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:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Fisherman 31 minutes ago.
Thompson, Francis: Francis Thompson. The Perfect Suspect. - by Richard Patterson 1 hour and 2 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by jerryd 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by jerryd 4 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (18 posts)
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - (13 posts)
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - (11 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (10 posts)
Elizabeth Stride: Elizabeth's murder and the double event - (5 posts)
Thompson, Francis: Francis Thompson. The Perfect Suspect. - (2 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
  #291  
Old 09-27-2016, 10:53 PM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,079
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
If it were a conspiracy, I harken back to a post where a man said his father admitted being a gay prostitute for Wallace...and that Parry and Marsden were as well. Julia knew this...and threatened to reveal it...this is why she was killed. I think that scenario is more likely than Parry and Marsden sleeping with Julia for money, and Wallace blackmailing them. Parry's comments referring to WHW as "sexually odd" would jibe with either scenario, although I would say that it sounds most like a euphemism for homosexuality to me.
This was clearly hearsay evidence. And the idea that Parry, Marsden and this other man were all gay prostitutes seems completely far fetched to me.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #292  
Old 09-27-2016, 11:00 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
This was clearly hearsay evidence. And the idea that Parry, Marsden and this other man were all gay prostitutes seems completely far fetched to me.
I'm just playing around with the conspiracy theory. As you said, there isn't much motive for others to be drawn into a conspiracy without some sort of blackmail. What Gannon suggests is similar as well and jibes with the "sexually odd" comment. Parkes' story is hearsay as well.

My belief is still strongly that Wallace was guilty and acted alone. Mainly because the motive of the call plainly seemed like murder to me. If Parry's goal was to rob the house as you suggest, how did he think he could get away with it without arousing suspicion on himself? How did he even know WHW would take the bait? Too many questions and loose ends. It was also a full 18 months after he was sacked from the pru.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #293  
Old 09-28-2016, 12:21 AM
ColdCaseJury ColdCaseJury is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: England
Posts: 278
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
In respect of the Olive Brine alibi, I wonder if he could have told a half-truth. In other words, as I indicated in my earlier post, maybe he was there but left significantly earlier than he claimed. Thus, he stated that he arrived at 5:30 and left at 8:30. But what if he actually left closer to 7:30? As noted earlier, the witness might have been reluctant to contradict him, reasoning that, if the murder did take place at around 6:30 as the police claimed, then Parry must still be innocent.
I agree the half-truth alibi is a possibility. Unfortunately, the police were so keen on finding evidence against Wallace they appear not to have questioned the alibi. I wonder whether Phyllis Plant (a visitor to the Brine house that evening) would have confirmed the full alibi or a half-truth version?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #294  
Old 09-28-2016, 12:37 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 299
Default

A curious discrepancy. Goodman in the Radio City interview says he confronted Parry with RWE "on a Monday night in the summer of that year"...the date given in various books (I think by RWE as well although not sure) of the encounter was March 30 1966 (early spring). Also, that was a Wednesday.

Last edited by AmericanSherlock : 09-28-2016 at 12:40 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #295  
Old 09-28-2016, 05:36 AM
ColdCaseJury ColdCaseJury is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: England
Posts: 278
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
A curious discrepancy.
People do make mistakes over dates and times.

Less is more. Let's say that JG and RWE talked to Parry in 1966. This will be true whichever day of the week or month it was.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #296  
Old 09-28-2016, 11:13 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,079
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
I'm just playing around with the conspiracy theory. As you said, there isn't much motive for others to be drawn into a conspiracy without some sort of blackmail. What Gannon suggests is similar as well and jibes with the "sexually odd" comment. Parkes' story is hearsay as well.

My belief is still strongly that Wallace was guilty and acted alone. Mainly because the motive of the call plainly seemed like murder to me. If Parry's goal was to rob the house as you suggest, how did he think he could get away with it without arousing suspicion on himself? How did he even know WHW would take the bait? Too many questions and loose ends. It was also a full 18 months after he was sacked from the pru.
I very much doubt Wallace could have acted alone; there simply wasn't enough time to commit some brutal murder, stage a Robbery, wash off all the blood etc.

Parry may have aroused suspicion on himself but there would be no proof, unless he was caught in the act.

Although it was 18 months since he'd left the Pru he may still have born a grudge against Wallace. Moreover, if Parkes was telling the truth about the prank calls he may have, found sending Wallace off on a wild goose chase to be a great joke.

