Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[AmericanSherlock]

Why has what we are talking about changed? It's back to the Wallace case "correct solution" (rubbish solution is more like it)

Before it was insisting that when someone says "any man with common sense" he is talking about the opinion of "not too bright people" rather than the OBVIOUS fact that he is saying a certain opinion is the "common sense" one, i.e. the one he agrees with. That is SO obvious a 4 year old could understand it.

This again reminds me of politicians who play with basic words and need the most concrete concepts defined and analyzed before answering a straightforward question, typically to evade them being caught with their pants down metaphorically speaking (and sometimes literally.) This is quite frankly the most glaring example of evasion and prevarication I have ever seen in my life.

And then the argument was switched for a 3rd TIME to picking at semantic differences between obvious implications and literal quotes.

Again, an evasion tactic to dodge the OBVIOUS fact this poster was WRONG.

It is quite tiring this level of pedantic back and forth rubbish, all to humor someone incapable of primary school reasoning capabilities and comprehension.

Someone so ideologically possessed in his argument, that he is unable to concede the most rudimentary and obvious areas in which he was wrong.

I am grateful in the wisdom of the publishing houses, that this guy was unable to ever get a book written.

Everyone sees thru this madman. The only refuge he has is online posts to create a false image of spurious authority. No one is fooled.

But let him have his small, petty consolation prize in a vast life filled with disappointments and failures.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Rod, see if you can find a local toddler who can explain the point to you.

Then again, we all know that you actually do know that AS is so obviously correct in the point that he was making, you’re just doing your usual dishonest mental and verbal contortions to try and make everything support the innocence of St William.

It’s just like when you were proved utterly wrong about the Constable telling Wallace that there was categorically no MGE. There it was, in black and white for all to see. The fact that he then said that he could try Menlove Avenue if he wanted to was utterly irrelevant. Wallace was still left with the fact that MGE did not exist. But no, you twist like a worm on a hook.

It’s like the way you twisted when we made the oh so obvious point that a sneak-thief (sorry I can’t help laughing when I say that) would have had absolutely no need to take away the weapon. An inarguable point. Yet wriggle and squirm you did.

And the childishly obvious ridiculousness of Parry going to get his car cleaned by Parkes, blabbing about the crime and telling him where the weapon was hidden....yeah right! And you said, and this was truly staggering, that he did it in panic....yes panic

You wriggle and dodge a question about the trams that you know the answer to but don’t like it.

I quote Wallace from the trial transcript and because it doesn’t support your ‘Correct Solution’ fairy story you dismiss it as a misprint!

Then, the only Troll on the forum, accuses others of the same. Even though anyone can read out posts when he’s not here and see that the opposite is true.

Then there’s his totally imaginary supporters. No names yet Brother Rod?

Everyone sees through you Rod. We know your motives, your personality defects, your dishonesty and your unpleasantness.

You lose every single argument on here. You’ve been utterly wiped out. Your ‘Solution’ is in tatters at your feet. Your ‘book’ won’t happen unless you self-finance and you know it.

Keep talking because the more you talk the deeper the hole you dig for yourself

[Herlock Sholmes]

I notice that there’s no response to my point about how incredibly fortunate our sneak-thief was that not one single person in Wolverton Street saw or heard him on the night of the murder.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let's get a vote who is correct here.

I don't think it will end well for our "self-employed psephologist."

It will probably go as well for him as the meeting with Antony did

You are inarguably, categorically, resoundingly correct

[Herlock Sholmes]

I notice that there’s no response to my point about how incredibly fortunate our sneak-thief was that not one single person in Wolverton Street saw or heard him on the night of the murder.

And just to add a point but an important one. Our non-existent sneak-thief would not only have knocked the door and gone unheard by neighbours on both sides he would also have had a conversation with Julia which would have lasted at least 30 seconds (probably longer) and yet no one heard or saw him.

Is this likely?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Beating Brother Rod is becoming way too easy

[Herlock Sholmes]

Can anyone suggest why a sneak-thief would bother turning off the downstairs lights before he made his getaway?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I wonder why Wallace knew Parry’s girlfriend’s address?

[AmericanSherlock]

Looks like Herlock has driven away our resident genius with some cold, hard logic.

Lovely evisceration, like a work of art.

HS, Wallace sure seemed to know plenty of details about Parry from the get go, didn't he?

[AmericanSherlock]

You are inarguably, categorically, resoundingly correct

You mean it wasn't DISINFORMATION from a malignant troll???

[AmericanSherlock]

Rod, see if you can find a local toddler who can explain the point to you.

Then again, we all know that you actually do know that AS is so obviously correct in the point that he was making, you’re just doing your usual dishonest mental and verbal contortions to try and make everything support the innocence of St William.

