could accuse you of a lack of objectivity in this regard.

As for Brine, I seriously doubt that Parry had been regularly visiting her household for several months because he'd struck up a friendship with 16 year old Denison or 13 year-old school girl Savona. And who knows how many times he may have visited this women, whose husband was conveniently away at sea, when Savona was at school and without Denison in tow. In fact, even on the night in question he [Denison] arrived an hour after Parry.

Regarding the clock, regardless of whether it chimed or went "tick tock" no one was paying any attention to it anyway. Not Brine, who could only say Parry left "about 8:30." Not Parry, who could only say he left "about 8:30". Not Denison, who could only say Parry left "about 8:30."

As for the possibility of these not being verbatim accounts, well that just implies police negligence, as does the fact that they failed to check any of Parry's other numerous "alibis" for the evening, which was a bit remiss don't you think, considering he gave a false alibi for the Qualtrough call?

Last edited by John G : 12-07-2017 at 10:29 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1429  
Old 12-08-2017, 01:16 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,106
Default

Let's reflect on the murder from the perspective of Wallace being the killer. Firstly, I think for this scenario to be remotely possible it had to be meticulously planned-if it wasn't then I think we really are entering the realm of fantasy.

Thus, he had to plan the alibis-Close and the Qualtrough call; and in respect of the later, he may have had to spend many hours practicing disguising his voice so that no one at the chess club would recognize him.

He had to plan how to complete all the elements in a ridiculously short time frame. He had to decide how to effectively dispose of the murder weapon, and how he was going to avoid getting even a drop of blood on his person.

However, why then did he choose just about the most risky method for carrying out the murder? I mean, as Wallace pointed out himself, he could have used his knowledge of chemistry to administer poison and make the death appear to be one of natural cause.

And why is the signature element of overkill apparent? To put it crudely, surely Julia couldn't have been that difficult to kill. However, according to forensics she msy have bern struck up to eleven times by a perpetrator who may have been in an absolute frenzy. From the perspective of any planned assault, let alone one carried our by Wallace, it makes absolutely no sense at all, considering that with each blow the assailant risked getting blood on his person, something Wallace would have been desperate to avoid.

And even if Wallace decided his wife should be murdered by violent means, having rejected the poison option, why not simply strangle or suffocate her? After all, both of these alternatives would have been infinitely preferable to a blunt instrument: Wallace wouldn't have had to worry about the blood or how to dispose of the murder weapon.

It therefore seems to me that, which ever way you look at it, evena planned murder makes no sense from Wallace's perspective.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1430  
Old 12-09-2017, 11:15 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,126
Default Just a thought.

On the night of the murder, when Wallace was searching for the non-existent Menlove Gardens East, he eventually went into a newsagents to check a directory which told him that the address didn’t exist. When Wallace was given the message by Beattie they asked around the club and no one had heard specifically of Menlove Gardens East. Wallace was an intelligent man and we get the impression of him as an efficient, meticulous, well organised one too.
Why then didn’t he simply check a directory during the day of the murder? He would have wanted to plan his journey after all. He could have gone into any number of post offices or newsagents and he could have also asked people that he spoke to during the day.
Obviously this doesn’t prove his guilt but it seems a bit out of character for the kind of person Wallace appeared to be.
__________________
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 08:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.