Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[RodCrosby]

A rather obvious response to that one is:

If Wallace set up the non-existent Qualtrough as his wife’s killer then of course he would say that his wife would have let him in!

He might... but he might equally be telling the truth.

We know he was telling the truth that his wife knew all about the Qualtrough message, so that is a point in his favour...

[Herlock Sholmes]

I can’t recall, and I don’t have any books with me, remind me how we know that please?

[RodCrosby]

Remind me again where the body was found? Where’s the evidence that Julia saw the coins?

Dead people obviously can tell no tales, so it's not a useful question.

Solving crimes involves drawing reasonable inferences, and it's a reasonable inference in this case that Julia noticed the coins, in "her domain", the kitchen.

Her body was found in the parlour, with a mackintosh, as you know.

[RodCrosby]

I can’t recall, and I don’t have any books with me, remind me how we know that please?

Statement of Amy Wallace, who had visited the house on the afternoon of the murder day, and stated that Julia had mentioned the message received at the chess club the night before, and that William would be heading to "Calderstones" that evening on business...

It seems unlikely that a murderer would go to the trouble of telling his intended victim what his 'alibi' was going to be...

It also tends to negate the ludicrous idea that Wallace "came down naked under a mackintosh to have a spontaneous musical interlude with Julia in the parlour immediately before killing her..."

"I'm flattered, William, really I am, but you really need to be running along to your appointment with Mr. Qualtrough!"

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, it’s not a reasonable inference, it’s an inference that helps your theory. It appears to be ok for you to infer but no one else is allowed the luxury.

It’s not a useful question because we can’t possibly know that Julia saw the coins and so became suspicious. Clutching at straws. Pure and simple.

And speaking of unreasonable.

So, for this to work are you saying, Q and J are in the Parlour. Q makes some excuse and leaves the room. He nips into the kitchen and steals the cash, putting the box back because he doesn’t wish to be caught, then drops coins on the floor, doesn’t bother picking them up, goes back to the Parlour, then Julia leaves the room, goes into the kitchen, sees the coins, becomes suspicions and tries to leave?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Statement of Amy Wallace, who had visited the house on the afternoon of the murder day, and stated that Julia had mentioned the message received at the chess club the night before, and that William would be heading to "Calderstones" that evening on business...

It seems unlikely that a murderer would go to the trouble of telling his intended victim what his 'alibi' was going to be...

It also tends to negate the ludicrous idea that Wallace "came down naked under a mackintosh to have a spontaneous musical interlude with Julia in the parlour immediately before killing her..."

"I'm flattered, William, really I am, but you really need to be running along to your appointment with Mr. Qualtrough!"

Why not. At the very least it might have added weight to his story. He knew that his wife spoke to a few people so it might only strengthen his story if Julia happened to mention it to family or an acquaintance. The more people that heard of Qualtrough and the meeting the better. If she didn’t so what, a little wasted breath. Think man, think,

[RodCrosby]

No, it’s not a reasonable inference, it’s an inference that helps your theory. It appears to be ok for you to infer but no one else is allowed the luxury.

It’s not a useful question because we can’t possibly know that Julia saw the coins and so became suspicious. Clutching at straws. Pure and simple.

And speaking of unreasonable.

So, for this to work are you saying, Q and J are in the Parlour. Q makes some excuse and leaves the room. He nips into the kitchen and steals the cash, putting the box back because he doesn’t wish to be caught, then drops coins on the floor, doesn’t bother picking them up, goes back to the Parlour, then Julia leaves the room, goes into the kitchen, sees the coins, becomes suspicions and tries to leave?

I do apologise that it helps my theory. Theories are created from reasonable inferences. How do you create yours, btw?

Why is it not a reasonable inference?

Thank-you for repeating my comment about we can't possibly know etc. The only person who knows is dead, the murder-victim, and she cannot tell us. I guess there's no point in trying to solve any murder then, because, you know, er, the victim's kinda dead and can't tell us what happened. Such a drag...

It's still a reasonable inference, else show me why a woman with eyes in her head who knows her own kitchen intimately should not notice something unusual and out of place?

