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:
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by Sam Flynn 4 minutes ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by moste 12 minutes ago.
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - by David Orsam 22 minutes ago.
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - by Abby Normal 32 minutes ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - by sdreid 42 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by David Orsam 1 hour and 3 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (24 posts)
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - (16 posts)
General Discussion: Collaboration on Mitre Square and GSG? - (11 posts)
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - (7 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Was Ernest Dowson Jack the Ripper? - (6 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: A theory about some injuries! - (5 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
  #1181  
Old 07-12-2017, 01:36 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 301
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
What is wrong with you? And don't you think you ought to apologize to AS for reporting his post, considering your own personal attacks?

You haven't a shred of evidence to support your theory concerning Parry being involved with another suspect. Not that it makes any sense anyway. I mean, apparently Parry's accomplice threw the blood soaked mitt into the vehicle to incriminate him and, instead of doing what any sane person would do, which would be to dispose of it at the earliest opportunity, Parry just throws it into the glove box where it's discovered by Parkes several hours later! But there's more. Instead of taking his car to be washed at a garage outside of the district, where he wasn't known, he turns up at the local garage and proceeds to give Parkes, a man who clearly despised him, a virtual confession to a brutal murder. Hilarious! I mean, does this seriously make any sense to you?

In the radio interview Dolly Atkinson was clearly perturbed about their failure to come forward-unlike yourself- and we're told that they certainly would have come forward if the Appeal went against Wallace. But that makes no sense. Thus, it would mean that they were prepared to allow Wallace to go through mental torture during the trial, after the guilty verdict, and during the appeal process, only...to what? Arrive like knight's in shining amour just as the hangman was putting the rope around Wallace's neck!

Far more likely that Parry's original "story", assuming it had any credibility whatsoever, was far less incriminating. Maybe Parry did turn up at the garage, but several days later, protected by his alibis, and determined to wind up a gullible Parkes. However, over the years the story was told, 're-told, mangled, embellished and exaggerated, to the point where it didn't really resemble the original account. And frankly, I refuse to believe that half a century later any of them could, with any clarity, remember precisely what had been originally said.
I noticed this as well. It's as if Roger Wilkes, or Dolly Atkinson herself all of a sudden realized it might reflect poorly on them that they didn't come forward at the time and on the spot they came up with a rationalization. It makes no sense to wait, not only thru Wallace's entire trial, but thru his whole appeal, with the excuse that only after he would have lost an appeal would they have come forward!

This is pretty damaging to the whole testimony, because it shows several people were either criminally negligent and deeply immoral, or that perhaps what is being told 50 years later isn't exactly what happened and/or wasn't recollected in exactly the same way by Parkes to the others supposedly part of this "conspiracy of silence" in 1931.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1182  
Old 07-12-2017, 01:49 PM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 146
Default

Amusing, but unsurprising, to see ignorance of some basic facts, amongst the huffing and puffing.

Parry effectively had no choice but to take the car to Atkinsons, if he was to take it anywhere at all...
__________________
"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
  #1183  
Old 07-13-2017, 03:48 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,079
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
Amusing, but unsurprising, to see ignorance of some basic facts, amongst the huffing and puffing.

Parry effectively had no choice but to take the car to Atkinsons, if he was to take it anywhere at all...
Are you arguing that there were no other late night garages, or anywhere else where he may have got his car washed? Bearing in mind, there was nothing to stop him driving to another county if necessary.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1184  
Old 07-13-2017, 08:26 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,079
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
I noticed this as well. It's as if Roger Wilkes, or Dolly Atkinson herself all of a sudden realized it might reflect poorly on them that they didn't come forward at the time and on the spot they came up with a rationalization. It makes no sense to wait, not only thru Wallace's entire trial, but thru his whole appeal, with the excuse that only after he would have lost an appeal would they have come forward!

