Originally posted by John G
View Post
While I tend to agree with the authors' conclusion, they themselves are guilty of a bit of unwarranted assuredness IMO. For example, they assert that the weapon was an iron rod that was part of Wallace's "retort stand" that would, I guess they assume, be part of machinery that a man interested in Science must own!
In the same vein, they also assert that Parry told the Police that he was winding up Parkes, who was "mentally slow". The problem is they do not provide a source for this and considering the general tenor of some of their other claims, one wonders if this is just surmising, or if there is a record of Parry saying that anywhere.
This is an unfortunate characteristic of many of the books written on this case. Not only are there numerous inexcusable factual errors, but authors often assert critical facts without explaining where they got them from, never to be mentioned again by anyone else.
Comment