Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Save up and buy the book....

In other words........they exist only in your imagination.

We all know that there will be no book unless you self-publish. (Let’s face it...you’ll have no choice in the matter.)

[AmericanSherlock]

There is no book coming from Rod. Nor will his theory be endorsed. He may receive a chapter on this theory in someone else's book as 1 of many possible theories. He is being intentionally misleading. No one would ever publish a full length book or flatly endorse such a flawed theory.

In other news, the thread starter has a doc coming out based on 1 of his other books

https://mobile.twitter.com/RichardLatto/status/974759052281606144/video/1

I hear the Wallace book should be out soon.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no book coming from Rod. Nor will his theory be endorsed. He may receive a chapter on this theory in someone else's book as 1 of many possible theories. He is being intentionally misleading. No one would ever publish a full length book or flatly endorse such a flawed theory.

In other news, the thread starter has a doc coming out based on 1 of his other books

https://mobile.twitter.com/RichardLatto/status/974759052281606144/video/1

I hear the Wallace book should be out soon.

That should be an interesting one AS. Rod’s probably already solved it though

[AmericanSherlock]

That should be an interesting one AS. Rod’s probably already solved it though

No doubt. He has arrived at the "correct solution" in this case as well. The rest of the world can't see it because we are maladjusted nonentities who lack abductive reasoning

[Herlock Sholmes]

No doubt. He has arrived at the "correct solution" in this case as well. The rest of the world can't see it because we are maladjusted nonentities who lack abductive reasoning

I think you’ve just learned the rules of the game AS

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Weapon.

A consideration of the weapon used to kill Julia leaves us with questions like: “where did it go?” “Who benefitted most from its disposal?” Or even “What was it?”

The fact that the police searched the route that Wallace took on that night (although we only have Wallace’s word that he took no detours) and found no weapon, is understandably used as a point in favour of Wallace’s innocence. And yet an unsuccessful search is not proof that Wallace didn’t dispose of the weapon. If Wallace planned the crime then the disposal of the weapon would have been given some thought. For example it has been mentioned on here before about the possibility of a dustbin. Do we know when the bins were collected? What if it was on Wednesday morning? If we talk about co-conspirators, what if Wallace payed someone to get rid of it?

So who would really need to dispose of a murder weapon? Sneak-thief, unknown murderer, Parry the murderer or Wallace?

Even in Rod’s ‘solution’ he has ‘Qualtrough’ wearing gloves. This is logical - no prints. It’s also logical that a sneak-thief wouldn’t have brought a weapon with him if he didn’t have murder in mind. And so we have a sneak-thief, after killing Julia, with an iron bar from the grate covered in Julia’s blood and brain matter. A bar that didn’t have his prints on and could, in no way, be connected to him unless he was caught in possession. And so logically a sneak -thief would have absolutely no need to take away the weapon (in the dark). Indeed leaving it in-situ might even point the police toward the householder as the guilty party. So logically we can discount the sneak-thief.

An unknown murderer would definitely have brought a weapon. It’s also logical that he would have worn gloves to avoid fingerprints anywhere at the scene and not just on the weapon. And so as long as the weapon couldn’t be traced to him (like a tool missing from his tool shed for example) it’s difficult to see why a murderer would risk taking away such an incriminating item? It could contaminate his clothing, his car or his property as well as carrying the risk of being caught in possession. It’s logical to suggest therefore that a murderer would have been better off leaving it at the scene.

Parry the murderer might not have brought a weapon with him. He was familiar with the parlour and so would have known about the ‘useful’ iron bar. Someone intending to risk the gallows would logically not want to leave evidence such as fingerprints therefore we would suspect that gloves were a must. So again, with a weapon that could in no way be connected to the murderer why would he risk taking such an incriminating item away? It makes little logical sense.

Now Wallace. He could have used gloves and left the weapon in situ and said that Julia had caught a burglar in the act and he’d killed her. The police however might have viewed the use of a household item as suggestive of a household member. Wallace would have been taking a risk. But by getting rid of the weapon he was saying that the killer killed Julia with his own weapon and took it away. After all he denied that anything was missing. Logically he would have stoked the fire on many occasions and would have been fully aware of the tools that were used. So his denial might be seen as a deliberate attempt to show that a household item wasn’t used. A weapon brought from outside. By an outsider.

The fact that the police didn’t find the weapon isn’t proof that Wallace didn’t dispose of it. It’s proof that they didn’t find it.

For me therefore the absence of a murder weapon points logically far more to Wallace than anyone else.

[RodCrosby]

Logic is a method of reasoning that involves a series of statements, each of which must be true if the statement before it is true.

