Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's accurate enough for the point I wish to make...

Human nature is strange. People believe what they want to believe, or have been "set-up" to believe, and criminals and politicians, amongst others, have thrived on this since time immemorial.

"Know thyself!" said Plato. And still, few do...

Waffle!

[Herlock Sholmes]

And pretentious waffle at that!

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's accurate enough for the point I wish to make...

Human nature is strange. People believe what they want to believe, or have been "set-up" to believe, and criminals and politicians, amongst others, have thrived on this since time immemorial.

"Know thyself!" said Plato. And still, few do...

Especially if their over-inflated egos caused them to take a blinkered, biased viewpoint.

A sneak thief

[RodCrosby]

[Herlock Sholmes]

Surprise, surprise.

No proper debate.

Meaningless quotes with transparent intention of trying (and failing) to make you look clever. Dismissive insults so that you don’t have to provide counter-argument. Twists of logic that would put a gymnast to shame. In short.....endless white noise.

Only someone like you could put forward a theory.....have it shredded and disposed of by everyone......and still say ‘I’ve solved it.’

There comes a point when dedication becomes futile and you’ve passed it by.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just to re-emphasis your idea of logic!

You said:

The Wallace murder was a robbery-gone-wrong, rightly celebrated only because it was "planned with extraordinary care and extraordinary imagination", and left "a trail of false clues, leading everywhere, it seems, except to the identity of the murderer..."

So much extraordinary care that there were at least 6 perfectly plausible/common-place occurrences that would have completely scuppered the entire plan!

[caz]

Why the need to invent things, Caz?

Sorry, Rod, I thought it was compulsory around here.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Oh, and as I've reminded you, the telephone had been invented by 1931, and Menlove Gardens was a long way from Wolverton Street.

Which was convenient for Wallace if he needed to stage an alibi, but inconvenient for Wallace if Qualtrough needed him to respond to his message.

Love,

Caz
X

[RodCrosby]

Sorry, Rod, I thought it was compulsory around here.

Love,

Caz
X

Crimes are solved by sticking to the facts, and abductive reasoning.

Only one person on this forum has done that, and consequently arrived at the Correct Solution.

[RodCrosby]

Which was convenient for Wallace if he needed to stage an alibi, but inconvenient for Wallace if Qualtrough needed him to respond to his message.

Love,

Caz
X

Insurance agents/salesmen certainly wore out shoe leather, especially in 1931.
A prospect in one of the wealthiest streets in the city was certainly worth pursuing, despite the "inconvenience"...

[Herlock Sholmes]

And when a policeman told him categorically that MGE didn’t exist Wallace, unlike every other person on the planet faced with that situation, pressed on relentless to 2 other locations still searching for the mythical MGE.

Yeah right

[Herlock Sholmes]

Crimes are solved by sticking to the facts, and abductive reasoning.

Only one person on this forum has done that, and consequently arrived at the Correct Solution.

solved only in your own mind. The problem is that no one else on the planet agrees with you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

An example of a logical fallacy:

Julia goes to the coat racks as part of the ‘popping out’ ploy, as she has thousands of times, but for some reason lost the ability to recognise her own coat!

[Harry D]

So much for the mystery to end all mysteries. It was so obviously Wallace who murdered his old lady.

[RodCrosby]

And when a policeman told him categorically that MGE didn’t exist Wallace, unlike every other person on the planet faced with that situation, pressed on relentless to 2 other locations still searching for the mythical MGE.

Yeah right

Appealing to imaginary galleries is another logical fallacy, employed by children who have lost the argument, or had none to begin with...

Have you forgotten?

"James Edward Sargent, a constable of the Liverpool City Police, examined by Mr. Hemmerde

SARGENT: ...I suggested to him he should try 25 Menlove Avenue. He said, “ Whereabouts is it ? ” I said, “ In the second or third block ” ; and I then said, “ It is the third house in the second block.” He said, “ Thank you,” and turned as if to go away, and said, “ Do you know where I can see a directory ? ” I said, “Yes, you can see one down Allerton Road, or, if you do not see one down there, you can see one down at the police station,” which I pointed out to him."

So the Constable himself encouraged Wallace to carry on looking. He did NOT say - as you bumptiously imagine - "I've just told you, there's no such person or place. What do you want a directory for, Mr. Suspicious?"

So, you have confirmed...

You don't understand Insurance in general or the Prudential in particular.
You don't understand 1931
You don't understand Liverpool
You don't understand Crime or Criminology
You don't understand Human Nature or Psychology
You don't understand Facts or Logic
and Abductive Reasoning really is a foreign continent for you.

Next turkey, step forward!