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:
Witnesses: Pearly Poll's Husband - by Pcdunn 4 hours ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by Joshua Rogan 5 hours ago.
Witnesses: Pearly Poll's Husband - by Paddy 5 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by MrBarnett 10 hours ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by Wickerman 11 hours ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by Wickerman 11 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (22 posts)
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - (12 posts)
Witnesses: What EXACTLY did Maurice Lewis say? - (4 posts)
Casebook Announcements: Casebook Outage May Occur - (2 posts)
Witnesses: Pearly Poll's Husband - (2 posts)
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - (1 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
  #2471  
Old 06-07-2018, 08:07 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 611
Default

Two other things that occurred to me about Parry as a suspect I'd like to reiterate.

The wounds apparently were thought to have indicated a right handed killer. Apparently James Murphy caught up with Parry's coworkers who told him RGP was left handed. Not proof , but interesting.

Also in regards to John Parkes scenario, he says Parry came by and had recently borrowed oilskin waders and thigh high boots for "fishing". Unless "recently" means 6 months ago, does this mean Parry was planning to go ice fishing in the Arctic? (The murder took place January 20th)

Parkes' tale is rubbish.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2472  
Old 06-08-2018, 10:54 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,033
Default

I fail to see how anyone can take Parkes story with anything but a very large pinch of salt AS.

Good points
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2473  
Old 06-09-2018, 01:54 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 611
Default

Previously, I have mentioned that RWE, who accompanied Jonathan Goodman to confront Parry and bought into the Parry as killer/Parkes story scenario had reneged on that viewpoint. I don't know what Goodman thought in later years, but it's pretty interesting his right hand man had changed his mind. And Goodman's obit mentions that "Wallace was probably the killer." This was the passage I cited, which was featured in the book he wrote with his wife Molly in 2005. He seems to have been swayed by Murphy and I concur with his opinion.

“Parry’s alibi for the night of the murder did not, as has been previously suggested, depend upon the evidence of his friend Miss Lily Lloyd. His alibis were thoroughly checked and verified by the police, and tests carried out on his clothes and car proved negative. He was, therefore, rightly eliminated.”

Here is another interesting tidbit I came across though, Mark R from another board emailed RWE to ask about his opinion. (Mark R was a wealth of knowledge on this case and I believe he and GED wrote the inacityliving site. Mark seems like a good chap but he certainly has changed his mind on this case and often without explanation. He used to say he just doesn't know but seemed to lean towards innocence of WHW, often suggesting the Anfield Housebreaker, and he said he can't accept Wallace's guilt because of blood splatter etc... (we've all heard that before.) However he wrote a favorable review of Murphy's book a few years back on Amazon saying he basically solved the case!)

Anyway here is RWE's response if we take Mark's word for it:

Here's what Whittington-Egan replied in a letter to me:

"Goodman and I met Parry and faced him up with the fact that Wallace had so accused him. Frankly, I did not care for him and found him rather sinister but I am not convinced of his guilt, especially since reading Murphy's excellent The Murder of Julia Wallace."
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2474  
Old 06-09-2018, 01:30 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,033
Default

Interesting post AS.

Its a compliment worth having if RWE holds your book in high regard as he appeared to with Murphy. Hints that even Goodman came to favour Wallace too.

Simply saying that because Parry was ‘dodgy’ then his alibi was ‘dodgy’ too doesnt hold water. Theres no real reason to doubt his alibi so why should we.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2475  
Old 06-14-2018, 02:45 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 611
Default

Two further things that testify against a killer other than Wallace in my view.

1. I think the fact Julia had a bad cold should be considered some more. Would she really let someone in while that under the weather? What pretense could a visitor known to her give that wouldn't be overriden by her saying she was too ill for company. Apparently she was ill enough that Neil Norbury the baker boy noted it and she said it was a touch of bronchitis.

If it was "Qualtrough" you could argue she would have let him in to clear up the "misunderstanding" as the "sneak thief" theory goes. Not wanting to let the commission slip thru her and William's fingers I guess...

