Murder. Mystery and My Family

[GUT]

Hi Pat,

I once shared an office with a fellow who was heavily into genealogy, in the days before computers and the internet. He went to great lengths to delve into the history of, I believe, his father's family. However, it all came to a sudden end when one day, to his huge surprise and embarrassment, he discovered that an ancestor of his had been hanged for murder some time during the 19th century. He couldn't handle this! Had it been someone in my family, I'd have been rivetted!

Graham

It’s huge here in Aus, everyone wants a convict in their tree.

And a First Fleeter is big news.

I’m still on the lower side of 60 but remember when a convict ancestor was hushed up by most families.

[Graham]

Hi Graham,

When I was seriously researching up to the year 2008 at the 42nd Street Library, I used to delve into a four volume series from about 1900 of a magazine called "Famous Crimes" that was published in Great Britain. The paper was like onion skin, and one had to be very careful turning pages because they tore so easily. It was obvious that the reason the magazine was so cheap when published was the quality of the paper made it so.

Anyway, the editors received mail from readers, and occasionally they got letters from descendants of executed felons. When they replied they did not give the original correspondence nor the name of the individual who wrote. On one occasion I noted the limits the magazine would go to on what they felt they could discuss. They had no problem with the Whitechapel Murders or Charlie Peace, but one correspondent asked if they were going to discuss an 1811 case. They were scandalized by the request and said they'd never print anything about such a filthy case.

Without naming it they were referring to the Hepburn and White Affair (I think it was called). An army Ensign and a drummer boy apparently had sodomy together, were caught, and executed. Interesting that the subject of murder (even of children - the series had a discussion of the 1876 Blackburn Child murderer William Fish) was included but not sodomy.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

for the life of me, I can't really remember anything about my colleague's forbear, except that I think it was just purely and simply murder. In the early 19th century you could be hanged for just about any felony, apart from murder. I lost contact with my colleague more than 40 years ago, so there is little or no chance of finding out more.

Graham

[AmericanSherlock]

I know nothing about the case except for the "hushed up" cause of the case and it's double execution. "Famous Crimes" was published from 1900 to 1904 which is within a decade of Oscar Wilde's trials, and he died in 1900 too. In 1903 one of Britain's most popular generals, Hector MacFarlane ("Fighting Mac"), who led the last charge at Omdurman in 1898 and had been appointed Military Governor of the colony (then) of Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), had resigned when he returned to London, and subsequently shot himself in Paris. Officially it was "overwork", but word soon spread of rumors about MacFarlane and local Ceylonese boys. And it wasn't only Britain. In 1902 the head of the Krupp Industrial empire in Germany killed himself (I believe in Capri, then notorious for male sodomy relationships) when about to be exposed.

If I find out more about the 1811 affair, I will post it here.

Jeff

Thanks Jeff. We are neighbors btw, I'm in Manhattan. I noticed in the WHW thread you said Jonathan Goodman was a mentor of yours. What was he like personality wise? I've criticized his book on Wallace as I disagree with his conclusion. But it was still an entertaining read and seems he was a colorful character.

[Mayerling]

Thanks Jeff. We are neighbors btw, I'm in Manhattan. I noticed in the WHW thread you said Jonathan Goodman was a mentor of yours. What was he like personality wise? I've criticized his book on Wallace as I disagree with his conclusion. But it was still an entertaining read and seems he was a colorful character.

Hi,

I'm in Flushing, Queens, and it is snowing here right now. So much for the advent of spring.

Jon was a very nice and good friend. He helped publish several essays I wrote from the late 1980s to 2008 (when he died), and gave me plenty of advice about them. Frankly I was deeply impressed by the Wallace book, and it seemed Jon believed it. In the original he did not name Parry as his suspect, due to the fact that Parry was still alive and could sue for defamation of character. However Jon told me two stories regarding Parry and Jon's suspicions. First, while researching the book Jon frequently went to major public record sources to double check his facts about where people lived in 1931, and where the records said they worked. On one occasion (I think it was in Government House, but I'm not sure) Jon was researching again, but accidentally stumbled on some books that someone else had taken out, and noticed they touched upon where Jon lived and his family and connections. It wasn't really provable, but it certainly made Jon thing (especially as Parry - as I said before - was alive and (in Jon's opinion) had a "good" track record in the field of murder. The other story was how he and Richard Whittington - Egan went to visit Parry. Parry agreed to answer some questions in an interview - at his own home. Jon was not crazy to go alone there, and he took his friend Richard with him as protection. Surprised to see two of them as visitors, Parry insisted on conducting the interview - for what it was worth, as he was quite hypothetical and vague in it - on his doorstep. Jon told me he was glad Richard accompanied him.

Jeff

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi,

I'm in Flushing, Queens, and it is snowing here right now. So much for the advent of spring.