Now write out 100 times:

"I must not use words that I do not understand..."

[Herlock Sholmes]

Incapable of debate.

Silly comment.

Not worth bothering with

[Herlock Sholmes]

Incapable of debate.

Pathetic comments.


Sneak thief theory utterly dead and buried.



Not worth bothering with

GAME OVER!

[RodCrosby]

I'll debate anyone who is equipped with the tools to do so.

"I'd challenge you to a battle of wits, but I see you are unarmed..."

And before you foolishly adopt the mantle of the Great Detective, you'd be wiser to study his methods first...

“Data! Data! Data! I can’t make bricks without clay.”

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”

“Still, it is an error to argue in front of your data. You can find yourself insensibly twisting them round to suit your theories.“

“Let me run over the principal steps. We approached the case, you remember, with an absolutely blank mind, which is always an advantage. We had formed no theories. We were simply there to observe and to draw inferences from our observations.”

“It is of the highest importance in the art of detection to be able to recognize, out of a number of facts, which are incidental and which vital. Otherwise your energy and attention must be dissipated instead of being concentrated.”

“Detection is, or ought to be, an exact science, and should be treated in the same cold and unemotional manner.”

‘The emotional qualities are atagonistic to clear reasoning.’

200 pages of epic fails on all counts...

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'll debate anyone who is equipped with the tools to do so.

"I'd challenge you to a battle of wits, but I see you are unarmed..."

And before you foolishly adopt the mantle of the Great Detective, you'd be wiser to study his methods first...

“Data! Data! Data! I can’t make bricks without clay.”

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”

“Still, it is an error to argue in front of your data. You can find yourself insensibly twisting them round to suit your theories.“

“Let me run over the principal steps. We approached the case, you remember, with an absolutely blank mind, which is always an advantage. We had formed no theories. We were simply there to observe and to draw inferences from our observations.”

“It is of the highest importance in the art of detection to be able to recognize, out of a number of facts, which are incidental and which vital. Otherwise your energy and attention must be dissipated instead of being concentrated.”

“Detection is, or ought to be, an exact science, and should be treated in the same cold and unemotional manner.”

‘The emotional qualities are atagonistic to clear reasoning.’

200 pages of epic fails on all counts...

As a member of The Sherlock Holmes Society Of London, with 300+ books on Holmes and Doyle I need no lessons on The Great Detective from you.

Again an utterly meaningless, cowardly post as an excuse to avoid debate.

I’ll condense and make simpler just for you

Ok, are you sitting comfortably?

The sneak-thief would have worn gloves. - I assume that you won’t dispute that fact seeing as it’s part of your ‘solution?’ No? Ok, we’ll move on.

The wearing of gloves meant no fingerprints on the iron bar. - Are we ok on that score Rod? So far so good.

The iron bar belonged to the Wallace household and could in absolutely no way be connected to either ‘Qualtrough’ or ‘Parry.’ - Surely there can be no argument on this, even from someone as biased as you?

The iron bar would have been covered in blood and brain matter. - 11 blows Rod. Think about it.

Carrying that bar away, without taking time to clean it (and in your ‘solution’ you make no mention of ‘Qualtrough’ cleaning the bar) would present the killer with at least a significant risk of transferring blood or brain matter onto himself or his car. - Nothing too controversial there Rod?

And so to sum up, very, very simply. A sneak-thief/murderer would have absolutely, categorically, emphatically, inarguably no reason to take the weapon away with him.

No risk at all Rod!

We can even say that by taking the weapon away he increased the risk to himself.

Anyone could understand this!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh.... he's gone.

Deja-vu.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A Question?

If Wallace, on the night of the phone call, turned left out of Richmond Park to catch the tram at the corner of Belmont Road and Breck Road (which according to him he did) , why did he bypass the tram stops at the ends of Richmond Park and Newcombe Street?
If he actually made the phone call there would only have been one stop to choose from.
A suggested explanation might have already been made but I can't recall it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thought.

When Beattie took the call Qualtrough asked if he could give him Wallace's address. Beattie tells him that he doesn't know it. Parry wouldn't have known that Beattie didn't know his address. If Beattie had known it the plan would have been over. Only Wallace could have known that Beattie didn't know his address.

[AmericanSherlock]

When Beattie took the call Qualtrough asked if he could give him Wallace's address. Beattie tells him that he doesn't know it. Parry wouldn't have known that Beattie didn't know his address. If Beattie had known it the plan would have been over. Only Wallace could have known that Beattie didn't know his address.

This is a good point. There are quite a few things that only Wallace could have known that an independent schemer could not rely on.