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:
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - by Scott Nelson 25 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - by Wickerman 57 minutes ago.
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - by Sam Flynn 2 hours ago.
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - by Wickerman 3 hours ago.
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - by Batman 3 hours ago.
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - by Sam Flynn 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - (36 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - (14 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (6 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (3 posts)
General Discussion: Do you think it will be solved? - (2 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
  #1411  
Old 12-04-2017, 07:10 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Just pondering a little more on Parkes's failure to notify the police of the conversation with Parry at an earlier stage, i.e. before the end of the trial!

Firstly, I could certainly believe that he would have sought advice from his boss first, which is what he claimed to have done. After all, it would have been just Parkes' word against Parry's, and the younger Parkes may not have been a very confident lad.

I can also understand why Atkinson would have had reservations: as noted, it was just Parkes' word against Parry's, and even in 1980 Parkes doesn't exactly come across as an articulate speaker! In contrast, Parry was no doubt much more worldly-wise as well as having a reputation for deceitfullness-in other words, he knew how to lie well!

Parkes may also have been scared of Parry and what he might do, as evidenced by Atkinson's advice to vary his route to work.

Nonetheless, considering what was at stake-a man's life-reporting Parry's virtual confession, at an early stage, must surely have taken priority.

One reason why perhaps it didn't I have already noted-Parry's "confession" may have been given in much more oblique terms than Parkes subsequently remembered it.

Another possibility is that Parkes misremembered the timing of the discussion. For instance, if Parry had spoken to Parkes, say, several days after the murder then the account becomes a lot less damning: we could then speculate that Parry was simply winding-up a guliable Parkes-maybe it had happened before-and that's what Atkinson also may have suspected.
Hi John, in Lancashire Murders by Nicola Sly and John Van der Kiste, the authors argue for the guilt of Wallace. Similar to Richard Wittington-Egan (who helped Goodman write his book and confronted Parry on his doorstep in 1966!), he appears to have been persuaded by Murphy's book and the revelations within it about the contrasting characters and personalities of WHW, Julia, and Parry and Parry's alibi for the Tuesday night of the murder.

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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1412  
Old 12-04-2017, 11:16 PM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
Hi John, in Lancashire Murders by Nicola Sly and John Van der Kiste, the authors argue for the guilt of Wallace. Similar to Richard Wittington-Egan (who helped Goodman write his book and confronted Parry on his doorstep in 1966!), he appears to have been persuaded by Murphy's book and the revelations within it about the contrasting characters and personalities of WHW, Julia, and Parry and Parry's alibi for the Tuesday night of the murder.

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.
Hi AS,

It's certainly frustrating when books make assertions but then fail to provide source material; or when they fail to properly develop theories. Regarding the Lancashire Murders book that you refer to, for example. Even if Parry did tell the police he was winding up Parkes, it doesn't mean he was telling the truth. And I doubt this would have happened on the evening of the murder as Parry would had to have known the murder had taken place, and needed time to prepare the hoax-the fake blood, for example!

Similarly with the "iron rod" idea, even if we provisionally accept this was the murder weapon, I'm assuming the authors make no effort to explain what Wallace did with it, how he avoiding transferring blood from the weapon on to himself, and how it evaded the police search.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1413  
Old 12-05-2017, 01:12 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Thanks for the welcome back and the positive responses, AS and John. Much appreciated.

I agree with you, John, that whatever Parkes thought he recalled, there must have been something holding him back from reporting everything as soon as possible after the event. Now it might have been that his initial suspicion about Parry only really grew into something more substantial with the passing of time, due to his memory playing tricks by adding details or backdating the incident, similar to confirmation bias. But I can see why he might simply have been too scared to grass up a man who would have had him for breakfast if he really was a brutal killer!

I also agree with AS that if Wallace didn't make the Qualtrough call himself, then the person who did was presumably watching and waiting for him to pass by on his way to the chess club. The point of using that particular phone box would then have been to allow suspicion to fall on Wallace himself, not only due to its proximity to his house and the neat timing, but also because he wouldn't have an alibi for when the call was received at the club. The caller would need to have been someone reasonably familiar with Wallace's nocturnal habits, or there'd have been no guarantee he was going to the club to play that night, and not going somewhere else entirely, for business or pleasure. Even when he did turn up, there'd have been no guarantee he'd be given the message or would act on it. It would require the caller to go through the same ritual the following night, watching and waiting for Wallace to leave home before leaping into action and hoping he wouldn't return too soon. It does suggest there was a risk that Wallace would have recognised Qualtrough's voice if he had been at the club to take the call himself.