This is pretty damaging to the whole testimony, because it shows several people were either criminally negligent and deeply immoral, or that perhaps what is being told 50 years later isn't exactly what happened and/or wasn't recollected in exactly the same way by Parkes to the others supposedly part of this "conspiracy of silence" in 1931.
Hi AS,

Yes, I absolutely agree with you about Dolly Atkinson. Another important issue is that human memory is not at all infallible, particularly as regards dramatic incidents: http://www.newyorker.com/science/mar...y-recollection

And, of course, Parkes was trying to recall events that supposedly happened five decades earlier. Nor does Atkinson really support his version. Thus, Parkes is very specific over what he believes actually happened, referring to the blood stained glove he discovered in the compartment. In contrast, Atkinson vaguely speaks of the "blood stained evidence", whatever that may mean. Nor, as far as I know, does Atkinson confirm the date when this incident supposedly took place.

Moreover, in respect of Atkinson's account, all we have is a story told to Wilkes' assistant, from a man who heard the story from his father, possibly decades earlier, who in turn received the story from Parkes. Talk about Chinese whispers!

By the way, in an earlier post CCJ points out that there is no documented evidence that the police tested the drains or sink for blood. Do you think this significantly strengthens the case against Wallace?

Last edited by John G : 07-13-2017 at 08:32 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1185  
Old 07-13-2017, 08:40 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,079
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
Aye, it was just a wankfest of embroidery and tittle-tattle that they had all been obsessively nurturing for FIFTY YEARS, just on the off-chance that a radio program might someday name Parry (why would it ever, if he was as innocent as a lamb?). So they could then come forward and falsely admit their "Conspiracy of Silence" in 1931 that nearly sent an innocent man to hang...

And a charming naivety about how the Police operate, even to their own, even to the present day...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...yside-29080776
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...yside-34443926

Are there any sharper tools in the box here, or are we done?
If you have any evidence of police impropriety in the Wallace case then please present it.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1186  
Old 07-13-2017, 11:51 AM
ColdCaseJury ColdCaseJury is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: England
Posts: 278
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
By the way, in an earlier post CCJ points out that there is no documented evidence that the police tested the drains or sink for blood. Do you think this significantly strengthens the case against Wallace?
Hi John G, the answer to your question is, in my view, "not necessarily".

If the police were negligent, and did not test, then the probability that Wallace was guilty rises a small amount; this can be debated. There was certainly no obvious blood trace on Wallace, however, and his clothes were tested using Benzidine.

As I'm sure you know, the police were not statutorily obliged to pass on ALL evidence in the UK until 1996. If the police tested the nailbrush and drains, found negative results (i.e. no blood) which they interpreted as a non-result and did not report the findings, they would have hidden evidence that almost certainly would have cleared Wallace.

The fact that there is no documented evidence of testing is consistent with both possibilities. In my updated book, I describe something interesting about the chain of evidence regarding the nailbrush...
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1187  
Old 07-13-2017, 12:08 PM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,079
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdCaseJury View Post
Hi John G, the answer to your question is, in my view, "not necessarily".

If the police were negligent, and did not test, then the probability that Wallace was guilty rises a small amount; this can be debated. There was certainly no obvious blood trace on Wallace, however, and his clothes were tested using Benzidine.

As I'm sure you know, the police were not statutorily obliged to pass on ALL evidence in the UK until 1996. If the police tested the nailbrush and drains, found negative results (i.e. no blood) which they interpreted as a non-result and did not report the findings, they would have hidden evidence that almost certainly would have cleared Wallace.

The fact that there is no documented evidence of testing is consistent with both possibilities. In my updated book, I describe something interesting about the chain of evidence regarding the nailbrush...
Thanks for the reply CCJ. Personally I would say moderately rather than a small amount. However, it certainly would be inexplicable if they didn't at least test the sinks, especially when considering the police's case and the fact that the clothing was tested.

Really looking forward to your next book. By the way, have you considered including a section or, say, the odd paragraph, on the fallibility of witness statements and of memory over significant periods of time? I am, of course, thinking particularly about the validity of Parkes' subsequent public testimony. Of course, this would offer a different perspective from the simple alternative, did Parkes lie or was he telling the truth.