Something like that, for the sequence of events, although I wasn't there, and some precise details will just remain unknowable, obviously...

That's why detectives were invented...

[Herlock Sholmes]

You say that there are some things that we can't possibly know. So why do you claim that it's game over, you've solved it?

The problem is that there are so many doubts, unexplained, and examples of strange behaviour in this case but you sweep them all aside if they inconvenience your theory.
. This case will never be solved unless new evidence surfaces.

[RodCrosby]

Just another tiresome "Heads I win, tails Wallace loses" coin trick. And if he hadn't told her, that would be proof positive also that he was going to murder her, no doubt...

I do think, and so do others, with whose inarguable conclusions I concur.

"Scientifically, it is a much easier hypothesis to assume another person as murderer, whose task would have been easier, mental effort less. By the principle of simple explanations Wallace was innocent." Gerald Abrahams in The Legal Mind (London, 1954)

[RodCrosby]

You say that there are some things that we can't possibly know. So why do you claim that it's game over, you've solved it?

The problem is that there are so many doubts, unexplained, and examples of strange behaviour in this case but you sweep them all aside if they inconvenience your theory.
. This case will never be solved unless new evidence surfaces.

I have only ever said I have solved the case based on the available evidence. What else do you imagine I used, aside from my noggin' ?

Of course, some earth-shattering revelation could materialise, upending everything, but it would be a rather long time in coming if it did! After nearly 87 years it seems vanishingly unlikely.

I don't sweep anything aside, but analyse everything. Sorry that my analysis - and grasp of the facts of the case - trumps many others !

The "new" evidence was Parry's and Lloyd's statements, which did not see the light of day until 2001.

They led me, after three pipes, to the Correct Solution.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Transparently not. Because in your world at every single occasion of doubt it’s a case of heads or tails and Wallace wins. I’m honest enough to say that a doubt or an incident of suspicious behaviour isn’t proof of Wallace’s guilt. I’ll say again...Wallace could have been innocent. But you go to any length, any twist of logic (like your amazing MGE/policeman sleight of hand) to brush them aside and plough on with your fingers in your ears.
If you look at any case and decide ‘I’ll consider anything as long as it bolsters my theory’ then you don’t need a genius to explain the outcome.

Wallace’s Menlove Gardens East odyssey/continuing after being told by a policeman - suspicious
Going back to his wife’s bludgeoned body and poking around without any need to - suspicious
The lid back on the cash box - suspicious
The blood on the money in the vase - suspicious
The Qualtrough call (normal voice for the operators, gruff voice for Beattie) - suspicious.
Wallace trying to get Beattie to be more specific about the time of the call - suspicious
Wallace looking in his lab (a room she never entered) before the Parlour (which she did use, and he was only feet away from!) - suspicious.
Wallace being the only person that knew he would be at the chess club - suspicious
The doctor, the nurse, the char women (and possibly one other?) who said that the Wallace marriage wasn’t as rosy as it appeared to outsiders - suspicious

None of these prove Wallace’s guilt. You may think that these are all easy to dismiss but you can’t do it conclusively.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have only ever said I have solved the case based on the available evidence. What else do you imagine I used, aside from my noggin' ?

Of course, some earth-shattering revelation could materialise, upending everything, but it would be a rather long time in coming if it did! After nearly 87 years it seems vanishingly unlikely.

I don't sweep anything aside, but analyse everything. Sorry that my analysis - and grasp of the facts of the case - trumps many others !

The "new" evidence was Parry's and Lloyd's statements, which did not see the light of day until 2001.

They led me, after three pipes, to the Correct Solution.

You seem to be the only one that thinks so

[Herlock Sholmes]

“They led me, after three pipes, to the Correct Solution”

Three crack pipes I think.

[RodCrosby]

You seem to be the only one that thinks so

All will be revealed soon enough. Patience, dear boy!

“They led me, after three pipes, to the Correct Solution”

Three crack pipes I think.

For a child, that's quite witty...Well done!

[Herlock Sholmes]

‘All Will be revealed soon...’

How many times have we heard that?

And how many times is anything revealed?

Have you been ‘communing’ with Julia a la Conan Doyle