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:
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by cobalt 19 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: A theory about some injuries! - by Fisherman 29 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 31 minutes ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by cobalt 36 minutes ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by cobalt 1 hour and 2 minutes ago.
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - by ChrisGeorge 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Mary Jane Kelly: A theory about some injuries! - (18 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (13 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (9 posts)
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - (8 posts)
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - (6 posts)
Audio -- Visual: Mention of JtR in recent episode of "The Flash" - (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
  #1391  
Old 11-14-2017, 11:53 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,032
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Hi John,
I could be wrong but the impression that I get is that initially they had agreed not to come forward with Parry’s story unless Wallace was convicted. But as the story of his arrest became widespread in the news Parry asked Atkinson to inform the police. So it appears that Parry was keener to come forward than the Atkinson’s. Maybe the Atkinson’s were a bit ‘shady’ and didn’t relish the police lurking around?
More silly errors on my part.

Subsitute Parkes For Parry here.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1392  
Old 11-14-2017, 04:12 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,032
Default Thinking aloud

Just a few thoughts, for what they’re worth, as I’ve just started reading through the trial transcript.

Why did Wallace check upstairs immediately he accessed the house? Johnston saw lights going on upstairs. It wasn’t 9pm yet so why would he assume that Julia was upstairs?

Doesn’t it seem a bit cold (although not in itself evidence of murder) that before Johnston goes for the police that Wallace points out that the cabinet door had been wrenched off then he checks the cash box.

Johnston asked ‘is everything alright upstairs before I go for the police?’ Wallace goes upstairs but, according to Johnston, he’d already been up there. So what did he go up again?

Again doesn’t it seem a little cold that Wallace returns to the Parlour, for no real reason, and on seeing the mackintosh stoops down next to the body of his battered to death wife to check it.

Wallace said that when he realised that there was no Menlove Gardens East he became suspicious and went home (intimating that he was concerned for his wife’s safety.) He was told by a clerk that there was no Menlove Gardens East. Then a police officer. He didn’t appear ‘suspicious’ then as he continued to the Allerton Road P.O. still in search of the non-existent Menlove Gardens East.

The Prosecuting Council said that the money found upstairs was the same amount that Wallace said was missing from the cash box. I’m assuming this is where one of the notes had a blood smear? Isn’t it therefore possible or even likely that Wallace took the cash from the cash box and put it upstairs to make it look like a robbery?

It was said that before he went out Wallace gathered together documents that he felt that he might need. As he didn’t know the details of the business that may have been quite a few documents. Was he carrying them when he got back? Obviously he wasn’t under suspicion then so he wasn’t searched but wouldn’t he have taken some kind of briefcase? I suppose there’s no way of knowing.

These are just a few thoughts as I progress slowly through the trial transcript. I find my suspicion of Wallace increasing slightly
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

Last edited by Herlock Sholmes : 11-14-2017 at 04:15 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1393  
Old 11-15-2017, 01:03 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,079
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Hi John,
I could be wrong but the impression that I get is that initially they had agreed not to come forward with Parry’s story unless Wallace was convicted. But as the story of his arrest became widespread in the news Parry asked Atkinson to inform the police. So it appears that Parry was keener to come forward than the Atkinson’s. Maybe the Atkinson’s were a bit ‘shady’ and didn’t relish the police lurking around?
Hi Herlock,

I need to listen to Parkes' radio broadcast again as to when exactly they came forward , as this is clearly a crucial point. According to CCJ's book, Atkinson originally advised Parkes not to have anything to do with it and to change his route to work. However, when pressed Atkinson agreed they should come forward if Wallace was convicted (if that was the case, I'm not suprised Moore was so dismissive, particularly as he'd just secured a conviction and the delay in coming forward must have raised a suspicion-after all, Lilly Hall came forward to give evidence at the trial and, on the surface, all she witnessed was two blokes having a chat!)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1394  
Old 11-15-2017, 12:24 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,032
Default

I need to stop mixing Parry and Parkes names
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1395  
Old 11-16-2017, 01:14 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,079
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
John, I have thought about this myself and the theory you've put forth of a sort of middleground--Parkes wasn't entirely accurate in his recollection, but also that there was a kernel of truth in it is a strong one. I also agree that Parry seems more like a low level conman/rogue type and someone who would probably panic after committing a brutal unplanned murder. Can that explain away what seems like very odd actions if Parkes is telling the truth? I'm not sure.

