Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock
The toilet water theory was something that had been suggested earlier on this thread and had gone unchecked (including by yourself) that I was curious about. I don't know how drains work, but if the pathologist said it would have been detected then I absolutely believe him. I also find the clot found on the rim of the bowl odd. This was NEVER part of my theory. I thought Wallace could have avoided visible blood, something which many people have found ridiculous and considered impossible. Fair enough.
I also have maintained from the beginning that I would NOT convict Wallace as I do not believe his guilt is evident beyond a reasonable a doubt. Not sure where you're getting "absolutely certain" from.
Most importantly, I was not using an ad hominem (as you suggested in the previous post.) I'm not arguing that my complaint has anything to do with the facts of the case. However, I do stand by what I said, based on this.
-You've long maintained the difficulties with Wallace Alone, and chose the Conspiracy, with Wallace as the mastermind in your postscript. Then you all of a sudden eliminated the book you wrote and decided to write a new one and include "Rod's theory". Now the tone with which you are talking about the case has shifted.
"The bath was dry. There was no presence of blood in the bath or the house drains. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the killer did not wash in the house. WHW must have had some blood splatter on him (this is not to say he was covered in blood). Yet, there was not a spot on him and the house was clean.
The forensic evidence points to his innocence, whatever we might say about his behaviour or state of mind."
To be fair, you did not think Wallace acted alone from the beginning, but I do feel this was put in such a "cut and dry" way as to make me wonder what changed, or why you ever even thought of that as a theory worth considering if those were always your thoughts.
But then to make matters cloudier in my mind, you also seem to prop up a new theory (one that is different from your original one in the book you pulled)
"This is a good argument against Parry Alone. I think I pointed out in my e-book, Parry did not need to make the Qualtrough call if his intention was to pop round and rob and/or murder Julia. However much you are unpersuaded by Rod's theory, Parry Accomplice does explain the need for the call and why the robbery could not happen on the night of the call. The theory has flaws just like any other, but it does explain some key points of evidence."
If you were really persuaded by Rod, that's fine, but then I feel that should be made transparent.
Also, perhaps part of my issue is with the tone in which this is being discussed now. (Not your fault.)
Look at the previous post, 2 examples in response to a totally legitamite and friendly inquiry by another user:
"110 pages of comments, and we're still going round in circles. " with a roll-eye emoticon at the end.
"there was no chance of a stranger gaining entry on the Monday (and it had to be a stranger) - the only chance was via the Qualtrough ruse, and that seed had not yet been planted...:
Yes, there is no chance of anything else, except a completely novel, never before heard of idea, anything else would not be the one and only way it could have happened.
We had different conclusions from the beginning, so this has nothing to do with an argument over positions. I'm finding the vibe here to become a bit unbearable. Perhaps I need a break.