At the end of the day Parry, with a history of theft, had an obvious motive; Wallace didn't.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #297  
Old 09-28-2016, 11:43 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,079
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdCaseJury View Post
I agree the half-truth alibi is a possibility. Unfortunately, the police were so keen on finding evidence against Wallace they appear not to have questioned the alibi. I wonder whether Phyllis Plant (a visitor to the Brine house that evening) would have confirmed the full alibi or a half-truth version?
Yes, I agree. Your book makes it clear that the police pretty much decided it was Wallace from the moment they arrived, so Of therefore wonder how much time they spent investigating Wallace.

Phyliss Plant, of course, didn't give a statement to the police and neither did Olive Brine or Harold Dennison, which suggests to me that this element of the investigation was shoddy to say the least. However, this being the 1930s, I wonder how aware the younger witnesses have been of the Tim. Would they have had watched, for example? And there certainly would be no tv programmes to estimate the time by!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #298  
Old 09-28-2016, 01:45 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdCaseJury View Post
People do make mistakes over dates and times.

Less is more. Let's say that JG and RWE talked to Parry in 1966. This will be true whichever day of the week or month it was.
sure, just found it interesting. Also, the fact that RWE appears to have reversed on Wallaces guilt since then.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #299  
Old 09-28-2016, 02:16 PM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,079
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Yes, I agree. Your book makes it clear that the police pretty much decided it was Wallace from the moment they arrived, so I therefore wonder how much time they spent investigating Parry.

Phyliss Plant, of course, didn't give a statement to the police and neither did Olive Brine or Harold Dennison, which suggests to me that this element of the investigation was shoddy to say the least. However, this being the 1930s, I wonder how aware the younger witnesses would have been of the time. Would they have had a watch for example? And there certainly would be no tv programmes to estimate the time by!
Okay, I've amended post 297 (see above) due to a number of unusual typographical/ predictive text errors!

Last edited by John G : 09-28-2016 at 02:28 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #300  
Old 09-28-2016, 03:53 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
I very much doubt Wallace could have acted alone; there simply wasn't enough time to commit some brutal murder, stage a Robbery, wash off all the blood etc.

Parry may have aroused suspicion on himself but there would be no proof, unless he was caught in the act.

Although it was 18 months since he'd left the Pru he may still have born a grudge against Wallace. Moreover, if Parkes was telling the truth about the prank calls he may have, found sending Wallace off on a wild goose chase to be a great joke.

At the end of the day Parry, with a history of theft, had an obvious motive; Wallace didn't.
1. I disagree about the timing, I've explained it already a few times, so we can agree to disagree. In the book, it appears Antony agrees the timing allowed for it to be possible, if just barely.

2. Parry was on good terms with Julia and if he was the killer, he would have been let in by her. He would be casting considerable suspicion upon himself, and I'm not exactly sure how he thought he could rob the money without her noticing. Perhaps you can argue he was such a suspicious character with a bad history before and after the crime, that impulsive acts like this would be in character. I think Antony's scenario is more likely if you believe it was Parry; that he went there to try to persuade her to lend money and it went awry. I still find it implausible, if you accept Parry was the culprit, you are saying that he combined an elaborate ruse/prank to get Wallace out of the way, assumed it would work and for long enough, and then showed up to try to get money, knowing Wallace would eventually return and tell his wife he had been sent on a fruitless journey. Again, the only thing that even makes this remotely plausible to me is Parry's well documented poor character and John Parkes' testimony. However, Parry was a known suspect and there is similar testimony claiming the Johnstones confessed to the crime, as well as 70 lunatics confessed to the murder themselves. Also consider the fact that Parry had an alibi for the night of the murder, and I don't think it can be as easily deconstructed as you suggest.

3. My main point in not accepting Parry acting alone or perhaps worded better Wallace being innocent, is WHW's actions. I have heard it suggested that people have tried the phone call on friiends as a test and they have gone looking for an address, and because Wallace knew of other Menlove Gardens in the area, it would be reasonable to assume he might be taken in by it.

Consider the fact that Wallace

1. did not consult a map, as he would certainly be in the habit of doing as an insurance agent

2. arrived at the tram stop at 7:08, not on very good time for a 7:30 meeting of which he did not know the precise address. You're telling me the fastidious, detail oriented Wallace on official business looking to make a sizable commission does not consult a map, assumes he'll find an address, and then starts asking randomly, making a big scene everywhere. Seems rather unlikely to me.

Personally, I think the address was a red herring, in that I suspect Wallace made the call and meant to say West. He first asked "west" and was told that no it was "east" by Beattie at the club when he arrived. But that's besides the point if you are assuming Wallace is innocent and looking for the non-existent address. It just simply does not add up.
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 01:23 AM.


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