I still find the plan too complex and convoluted if it was someone like Parry, who knew the Wallaces, and he only intended to pinch the takings from the cash box, possibly imagining he could get away with this without Julia noticing. Or was he hoping to charm, or threaten her, into letting him take the cash and saying nothing to her husband, who might not like the idea of Parry being invited into the parlour in his absence? But obviously something went seriously wrong if he decided he'd have to kill her but was able to strike without her sensing the danger.

And we come back to Parry apparently having an even sounder alibi than Wallace for the Tuesday night!

On balance, I still come back to Wallace acting alone as slightly less impossible than every other theory I've read about to date. But absolutely his original conviction was unsafe, considering the lack of proof and the tiny window of opportunity, not to mention the missing murder weapon and where all the blood went. You can't convict someone for murder on the basis that it's nearly always the spouse and you have nobody else with the means, motive and opportunity.

Love,

Caz
X
Hi Caz,

Good point about the Qualtrough plot being too convoluted for Parry, and something I'd not properly considered. For instance, if theft was the motive why not steal the money during one of the "musical interludes" he enjoyed wirh Julia? Of course, he could have been desperate for cash, but then why not go round whilst William was at work?

One possibility is the presence of a secondary motive. Thus, maybe Parry bore a grudge against Wallace on a account of the latter reporting the theft of the missing insurance money-an incident that could have got Parry into serious trouble-and therefore decided to get his own back by sending William on a fool's errand, whilst also hoping he'd be blamed, or at least suspected, of the theft.

Interestingly, the relatively meagre takings needn't have been a disincentive. According to Antony's book Parry committed six petty thefts in the first two months of 1932 alone. However, they seemed to be unplanned and impulsive, which the Qualtrough ruse-if theft was the motive, rather than a simple hoax- certainly wasn't.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1414  
Old 12-05-2017, 03:50 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Hi Caz,

One possibility is the presence of a secondary motive. Thus, maybe Parry bore a grudge against Wallace on a account of the latter reporting the theft of the missing insurance money-an incident that could have got Parry into serious trouble-and therefore decided to get his own back by sending William on a fool's errand, whilst also hoping he'd be blamed, or at least suspected, of the theft.
Hi John,

That's a good point - I think there had to be a secondary motive to go to all that trouble of setting up that fool's errand. In fact I can't think of any other case like it. Whoever Qualtrough was, he either researched his geography quite thoroughly to hit upon a suitable non-existent address, which was so similar to the real Menlove ones, and in an area that was at just the right distance in time and place from the Wallaces. Or he was already familiar with those particular streets and knew there was no Menlove Gardens East - and the entire ruse was based around this local knowledge.

Of course, this doesn't help Wallace, but would someone like Parry have known this? I do find Wallace's behaviour on the outward journey suspicious, and therefore particularly unfortunate if someone else was doing their best to set him up.

I suppose it could also have suited someone known to Wallace to replace the cash box to make it look like a thoughtless mistake on the husband's part after doing in the missus.

Could a grudge have extended to both Wallaces for some reason, and been so deep that the ultimate goal was to kill the wife and put the husband through the double torment of losing her and being charged with her murder?

But what about the alibi issue?? What are the chances of Parry doing the deed and securing a decent enough alibi to clear himself in the eyes of the police, after being named by Wallace as a potential suspect?

If Wallace was guilty, he had to hope that the police would accept his alibi and find a suspect without one.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 12-05-2017 at 03:58 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1415  
Old 12-05-2017, 03:38 PM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 315
Default

In 1931 there was a wealthy man living in Menlove Gardens...

His name was Parry. He was almost certainly the wealthiest Parry in Liverpool. When he died in 1940, he left the modern equivalent of 4 million.

Wealthy enough to perhaps attract the curiosity of his ne'er-do-well namesake, who perhaps went to gaze at his nice house, and noticed that the address where he lived was an odd 'triangular affair'....?
__________________
"I make a point of never having any prejudices, and of following docilely where fact may lead me."

Sherlock Holmes, in The Adventure of The Reigate Squires
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1416  
Old 12-05-2017, 04:39 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
In 1931 there was a wealthy man living in Menlove Gardens...

His name was Parry. He was almost certainly the wealthiest Parry in Liverpool. When he died in 1940, he left the modern equivalent of 4 million.

Wealthy enough to perhaps attract the curiosity of his ne'er-do-well namesake, who perhaps went to gaze at his nice house, and noticed that the address where he lived was an odd 'triangular affair'....?
Yes, I like to go cross-town and visit wealthy people with the same last names as me to gaze at their houses. That is a common past time.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1417  
Old 12-05-2017, 04:59 PM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 315
Default

For ordinary folk, perhaps not.