2. Here is another thought that occurred to me though stemming from this... what time would "Qualtrough" in this scenario have arrived? If he was stalking out Wallace and saw him leave, it seems almost blatantly obvious he would have to come soon after that to give him as much time as possible before Wallace returned. (Also it hardly seems likely being right there he would just dawdle around for half an hour before trying to enter 29 wolverton.)

The theory that has been suggested as I encapsulated in the previous paragraph is that Julia would allow him in and then they would wait for William to return to clear up the misunderstanding about the address and more importantly get down to business.

But if Wallace had just left, and he almost had to have in this "Qualtrough as killer sneak thief" scenario, then obviously Julia would tell Qualtrough this and tell him to follow Wallace and/or head back to Menlove Gardens Area. It is not at all obvious or even likely in my view that she would invite him into her home for a cup of tea and to wait for hours (or that this is a conceivable plan that fake Qualtrough and co. could rely on in planning). Especially with Wallace having left probably just 2 minutes or so before!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2476  
Old 06-15-2018, 05:13 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,217
Default

Great point AS! I wish I'd thought of it.

It would have seemed odd enough to Julia as it was, to see Qualtrough on the doorstep if she knew all about his message to her husband to go to his house, but if she also knew the appointment time was 7.30, what on earth would he have been doing, arriving at their home before 7, but not early enough to catch Wallace before he left?

And yet, as you say, the idea would have been to get in, do whatever he came to do and get out again, before Wallace found out he was being sent on a wild goose chase and hurried back home again to his poorly wife.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov



Last edited by caz : 06-15-2018 at 05:15 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2477  
Old 06-15-2018, 06:26 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,033
Default

Great points AS.

Julia would have undoubtedly found it strange that such a 'mix up' might occur. How much more suspicious would she have been if Qualtrough had turned up such a short time after Wallace left.

Added to that, as we would now have Julia and Qualtrough having a surprised conversation on the doorstep, that no one saw or heard anything. You would have thought that a potential thief/murderer would have been slightly reluctant to be have been seen having a chat with his future victim on her doorstep less than 2 hours before her corpse would be discovered. A risk too far methinks.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2478  
Old 06-19-2018, 04:36 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 611
Default

Thanks Caz and Herlock.

Hope both of you are well and I agree with both of your points.

A thought I had about the caller mentioning "21st birthday" for his daughter.

Some of you have noted that even though this is suspicious for Parry, who mentioned getting invites to a 21st in his testimony (which he was in fact for Leslie Williamson), that

1. a 21st policy was common at that time for a daughter
2. The real Qualtrough, R J Qualtrough had a daughter who had a birthday that very day ( a 20th) (so anyone who may have looked him up to use as a hoax might have know). Or if not, this certainly shows coincidences do happen.
3. Buttressing off the last past, it was just a coincidence.

I agree with all of these rebuttals to a slightly confounding aspect of the case.

One more I thought of:

It was RGP's 22nd birthday on January 12th 1931. As someone who knew him at least somewhat well, Wallace very well may have been aware of this and it could have given him the idea if he had his man in mind.

Like many aspects of the case, this could be seen in two ways...

Perhaps one is standing on shaky ground to conflate Wallace's very likely guilt with his hope to frame Parry from the beginning, because the 2nd is certainly not as clear to me as the 1st, and I wouldn't want it to take away from the mountain of circumstantial evidence we have pointing towards Willie.

But I don't think it's a stretch to think he had a "plausible" fall guy in mind from the beginning if he was the killer. In fact, it would be weird if he didn't. I believe CAZ has made the comparison with the unfortunate Christie/Evans case before.

He did take awhile to get hot on the trail of blaming Parry; perhaps RGP was more of a "divert suspicion away if needed" type of fall guy than a straight up "hope to frame him" (mainly because WHW couldn't know how good of an alibi Parry would have etc.)

