Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[RodCrosby]

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

Juror #3, I believe...

[Harry D]

It's common sense. If Julia had been bludgeoned to death in her own home, Wallace was always going to be the number one suspect. If he was going to do it, he had to create an alibi for himself. Therefore he invented "Qualtrough", someone who conveniently never spoke to Wallace, and conveniently called from the telephone box near his home (almost as if he made the call on his way to the chess club? ).

There was no need for a robber to do the same thing, when he could've staked out Wallace's place and waited for him to leave for the chess club.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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!

From the trial transcript:

“At about 7.20, he meets a man
in the street there, who is a clerk, and that man, whom I
shall call before you, says, ‘‘ There is no Menlove Gardens
East.”

Wallace ignores him though.


wenty minutes later he sees a police constable at
the junction of Green Lane and Allerton Road. He asks
that police officer for directions to Menlove Gardens East,
which, at about 7.20, he had been told by the clerk did

58



OPENING SPEECH FOR THE CROWN

not exist. The police officer tells him again that there is no
such place.

Next


he next place in which we find him is
in a newsagent’s shop — 130 Allerton Road. If you
were going along Allerton Road in the direction of
Penny Lane, it is a little way along on the left ; it is a
newsagent’s shop. He goes in there, and he asks for a
directory : it is supplied to him. He then says to the
manageress, and note this, “ Do you know what I am
looking for ? ” and she says, “ No.” He says, “ I am look-
ing for 25 Menlove Gardens East.” The manageress says,
“ There is no East, only North, South, and West.”


you follow his enquiries from a clerk, who tells him that
there is no such place, from the police officer, who tells him
that there is no such place, and to the manageress at the
newsagent’s shop, who tells him that there is no such
place

Finally, from the transcript


James Edward Sargent, a constable of the Liverpool
City Police, examined by Mr. Hemmerde — I was on
duty round about Menlove Gardens and Green Lane on
January 20th. I left the Allerton Police Station at 7.40,
and crossed over to the junction of Green Lane and
Allerton Road.

When you were there, did someone come up to you ? —
Yes.

Who was that ? — It was the accused.

What did he ask you ? — He said, “ Do you know, or can
you tell me, of Menlove Gardens East ? ” I said, “ There
is no Menlove Gardens East ; there is a Menlove Gardens
North, South, and West.”

Explaination?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's common sense. If Julia had been bludgeoned to death in her own home, Wallace was always going to be the number one suspect. If he was going to do it, he had to create an alibi for himself. Therefore he invented "Qualtrough", someone who conveniently never spoke to Wallace, and conveniently called from the telephone box near his home (almost as if he made the call on his way to the chess club? ).

There was no need for a robber to do the same thing, when he could've staked out Wallace's place and waited for him to leave for the chess club.

Your making the mistake of appealing to logic and reason Harry

[RodCrosby]

It's common sense. If Julia had been bludgeoned to death in her own home, Wallace was always going to be the number one suspect. If he was going to do it, he had to create an alibi for himself. Therefore he invented "Qualtrough", someone who conveniently never spoke to Wallace, and conveniently called from the telephone box near his home (almost as if he made the call on his way to the chess club? ).

There was no need for a robber to do the same thing, when he could've staked out Wallace's place and waited for him to leave for the chess club.

Ah, if only we could rely on "common sense", there would be no need for tiresome details like evidence and logic. We could dispense with trials and all get off to the ball game....

Qualtrough never spoke to Wallace, but the person he did speak to was certain it was NOT Wallace. Qualtrough may well have dodged speaking to Wallace because he was known to Wallace, and/or because Wallace would have had an opportunity to probe more deeply into his purpose.

Is it "common sense" that well-known-in-the-district, distinctive-looking Wallace would risk being seen at the nearest box to his home, when that was not necessary AND deliberately draw the attention of the operators so that box could be traced? He was not seen there, in any case, and stated he had in fact taken a different, more logical, route to the tram, which the Police and Prosecution never even attempted to disprove...
Whereas a robber who was known to the Wallaces would recognise that:-
a) a pretext would be necessary to enter the house
b) an accomplice would have to effect the robbery

and the "Qualtrough" ruse served both purposes perfectly...

[RodCrosby]

The headless turkey runs around the farmyard, making lots of noise, except...

"SARGENT: ...I suggested to him he should try 25 Menlove Avenue."

which is what he was squawking about in the first place, before he was so inconveniently decapitated...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Trial transcript?

[Herlock Sholmes]

But as the sneak-thief idea is childish drivel there was no need for a ‘ruse.’

[RodCrosby]

"SARGENT: ...I suggested to him he should try 25 Menlove Avenue."

How inconvenient...

[RodCrosby]

But as the sneak-thief idea is childish drivel there was no need for a ‘ruse.’

If only I listened to more dyslexic nonentities on the internet, my life would be so much better, I'm sure of it...

Poor me.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Trial transcript?

[Herlock Sholmes]

“What did he ask you ? — He said, “ Do you know, or can
you tell me, of Menlove Gardens East ? ” I said, “ There
is no Menlove Gardens East ; there is a Menlove Gardens
North, South, and West.” He said, “ I have been to
Menlove Gardens West, No. 25. The person I am looking
for does not live there, and the numbers are all even,” and
I suggested to him he should try 25 Menlove Avenue.”

Stop wriggling Rod.

No Menlove Gardens East.

Categorically, as I said.

He suggested that he should try a completetely different and useless address.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I didn’t really expect an apology but I didn’t expect Rod to scarper so quickly.

To recap.

I said that a policeman had categorically told Wallace that there was no MGE.

Then Rod ‘integrity’ Crosby posts from the trial transcript but conveniently misses out the part where the Constable did indeed tell him categorically that there was no MGE.

Then the Constable says that he could try Menlove Avenue. And that he could find a directory at the Police Station. Which smacks of the Constable thinking “well if you don’t believe me try a directory.” Probably feeling slightly irked at Wallace suggesting that he didn’t know the area of his beat.

Let’s remember that Beattie had written down the message at the club. They had discussed it at some length. Wallace knew categorically that the address he wanted was Menlove Gardens East and not Menlove Avenue. The advice to try Menlove Avenue would have been completely useless to Wallace. A man without an ulterior motive would categorically have ignored it and gone straight home.

So......I was categorically right and Rod was categorically wrong.

Not for the first time

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve just read this in the trial transcript. It’s from William Henry Roberts:

“There were four £i notes ? — ^Yes.

Did you find any blood upon them ? — I found blood on
the one which is right in the middle of the bundle.

Was there any blood on the outer one ? — No blood on
any of the others.”

If Qualtrough/Mr X took the notes from the vase and decided that they were useless how could he have transferred blood onto one note in the middle of the bundle (which obviously means that the blood was wet) and not transfer blood onto the outer notes?

It seems impossible to me?

[AmericanSherlock]

It is rare I see someone get owned and destroyed on the internet as bad as Rod is getting embarrassed here. I mean, wow