But for a relentless scammer looking to get-rich-quick, perhaps he took at least a passing interest in his illustrious namesake..?

And I said perhaps. Twice.

It gets better. Before becoming upwardly-mobile and moving to leafy south Liverpool, this (Thomas) Parry had lived in Anfield, a stones's throw from Wolverton Street. In fact his memorial service in 1940 was held at Richmond Park Baptist Church...

All a coincidence? Perhaps...

But another interesting fact I am the first to notice (not for the first time).
__________________
"I make a point of never having any prejudices, and of following docilely where fact may lead me."

Sherlock Holmes, in The Adventure of The Reigate Squires
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1418  
Old 12-05-2017, 05:31 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
For ordinary folk, perhaps not.

But for a relentless scammer looking to get-rich-quick, perhaps he took at least a passing interest in his illustrious namesake..?

And I said perhaps. Twice.

It gets better. Before becoming upwardly-mobile and moving to leafy south Liverpool, this (Thomas) Parry had lived in Anfield, a stones's throw from Wolverton Street. In fact his memorial service in 1940 was held at Richmond Park Baptist Church...

All a coincidence? Perhaps...

But another interesting fact I am the first to notice (not for the first time).
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1419  
Old 12-06-2017, 12:12 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Hi John,

That's a good point - I think there had to be a secondary motive to go to all that trouble of setting up that fool's errand. In fact I can't think of any other case like it. Whoever Qualtrough was, he either researched his geography quite thoroughly to hit upon a suitable non-existent address, which was so similar to the real Menlove ones, and in an area that was at just the right distance in time and place from the Wallaces. Or he was already familiar with those particular streets and knew there was no Menlove Gardens East - and the entire ruse was based around this local knowledge.

Of course, this doesn't help Wallace, but would someone like Parry have known this? I do find Wallace's behaviour on the outward journey suspicious, and therefore particularly unfortunate if someone else was doing their best to set him up.

I suppose it could also have suited someone known to Wallace to replace the cash box to make it look like a thoughtless mistake on the husband's part after doing in the missus.

Could a grudge have extended to both Wallaces for some reason, and been so deep that the ultimate goal was to kill the wife and put the husband through the double torment of losing her and being charged with her murder?

But what about the alibi issue?? What are the chances of Parry doing the deed and securing a decent enough alibi to clear himself in the eyes of the police, after being named by Wallace as a potential suspect?

If Wallace was guilty, he had to hope that the police would accept his alibi and find a suspect without one.

Love,

Caz
X
Hi Caz,

Regarding alibis, Parry had demonstrated a degree of recklessness when he gave a false alibi for the Qualtrough call. I mean, did he just arrogantly assume that his word would be good enough?

I'm also not totally convinced about his alibi for the time of the murder. What is interesting is that Parry, Denison and Brine used very similar wording when referring to the time he left, and that seems rehearsed to me.

Thus, Parry says, "I remained there with Mrs Brine...until about 8:30 pm" Whereas both Brine and Denison state, "He remained till about 8:30pm when he left."

And, as I've noted previously, Brine admitted to knowing Parry for about 2 years, and her husband was conveniently at sea. Parry also stated that he stated at Brine's residence for 3 hours, from 5:30 to 8:30. Why so long? Could it be, all things considered, that Parry and Brine were having an affair? At the very least it would make Brine vulnerable to blackmail, or at least persuasion.

Denison, on the other hand, was only 15. Did he even own a watch? Close and Wildman were similar ages and they didn't posses a watch. And if he didn't, how did he know Parry left at 8:30? Was he just persuaded to go along with Parry's and Brine's account? Considering his young age, coupled with the fact he was related to Brine, I don't think this can be ruled out.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1420  
Old 12-06-2017, 01:05 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,290
Default

There's something else that's odd about Olivia Brine's statement. She states that Parry began visiting her just before Christmas with her nephew, Harold Denison. But why? I mean, I seriously doubt it was because he struck up a close friendship with 15 year old Denison! The obvious implication, therefore, is that it was Olivia who was the object of his interest and Denison may have been utilized as an unwitting chaperone.

Moreover, as I noted earlier, it seems odd that he would remain at the Brine residence for three hours on the night of the murder. This could suggest that he was trying to establish an alibi, which would gel with the accomplice theory, but also reinforces the argument that he had a particular intetest in Brine. After all, it would seem unlikely that he stayed so long because he was enthralled by the conversation of l3 year old Savona or the nephew! It's also worth pointing out that he arrived an hour before Denison-make of that what you will.
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 03:49 PM.


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