Last edited by John G : 07-13-2017 at 12:11 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1188  
Old 07-13-2017, 10:34 PM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,079
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdCaseJury View Post
Hi John G, the answer to your question is, in my view, "not necessarily".

If the police were negligent, and did not test, then the probability that Wallace was guilty rises a small amount; this can be debated. There was certainly no obvious blood trace on Wallace, however, and his clothes were tested using Benzidine.

As I'm sure you know, the police were not statutorily obliged to pass on ALL evidence in the UK until 1996. If the police tested the nailbrush and drains, found negative results (i.e. no blood) which they interpreted as a non-result and did not report the findings, they would have hidden evidence that almost certainly would have cleared Wallace.

The fact that there is no documented evidence of testing is consistent with both possibilities. In my updated book, I describe something interesting about the chain of evidence regarding the nailbrush...
Hi CCJ,

According to the Inner City site, Parry's vehicle was forensically tested. Is there any evidence of this?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1189  
Old 07-14-2017, 12:48 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 301
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Thanks for the reply CCJ. Personally I would say moderately rather than a small amount. However, it certainly would be inexplicable if they didn't at least test the sinks, especially when considering the police's case and the fact that the clothing was tested.

Really looking forward to your next book. By the way, have you considered including a section or, say, the odd paragraph, on the fallibility of witness statements and of memory over significant periods of time? I am, of course, thinking particularly about the validity of Parkes' subsequent public testimony. Of course, this would offer a different perspective from the simple alternative, did Parkes lie or was he telling the truth.
Hi John, I'm in agreement with you that if this were true, it would moderately raise the probability of Wallace's guilt.

Simply because the 2 major factors that supposedly mitigate his guilt were 1. timing. 2. lack of blood on his person.

Clearly these 2 go together somewhat, but if one of them is negated I think this has to raise the probability of his guilt somewhat.

We may have to reconsider the timing. Is 12-ish minutes enough to do what was required of WHW if he was the murderer? I don't think it is unreasonable to surmise that if he was the killer, then 1. he would not act until the milk boy had left and 2. he would act very shortly following the milk boy's departure. This is especially true as the milk was delivered later than expected and Wallace would want to get the plan underway for the putative meeting time across town of 7:30 to be in frame. (The issue of the timing of the milk boy and the unforessen circumstances that led to his being late--a bicycle malfunction (and implications about how this would affect WHW's hypothetical plan) is another subject which has been dissected and debated ad nauseam already here))

What is not up for debate imo is that if Wallace was the killer, he acted in around 10 minutes, perhaps a bit over that, but not by much. If he was able to wash, this eliminates complicated theories about how he might have gotten rid of blood splatter.

I do not think it is fair to suggest as I've seen before in other discussions on the case that he did not or would not have washed, because he would have guessed the drains/sink etc would be checked (even if they weren't.) All this would prove is that somebody washed blood off himself, but not the identity of the person. Clearly, it could be argued to weaken Wallace's defense contrasted with if the drains/sink were reported to have not been used, but he might have thought there to be little choice. In addition, I surmise that if he was indeed guilty, he was erroneously relying on certain factors to exonerate him (the fact he would have known by then he had successfully hoaxed Beattie, the suspect of Parry he would be sure to raise, the entire Menlove Gardens jaunt set up perfectly in his mind etc.)

I find the state of the bathroom upstairs very interesting. As was noted there was money upstairs in sight of the bathroom not taken. Perhaps a guilty Wallace couldn't bring himself to rob his own money? Now, there is no proof that the murderer used the bathroom, but it seems likely to me. There has been a lot of debate about the blood clot on the lavatory pan...the crime scene was badly compromised by the police...but my intuition tells me it is more probable than not that the killer deposited the blood clot. If the murderer was someone other than Wallace, would they not want to wash themselves a bit before leaving? It seems to me that whoever the killer was, blood was likely washed off. I have noted before the lack of blood being traipsed around leads me to believe that the murder was pre-meditated, and that perhaps Wallace somehow evaded spatter to a large degree. I don't deny that this isn't still problematic with a murder where blood reached 7 feet high on the walls. So, it is an important factor to know if it is now a possibility that blood could have been washed off.

