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:
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - by Jon Guy 15 minutes ago.
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - by Varqm 2 hours ago.
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - by Sam Flynn 3 hours ago.
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - by Harry D 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Sam Flynn 3 hours ago.
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - by Varqm 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - (39 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - (13 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (9 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (3 posts)
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - (3 posts)
Non-Fiction: The Whitechapel Murders of 1888: Another Dead End? - (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
  #1041  
Old 04-16-2017, 10:39 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
I initially considered this, but there is another adult witness [Harold Dennison] who verifies Brine's statement and Parry's presence until 8.30pm completely.
Harold Dennison was only 15 and was a nephew of Brine's. Moreover, as Antony points out in his book, his evidence is somewhat suspect because his statement, as regards the salient point, is identical to his aunt's: "He remained till about 8:30pm when he left."

I would also question as to whether he even possessed a watch, particularly as other younger involved in the inquiry-Hall, Wildman, Close-don't appear to have.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1042  
Old 04-16-2017, 11:11 AM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 315
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Harold Dennison was only 15 and was a nephew of Brine's. Moreover, as Antony points out in his book, his evidence is somewhat suspect because his statement, as regards the salient point, is identical to his aunt's: "He remained till about 8:30pm when he left."

I would also question as to whether he even possessed a watch, particularly as other younger involved in the inquiry-Hall, Wildman, Close-don't appear to have.
Denison [correct-spelling, my previous bad] was 16. I've checked, and his birth was registered in late 1914.

No matter. I accept the timings may be a little fuzzy, but he must have been there that night. There was a 13-year old also present, and a visitor, Miss Plant.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1043  
Old 04-16-2017, 11:22 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
Denison [correct-spelling, my previous bad] was 16. I've checked, and his birth was registered in late 1914.

No matter. I accept the timings may be a little fuzzy, but he must have been there that night. There was a 13-year old also present, and a visitor, Miss Plant.
Yes, I've no doubt Parry was there for some period, but he may have lied about the timings, just as he did for his Qualtrough alibi. In other words, it's possible he left significantly earlier than he stated, as I've previously argued.

The other witness was Brine's daughter Savona, who didn't give a statement, although I doubt she'd have been prepared to contradict her mother.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1044  
Old 04-16-2017, 11:31 AM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 315
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Harold Dennison was only 15 and was a nephew of Brine's. Moreover, as Antony points out in his book, his evidence is somewhat suspect because his statement, as regards the salient point, is identical to his aunt's: "He remained till about 8:30pm when he left."
I wouldn't read too much into that. It's standard Police procedure to ask questions, then draft up the statement in their words mostly, then ask you to read it and sign it.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1045  
Old 04-16-2017, 11:35 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
I wouldn't read too much into that. It's standard Police procedure to ask questions, then draft up the statement in their words mostly, then ask you to read it and sign it.
This may have happened. Nonetheless, Parry, Brine and Denison all give time estimates, suggesting they hadn't consulted a watch or clock but, somewhat conveniently, they all give the same estimate: around 8:30pm.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1046  
Old 04-16-2017, 12:44 PM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,290
Default

This is an excerpt of the Wallace trial that was posted on another thread: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet....Trial_djvu.txt

It refers to Hall's evidence, and in this version she does say that she saw the two men as they parted: one went straight along towards Breck Road, whilst the other went down the entry to Richmond Park, although she couldn't say which one went down the entry and which one went towards Breck Road.

Last edited by John G : 04-16-2017 at 12:53 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1047  
Old 04-17-2017, 12:34 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,290
Default

I've just been reading more of the trial transcript from Wyndham-Brown's book. When Dr McFall gives his evidence he notes that there was projected blood on the outside of the left sleeve of the Macintosh. That lead him to conclude that, "either there had been a spurting of blood or a splashing of blood in front, presumably by someone who had it on." He goes on to explain that he meant a "spurt of blood in front of the Macintosh" and then "on to the Macintosh."

Last edited by John G : 04-17-2017 at 12:45 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1048  
Old 04-22-2017, 04:13 AM
ColdCaseJury ColdCaseJury is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: England
Posts: 278
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
According to Hall's statement, reproduced in Anthony's book, she doesn't mention seeing the men walk anywhere.

The question of how Wallace could have afforded a hit man is clearly valid, proving that nothing is simple about this case.

Could he have been misappropriating the insurance money? If he elected to do this I can imagine he would do a better job than Parry.
Lily Hall mentions the men walking away in the trial transcript. In my updated book I will publish an abridged account all of Hall's relevant evidence - statements, committal hearing and trial.

I have been speaking to John Gannon about Hall's evidence. Gannon remains convinced that, according to Hall, one of the men walked towards Wolverton Street. I believe Hall said the opposite, based on the same evidence set. I will publish the relevant evidence and let the Cold Case Jury decide on this one!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1049  
Old 04-22-2017, 10:25 AM
ansonman ansonman is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 144
Default

In answer to the original question posed by this thread, I do not think Wallace was guilty and I base my belief in his innocence on the evidence obtained by Roger Wilkes, as broadcast in the Radio City programmes "Who killed Julia" and written in his excellent book "Wallace the final verdict".

For me, the testimony of Parkes 50 years after the event but supported by persons who recalled hearing this evidence at the time, is absolutely damning and leaves me in no doubt whatsoever that Parry was the murderer. I do not buy into the theory that he was an accomplice.

Listening to the tape recording of Parkes's testimony is to listen to a man who is telling the truth. For me, the big question is why was Superintendent Moore's response to the evidence of Parkes curt and dismissive "You must have made a mistake".

I have been acquainted with the Wallace case for more than 40 years and have read most of the books on the case. There is absolutely no question in my mind that Wallace was innocent and Parry guilty. The bigger question, e, is why did the police dismiss Parkes evidence?

Ansonman
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1050  
Old 04-22-2017, 06:38 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ansonman View Post
In answer to the original question posed by this thread, I do not think Wallace was guilty and I base my belief in his innocence on the evidence obtained by Roger Wilkes, as broadcast in the Radio City programmes "Who killed Julia" and written in his excellent book "Wallace the final verdict".

For me, the testimony of Parkes 50 years after the event but supported by persons who recalled hearing this evidence at the time, is absolutely damning and leaves me in no doubt whatsoever that Parry was the murderer. I do not buy into the theory that he was an accomplice.

Listening to the tape recording of Parkes's testimony is to listen to a man who is telling the truth. For me, the big question is why was Superintendent Moore's response to the evidence of Parkes curt and dismissive "You must have made a mistake".

I have been acquainted with the Wallace case for more than 40 years and have read most of the books on the case. There is absolutely no question in my mind that Wallace was innocent and Parry guilty. The bigger question, e, is why did the police dismiss Parkes evidence?

Ansonman
Hi, one reason might be that Parry had an alibi for the night of the murder Just an outside crazy thought
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 01:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.