One thing I wonder is why, if Parry needed his car cleaned, did he drive it to a garage where he was already hated with a garage hand who didn't trust him? Was that really the only way to clean his car out? Obviously this was before DNA. Was that the only garage he could visit? Is it not something he could have done himself? A very stupid action if Parry really was guilty that only would make sense if he suffered temporary insanity at the panic upon realizing what he had done.
I think if Parkes' account is accurate, or broadly, accurate, we have to assume that Parry was in a state of mental turmoil when he headed over to the garage, as the enormity of what he'd done-possibly as a result of panic following a botched robbery-began to sink in; someone not really thinking about the consequences of "confessing" to Parkes, or at least not seeing him as a threat, and maybe even considering handing himself in or disappearing abroad.

Ada Pritchard's account is interesting in this respect because, if true, it suggests that Parry had at least confessed to his parents, demonstrating that he had a need to unburden himself. But, like so many things in this case, can her account be regarded as reliable?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1396  
Old 11-16-2017, 02:41 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 301
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
I think if Parkes' account is accurate, or broadly, accurate, we have to assume that Parry was in a state of mental turmoil when he headed over to the garage, as the enormity of what he'd done-possibly as a result of panic following a botched robbery-began to sink in; someone not really thinking about the consequences of "confessing" to Parkes, or at least not seeing him as a threat, and maybe even considering handing himself in or disappearing abroad.

Ada Pritchard's account is interesting in this respect because, if true, it suggests that Parry had at least confessed to his parents, demonstrating that he had a need to unburden himself. But, like so many things in this case, can her account be regarded as reliable?
Some solid points here.

I was re-considering the psychological profiling of Wallace which both Murphy and Gannon spoke about. Obviously the 2 authors came to differing conclusions, although both ultimately felt Wallace was guilty---Murphy believing he committed the actual crime and Gannon suggesting he was the mastermind who was responsible for its commission.

Murphy builds up an image of a long suffering man filled with minor disappointments and feeling trapped with an elderly wife for whom he cared little. There is some dispute on whether Wallace would have known his wife's true age before marrying her, but if not this could have added to his resentment of her which compounded what was probably a largely ungratifying life. Gannon's chapter of "Family Wipe Out' is pretty well done IMO, he contrasts Wallace with John Emil List who also was said to have suffered from "minor disappointments" and could be seen as a repressed personality in the same way. List thought his wife tricked him into marriage by pretending to be pregnant.

Like Wallace, List was a mild mannered, stoic type who was a professional failure and kept his private resentments bottled up. List would fake going to work everyday, take the train, and then come back after losing his job as an accountant. Wallace worked a thankless job as a door to door agent--as Murphy notes, a job he believed to beneath him and more befitting a younger man who could better bare going out in any weather to collect premiums from belligerent customers. Both men showed no signs before the crime of any sort of criminal behavior whatsoever. I would say one could argue both demonstrated traits and behaviors that could be seen as somewhat lightly on the autistic spectrum, like Asperger's or the like.

Of course, we know that John Emil List was guilty and we do not know whether WHW was or not.

Also, there is a danger in psychological profiling. It doesn't prove anything at all if Wallace was "odd" and often innocuous things can be looked at in a certain light if one is trying to prove a point or cast suspicion on somebody.

I still find it interesting though that Wallace does seem to have the personality that strongly fits a "Family Wipe Out" scenario. Combine this with the actual physical crime having the typical elements of a domestic homicide. and I would say he fits to a tee modern profiling of these sorts of crimes.

Does that prove he did it? Not at all, I would still vote to acquit. Especially with all this suspicious stuff regarding Parry muddying the picture.

But perhaps you can understand the reasons why I feel it was "more likely than not" that Wallace was guilty (whether he committed the actual crime or simply masterminded it.)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1397  
Old 11-16-2017, 03:05 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 301
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Hi AS,

Do you have any recommended books on the Sheppard case?
Herlock,

This is my favorite book on the case. I find it more unbiased than most, although it does lean in the direction of Sheppard's guilt. (Sort of like James Murphy on Wallace, I feel it effectively mitigates the other evidence that
"proves" the innocence of the husband.)

https://www.amazon.com/Dr-Sam-Sheppa...40_&dpSrc=srch


This one is the most well known and is a purposefully biased attempt to exonerate Sam (similar to Goodman's book) Although to be fair, both still deal largely in facts and allow one to make up their own mind.

https://www.amazon.com/Wrong-Man-Ver..._&dpSrc=detail
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1398  
Old 11-17-2017, 01:12 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,079
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
Some solid points here.

I was re-considering the psychological profiling of Wallace which both Murphy and Gannon spoke about. Obviously the 2 authors came to differing conclusions, although both ultimately felt Wallace was guilty---Murphy believing he committed the actual crime and Gannon suggesting he was the mastermind who was responsible for its commission.