Let's go back to scenarios of another killer. Even if it was someone with a car, wouldn't they risk being seen by even 1 person covered in blood? If the killer was an accomplice of Parry's without a car who was planning on meeting Parry later and threw the glove in his car, then wouldn't they too risk being seen by someone walking away from 29 Wolverton? They would be hanged if seen covered in blood by anybody. Therefore, it seems to me that such a person would want to wash briefly, even if to splash their face. Then we have the blood clot on the pan. And finally the money not taken in plain sight of the bathroom. Why would a thug working with Parry wash up but not take money that was right there. (In addition to several other sources of money, jewelry on Julia etc). Of course the insurance takings that would have to be taken to imitate an elaborate robbery plot were taken. (this is also the only thing which Wallace would not have to cover the loss of himself).

Back on subject, if we have no evidence or proof the drains were tested, it becomes solely a matter of timing as the last strongly mitigating factor against Wallace's guilt. Is 10 to 12 mintues enough to do it? He would have had to start soon after the milk boy left, knowing he had set up the 7:30 meeting. But the exact time he left wouldn't matter a couple minutes 1 way-or the other. As Murphy noted, he makes his time-frame as he goes. Similar to other aspects of the case, The quesion therefore is not "would he have taken that risk/ would he have cut it that tight with time to believe he could do it in 10-12 minutes" (as he acts as fast as he can but is really under no exact time pressure. It is only in retrospect that we view this as an unbroken chain of events. The question is "Is 10 to 12 minutes a reasonable amount of time in which he could have done all of what was required for his guilt?" Nothing more about motives or plans etc. is necessary to analyze regarding the time factor. At least in my view.

I do continue to believe WHW was guilty. I also continue to think he should not have been convicted and that the reversal of the verdict was correct. I think his guilt is more likely than any other scenario though. And also I would re-iterate I believe its likelihood to be (significantly) above 50 percent.

I would say however the excellent points made here by John G and Antony and others have caused some wavering. I'm not as sure as I once was.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1190  
Old 07-21-2017, 02:54 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 301
Default

A thought about the caller mentioning the "21st birthday". The fact that Parry not only was of that age range, but was securing a birthday party that night, and mentioned it in his statement 2 nights later seems highly suspicious. I strongly suspect Wallce himself, but this is a problem I concede. The best I could come up with besides coincidence and a girl's 21st being a common type of policy is Wallace trying to frame Parry, but this is admittedly a stretch.

However, I can see from earlier on this thread, Antony mentioned there was in fact a Qualtrough whose daughter had a 20th birthday on January 19 1931, the night of the call. This is a VERY strong coincidence to me, stronger than the fact that Parry mentioned getting an invitation to a 21st birthday. Unless Parry knew this Qualtrough's daughter being of roughly the same age (I wonder if that was looked into), I don't think it points more one way or the other to Wallace or Parry. I think it could be argued if Wallace came up with the Qualtrough hoax and wanted to mimic a hoax, he might study the man a bit and come up with the idea of the hoax upon finding out his daughter had a birthday that night. Was there a directory at that time or a census one could look into if one was so inclined? Anyway, 20th might be misheard as 21st. Or perhaps the caller just changed it to the more milestone sounding 21st. Not that the caller could ever hope to implicate Qualtrough himself, but it would be a good part of the plot to mimic a hoaxer who was using personal info from someone he knew named Qualtrough.

Like most parts of the case, this could be seen in 2 opposite ways.

Does this make the coincidental possibility of Parry not being the caller but mentioning securing a 21st birthday that night in his police statement, and the fact that "Qualtrough" also mentioned it more plausible in your eyes?
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 03:49 PM.


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