It’s just like when you were proved utterly wrong about the Constable telling Wallace that there was categorically no MGE. There it was, in black and white for all to see. The fact that he then said that he could try Menlove Avenue if he wanted to was utterly irrelevant. Wallace was still left with the fact that MGE did not exist. But no, you twist like a worm on a hook.

It’s like the way you twisted when we made the oh so obvious point that a sneak-thief (sorry I can’t help laughing when I say that) would have had absolutely no need to take away the weapon. An inarguable point. Yet wriggle and squirm you did.

And the childishly obvious ridiculousness of Parry going to get his car cleaned by Parkes, blabbing about the crime and telling him where the weapon was hidden....yeah right! And you said, and this was truly staggering, that he did it in panic....yes panic

You wriggle and dodge a question about the trams that you know the answer to but don’t like it.

I quote Wallace from the trial transcript and because it doesn’t support your ‘Correct Solution’ fairy story you dismiss it as a misprint!

Then, the only Troll on the forum, accuses others of the same. Even though anyone can read out posts when he’s not here and see that the opposite is true.

Then there’s his totally imaginary supporters. No names yet Brother Rod?

Everyone sees through you Rod. We know your motives, your personality defects, your dishonesty and your unpleasantness.

You lose every single argument on here. You’ve been utterly wiped out. Your ‘Solution’ is in tatters at your feet. Your ‘book’ won’t happen unless you self-finance and you know it.

Keep talking because the more you talk the deeper the hole you dig for yourself

Bravo. Devastating knockout.

And yes, I remember Rod doing the same thing with the MGE charade. What Rod doesn't realize is to deny plain cold hard facts makes his position look worse.

Any reasonable person when confronted with having been wrong in plain black and white print just admits their error. This doesn't necessarily invalidate their entire position obviously. But here is a man so ideologically blinded (little surprise he subscribes to absurd conspiracy theories in many facets of life), that he can't accept anything that goes against his narrative. Even if it's a minor point for the other side if the argument and not a dealbreaker. And more importantly even if it is so blatantly factual that to deny it makes one look like a fool.

Seeing the last couple pages of posts should be instructive to anyone as to Just how far gone this madman is.

The internet attracts some strange characters...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Looks like Herlock has driven away our resident genius with some cold, hard logic.

Lovely evisceration, like a work of art.

HS, Wallace sure seemed to know plenty of details about Parry from the get go, didn't he?

Cheers AS.

I just thought it a bit.....strange.

[RodCrosby]

Disinformation upon DISINFORMATION from Tweedledumb and Tweedledee.

They should get a room and consummate their trolldom...

Fear not, gentle reader. The best book on the Wallace Case is at the printers... Guaranteed troll-free, or your money back.

This thread is for amusement purposes only, as I have demonstrated ad libitum...

Don't feed the trolls.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Unlike Rod I find it difficult to simply dismiss trial testimony as a misprint just because it ‘doesnt fit.’

Again, from Wallace’s statement in court, under oath and on trial for his life:

“I walked up Richmond Park, (note the use of the word ‘up’ meaning ‘along,’ turned the corner by the church and up Belmont Road and there caught the tram.“

In his police statement “.....and got the tram at Belmont Road.”

Different yes. But the stop at the Belmont Road junction with Breck Road, according to the map, was actually in Breck Road. Why then did he not say “at the junction of...” or “in Breck Road near to Belmont Road.”

And so we have 2 statements. The first absolutely crystal clear, the second quite vague. So why must we assume that the latter interpretation is the correct one?

has said why would Wallace go so far out of his way? Good point.

I would ask why did Wallace walk straight past the stops at the ends of Richmond Park and Newcombe Street?

Wallace obviously wasn’t questioned too closely on this matter. The police never bothered to track down the driver of the first tram. They knew that Wallace could have gotten to the phonebox in time to make the call and they knew roughly what time he’d arrived at the club. How he’d gotten there wasn’t important.

Has everyone just assumed that Wallace meant the Breck Road/Belmont Road stop when in actual fact he might have meant the Belmont Road/West Derby Road stop? If we believe the trial transcript then that’s exactly what he meant. The police statement is less clear (no mention of junctions though) Was Wallace just putting distance between himself and the call box? If asked why he went so far couldn’t he have said that it was cheaper from there? Or, it’s the stop that I always use and I like the walk?

Was the Belmont Road/West Derby Road stop the one that Wallace was talking about but the police just assumed that he meant the closer one because it seemed logical? If it was, and it’s only an if, I’d say it makes Wallace’s alibi for the phone call far less believable.

[RodCrosby]

I rest my case, gentle reader...