Jon was a very nice and good friend. He helped publish several essays I wrote from the late 1980s to 2008 (when he died), and gave me plenty of advice about them. Frankly I was deeply impressed by the Wallace book, and it seemed Jon believed it. In the original he did not name Parry as his suspect, due to the fact that Parry was still alive and could sue for defamation of character. However Jon told me two stories regarding Parry and Jon's suspicions. First, while researching the book Jon frequently went to major public record sources to double check his facts about where people lived in 1931, and where the records said they worked. On one occasion (I think it was in Government House, but I'm not sure) Jon was researching again, but accidentally stumbled on some books that someone else had taken out, and noticed they touched upon where Jon lived and his family and connections. It wasn't really provable, but it certainly made Jon thing (especially as Parry - as I said before - was alive and (in Jon's opinion) had a "good" track record in the field of murder. The other story was how he and Richard Whittington - Egan went to visit Parry. Parry agreed to answer some questions in an interview - at his own home. Jon was not crazy to go alone there, and he took his friend Richard with him as protection. Surprised to see two of them as visitors, Parry insisted on conducting the interview - for what it was worth, as he was quite hypothetical and vague in it - on his doorstep. Jon told me he was glad Richard accompanied him.

Jeff

Lousy way to start spring here. At least I have the day off

Thanks Jeff for that information.

I've always tried to get more info on that encounter and I think in an Armchair detective magazine Goodman says he spoke to Parry on the phone or tried to and was cursed at or maybe it was a subsequent in person meeting, I'm not sure, but I wasn't able to access more than a snippet view on google books.

I always found his meeting with Parry interesting because of what a dodgy character Parry seemed (quite a funny type of Dickensian scoundrel) and the impressive research and in person journalistic type following up he did which was admirable.

I just tend to lean towards James Murphy's book more since he had the benefit of the full police file.

Do you know if Jon changed his mind before his death? Richard Whittington Egan has changed his mind apparently.

The Wallace case is so symmetrical at least on the face of it in pointing towards and away from WHW as the guilty party.

In any case, Jon was a very good author and I'm currently reading "The passing of Starr Faithful"

[AmericanSherlock]

What is the least far back that you wouldnt be bothered knowing a relative had been a murderer or vicious criminal? I would be very upset if I found out my parents were, quite upset about grandparents, but less so after that. I might think it cool even if it was several generations back.

Not cool in the fact, that I would obviously wish it hadn't happened for the victim, but that odd sense of intrigue you get in find out that, say, a guy you knew in high school was a bank robber combined with familial "pride". It would have to be 3+ generations back though at least for me to not be shocked in a bad way.

[Mayerling]

Lousy way to start spring here. At least I have the day off

Thanks Jeff for that information.

I've always tried to get more info on that encounter and I think in an Armchair detective magazine Goodman says he spoke to Parry on the phone or tried to and was cursed at or maybe it was a subsequent in person meeting, I'm not sure, but I wasn't able to access more than a snippet view on google books.

I always found his meeting with Parry interesting because of what a dodgy character Parry seemed (quite a funny type of Dickensian scoundrel) and the impressive research and in person journalistic type following up he did which was admirable.

I just tend to lean towards James Murphy's book more since he had the benefit of the full police file.

Do you know if Jon changed his mind before his death? Richard Whittington Egan has changed his mind apparently.

The Wallace case is so symmetrical at least on the face of it in pointing towards and away from WHW as the guilty party.

In any case, Jon was a very good author and I'm currently reading "The passing of Starr Faithful"

A little cowardly, perhaps, but given that it was the Wallace book that made Jon's reputation I never questioned his opinion on his solution. I sometimes mentioned how others were questioning it, but that was his own information.

You will find that Jon thanks me personally at the end of the "Starr Faithful" book - I did some research on parts of it for him, and we discussed some small points (like the film "Daddy Long-Legs" with Warner Baxter, that Starr went to at one point).

Jeff

[Mayerling]

What is the least far back that you wouldnt be bothered knowing a relative had been a murderer or vicious criminal? I would be very upset if I found out my parents were, quite upset about grandparents, but less so after that. I might think it cool even if it was several generations back.

Not cool in the fact, that I would obviously wish it hadn't happened for the victim, but that odd sense of intrigue you get in find out that, say, a guy you knew in high school was a bank robber combined with familial "pride". It would have to be 3+ generations back though at least for me to not be shocked in a bad way.

My mind is fairly clear that my own parents and grandparents were not involved in murders or crimes, but occasionally I consider past three generations. Somehow it is always possible that a connection exists (keep in mind that it has to - all of the species of homo-sapiens that ever existed were set on Earth, so it is hard to not have relatives who were so connected to crime).

In my family the closest we came to a murder was my father's cousin (on his mother's side). Yonnie's father's father (his paternal grandfather) was murdered in 1919 in the Ukraine, where he went back with food supplies for relatives, by brigands, Ukrainean "freedom fighters" or Russians of either White Russian or Communist background. The robbery murder was mostly for loot, but as we are Jewish anti-Semitism probably played a role too.