It would fit with immaculate planning that seems to have gone into this crime. And explain why Wallace kept the sleazy Parry around as a loose sort of a friend and said he would be someone Julia would let in, despite being a known scoundrel and thief at the same time.

Thoughts, all?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2479  
Old 06-19-2018, 09:48 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,033
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
Thanks Caz and Herlock.

Hope both of you are well and I agree with both of your points.

A thought I had about the caller mentioning "21st birthday" for his daughter.

Some of you have noted that even though this is suspicious for Parry, who mentioned getting invites to a 21st in his testimony (which he was in fact for Leslie Williamson), that

1. a 21st policy was common at that time for a daughter
2. The real Qualtrough, R J Qualtrough had a daughter who had a birthday that very day ( a 20th) (so anyone who may have looked him up to use as a hoax might have know). Or if not, this certainly shows coincidences do happen.
3. Buttressing off the last past, it was just a coincidence.

I agree with all of these rebuttals to a slightly confounding aspect of the case.

One more I thought of:

It was RGP's 22nd birthday on January 12th 1931. As someone who knew him at least somewhat well, Wallace very well may have been aware of this and it could have given him the idea if he had his man in mind.

Like many aspects of the case, this could be seen in two ways...

Perhaps one is standing on shaky ground to conflate Wallace's very likely guilt with his hope to frame Parry from the beginning, because the 2nd is certainly not as clear to me as the 1st, and I wouldn't want it to take away from the mountain of circumstantial evidence we have pointing towards Willie.

But I don't think it's a stretch to think he had a "plausible" fall guy in mind from the beginning if he was the killer. In fact, it would be weird if he didn't. I believe CAZ has made the comparison with the unfortunate Christie/Evans case before.

He did take awhile to get hot on the trail of blaming Parry; perhaps RGP was more of a "divert suspicion away if needed" type of fall guy than a straight up "hope to frame him" (mainly because WHW couldn't know how good of an alibi Parry would have etc.)

It would fit with immaculate planning that seems to have gone into this crime. And explain why Wallace kept the sleazy Parry around as a loose sort of a friend and said he would be someone Julia would let in, despite being a known scoundrel and thief at the same time.

Thoughts, all?
Good points AS,

Friends, however casual, usual have at least something in common to cause them to remain ‘friends.’ Can anyone really think why a genteel couple like Wallace’s, with interests like classical music, literature, chemistry and chess would want to maintain any kind of contact with a disreputable dude like Party? Why would Wallace allow him to take over his round when he was ill?

The fact that the ‘thief’ made so little effort to ransack the place for money and valuables (avoiding Julia’s bag for example) but made a beeline for a cash box stashed away on a high shelf could be seen as a hint at someone familiar with the house and the cash arrangements. Perhaps Wallace felt that he’d been too subtle in merely mentioning Parry as someone that Julia would have allowed in and also having the cash box targeted? Perhaps this why it was only after the appeal that Wallace began specifically accusing Parry (only in private writings of course.)

I think it’s quite possible that Wallace always had Parry in mind as someone that he could dangle under the noses of the police.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2480  
Old 06-21-2018, 09:27 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,217
Default

Hi Both,

It's a double-edged sword, because if Wallace didn't kill his wife there was someone out there - Parry or A.N Other - who did, but managed to avoid becoming the prime suspect.

If Wallace did it, he'd have been a fool not to have an alternative 'likely suspect' in mind for the police to focus on. But he couldn't afford to make this too obvious. He had to hope that this other suspect would pop up naturally as a result of their enquiries into recent events in the lives of the Wallaces. He could help this along rather well before the murder, but not so much immediately afterwards, when it would look more contrived.

As has been pointed out, Wallace couldn't have known what kind of alibi Parry might have had, but being a 'dodgy' character would have been a start.

The respectable Wallace only needed his Qualtrough 'alibi' to create a little reasonable doubt, and if Parry then couldn't establish his whereabouts 100%, it would have been a bonus.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


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 10:24 PM.


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