Murphy builds up an image of a long suffering man filled with minor disappointments and feeling trapped with an elderly wife for whom he cared little. There is some dispute on whether Wallace would have known his wife's true age before marrying her, but if not this could have added to his resentment of her which compounded what was probably a largely ungratifying life. Gannon's chapter of "Family Wipe Out' is pretty well done IMO, he contrasts Wallace with John Emil List who also was said to have suffered from "minor disappointments" and could be seen as a repressed personality in the same way. List thought his wife tricked him into marriage by pretending to be pregnant.

Like Wallace, List was a mild mannered, stoic type who was a professional failure and kept his private resentments bottled up. List would fake going to work everyday, take the train, and then come back after losing his job as an accountant. Wallace worked a thankless job as a door to door agent--as Murphy notes, a job he believed to beneath him and more befitting a younger man who could better bare going out in any weather to collect premiums from belligerent customers. Both men showed no signs before the crime of any sort of criminal behavior whatsoever. I would say one could argue both demonstrated traits and behaviors that could be seen as somewhat lightly on the autistic spectrum, like Asperger's or the like.

Of course, we know that John Emil List was guilty and we do not know whether WHW was or not.

Also, there is a danger in psychological profiling. It doesn't prove anything at all if Wallace was "odd" and often innocuous things can be looked at in a certain light if one is trying to prove a point or cast suspicion on somebody.

I still find it interesting though that Wallace does seem to have the personality that strongly fits a "Family Wipe Out" scenario. Combine this with the actual physical crime having the typical elements of a domestic homicide. and I would say he fits to a tee modern profiling of these sorts of crimes.

Does that prove he did it? Not at all, I would still vote to acquit. Especially with all this suspicious stuff regarding Parry muddying the picture.

But perhaps you can understand the reasons why I feel it was "more likely than not" that Wallace was guilty (whether he committed the actual crime or simply masterminded it.)
Yes, from a modern perspective Wallace's stoicism does seem odd and, in fairness, even at the time the police took the view that his attitude was not what you would have expected from someone who'd just found is wife brutally murdered.

However, Wallace was born in a different era, and seems to have been the very epitome of the repressed, stiff upper lip Englishman.

Moreover, people who knew the Wallace's well seed to have takeb a different view. For instance, Mr Johnstone stated that, at the murder scene, he seemed to be in shock, and that he eventually broke down and sobbed. Whereas Mrs Johnstone stated at trial that she saw nothing wrong with his demeanour.

In fact, remarkably even Parry, in his statement to the police, said that he regarded them as a "devoted couple." And, of course, he had no reason to lie and every reason to do the opposite as suspicion would surely have focussed on him if Wallace was deemed innocent.

To my mind, the police's investigation was botched from the very beginning, as they continued to pursue Wallace even when Wildman's statement and the forensic evidence seemed to exonerate him. In fact, the case should never have been brought to court, and if must have been an extremely rare occurance for the Court of Appeal to overturn a verdict without further evidence being presented.

Further considering the police's blinkered view of the case, Parry was an obvious alternative suspect, who'd lied about his alibi for the Qualtrough call, and yet, according to CCJ's book, they didn't even bother to check out all of his alibis for the night of the murder, instead accepting the time estimates of a 15 year old boy and a woman who knew Parry well and whose husband happened to be at sea!

That doesn't mean she lied, of course, of even that she was having an affair with Parry, but at the very least the police should surely have considered the possibility and carried out a more thorough investigation.

Last edited by John G : 11-17-2017 at 01:14 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1399  
Old 11-17-2017, 05:41 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,032
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
Herlock,

This is my favorite book on the case. I find it more unbiased than most, although it does lean in the direction of Sheppard's guilt. (Sort of like James Murphy on Wallace, I feel it effectively mitigates the other evidence that
"proves" the innocence of the husband.)

https://www.amazon.com/Dr-Sam-Sheppa...40_&dpSrc=srch


This one is the most well known and is a purposefully biased attempt to exonerate Sam (similar to Goodman's book) Although to be fair, both still deal largely in facts and allow one to make up their own mind.

https://www.amazon.com/Wrong-Man-Ver..._&dpSrc=detail
Thanks for that AS
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1400  
Old 11-17-2017, 05:54 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,079
Default

Sorry about the obvious predictive text errors etc. in my last post. I was writing quickly and predictive text, or should that be unpredictable text, has got to be one of the world's worst inventions. Or at least, that's my excuse!
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 03:13 PM.


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