In 2002 someone contacted us regarding the Hanick family connection (my father's mother's family were the Hanick's) and how a family tree was being set up. We gave some information about Elsie, my father Howard, and his sister Florence. I looked at the family tree that was set up. Now, keep in mind that ever since my birth in 1954, all the relatives I ever knew lived in the United States, and many were born here (many since the 19th Century). When I looked at that family tree, I looked back to those Hanick's who remained in Russia and Poland after 1920. I found a graveyard from 1939 to 1946. You can fill in the rest.

Jeff

[AmericanSherlock]

My mind is fairly clear that my own parents and grandparents were not involved in murders or crimes, but occasionally I consider past three generations. Somehow it is always possible that a connection exists (keep in mind that it has to - all of the species of homo-sapiens that ever existed were set on Earth, so it is hard to not have relatives who were so connected to crime).

In my family the closest we came to a murder was my father's cousin (on his mother's side). Yonnie's father's father (his paternal grandfather) was murdered in 1919 in the Ukraine, where he went back with food supplies for relatives, by brigands, Ukrainean "freedom fighters" or Russians of either White Russian or Communist background. The robbery murder was mostly for loot, but as we are Jewish anti-Semitism probably played a role too.

In 2002 someone contacted us regarding the Hanick family connection (my father's mother's family were the Hanick's) and how a family tree was being set up. We gave some information about Elsie, my father Howard, and his sister Florence. I looked at the family tree that was set up. Now, keep in mind that ever since my birth in 1954, all the relatives I ever knew lived in the United States, and many were born here (many since the 19th Century). When I looked at that family tree, I looked back to those Hanick's who remained in Russia and Poland after 1920. I found a graveyard from 1939 to 1946. You can fill in the rest.

Jeff

Very interesting thanks Jeff for this and the preceding post about Jonathan Goodman. Do you know if Jon was Jewish? The last name and the way he spells the short version of his name without an h led me to believe he might be. But doesn't seem like it otherwise.

I'm not Jewish myself but most of my friends seem to be.

[Mayerling]

He was Anglican, but actually not devoutly so. Still he did once or twice state that he would have liked to have been inspired to become a Quaker (there is a degree of spiritual seeking in joining the Society of Friends, involving receiving a divine fire from within in adhering to it's principles - Jon was impressed by this). I suspect his abbreviation of "Jonathan" to "Jon" was due to that being his first name's first syllable (similar to mine of using "Jeff" for the first syllable of "Jeffrey"). He did have thoughts of divine justice. Take a look at what he writes regarding his suspect in "The Burning of Evelyn Foster", which may be one of the strongest condemnations I ever read of a murderer's fate by any true crime author (including Edmund Pearson). Jon hated cruelty in any form.

Jeff

[AmericanSherlock]

He was Anglican, but actually not devoutly so. Still he did once or twice state that he would have liked to have been inspired to become a Quaker (there is a degree of spiritual seeking in joining the Society of Friends, involving receiving a divine fire from within in adhering to it's principles - Jon was impressed by this). I suspect his abbreviation of "Jonathan" to "Jon" was due to that being his first name's first syllable (similar to mine of using "Jeff" for the first syllable of "Jeffrey"). He did have thoughts of divine justice. Take a look at what he writes regarding his suspect in "The Burning of Evelyn Foster", which may be one of the strongest condemnations I ever read of a murderer's fate by any true crime author (including Edmund Pearson). Jon hated cruelty in any form.

Jeff

Appreciate the info. I remember reading Jon had stated he was fascinated by the plot of murder mysteries (true life ones) and the characters involved etc., but never forgot there was an unfortunate victim and also was squeamish around the actual act of killing, blood, and gore etc. I am much the same way. Probably a mark of a sensitive and kind soul if I do say so myself

I think perhaps in the Wallace case if one thinks WHW was innocent, there is an extra outrage and desire to solve it in his favor, because he was an awful victim of the crime himself in that event. Having gone thru the brutal murder of his wife, being suspected and convicted of it and sentenced to death and then barely escaping execution for it---all to be ostracized and die a couple years later, sick and broken. I could see this appealing to one's sense of justice to set the record straight. I just happen to think it unlikely Wallace was innocent.

I will try to get a hold of The burning of Evelyn Foster. I believe he made a reference to Parry in it although as it was in the 70s could not state his name yet until after Parry died in 1980. That is a crime that really shocks the conscience.

On Muder, Mystery, and My Family I was impressed by the people willing to appear on the show and consider the possibility of their relatives being vicious murderers without bias. Then again, we might be seeing only the small percentage that were willing.

[Graham]

It’s huge here in Aus, everyone wants a convict in their tree.

And a First Fleeter is big news.

I’m still on the lower side of 60 but remember when a convict ancestor was hushed up by most families.

There was a sub-sketch in an early 'Young Ones' (much missed) in which a line of chained convicts were waiting to board a ship to be transported. One of them (Andy de la Tour IIRC) says: " 'Tis monstrous cruel, transported for life just for stealing a bag of corn to feed my starving children". The bloke next to him says, "Aye, and for them seven murders you done". "Aye, them as well".

Graham