Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[AmericanSherlock]

Yeah, like all rational and reasonable people, I correct my errors, which are only ever minor and far inbetween...

"Gotcha", my arse.

The hypocrisy! You tried a "gotcha" on Herlock with the police sergeant business, were proven wrong, and slithered away from discussing that! Now, you are shown to have contradicted yourself on a critical point in your theory without ambiguity and it's no big deal?

I've never seen anyone be this wrong and consistently destroyed in the history of the internet. It's really quite incredible.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yeah, like all rational and reasonable people, I correct my errors, which are only ever minor and far inbetween...

"Gotcha", my arse.

You didn’t correct your error. I pointed it out

Minor error! Blood evidence! Whether the notes were handled by the murderer or not?

Not only errors (too numerous to mention) still no apology for the insults regarding the Constable. Remember Rod....where I was categorically right and you were categorically wrong and intentionally posted a quote leaving out the part that proved you wrong.

[RodCrosby]

Inventing again?

I was right and he was talking bilge as usual. The constable encouraged him to keep looking, just as anyone who knew anything about insurance, 1931 or Liverpool would expect him to.

That was the dyslexic one's imbecilic claim - he supposedly ignored the copper, when in fact he did what he suggested!

Not just wrong, but 180 degrees wrong as usual...

And so he and his "point" went down in flames yet again...
As anyone but a blind rat with learning difficulties can see...

[RodCrosby]

You didn’t correct your error. I pointed it out

And time flows backwards in la-la land...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Inventing again?

I was right and he was talking bilge as usual. The constable encouraged him to keep looking, just as anyone who knew anything about insurance, 1931 or Liverpool would expect him to.

That was the dyslexic one's imbecilic claim - he supposedly ignored the copper, when in fact he did what he suggested!

And so he and his "point" went down in flames yet again...
As anyone but a blind rat with learning difficulties can see...

To make it so that even you can understand.

I posted this:

“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”

Meaning quite clearly that the Constable told him categorically that MGE did not exist.

You responded with this:


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?"


Where you are quite clearly saying that he did not tell him that MGE didn’t exist.

I really can’t make it any simpler than that Rod.

Stop wriggling. It’s undignifield. Then again it’s you........so it doesn’t matter

[Herlock Sholmes]

And time flows backwards in la-la land...

Point out to me anywhere on these threads where you have said “oh, I’ve changed my opinion on whether Qualtrough handle the cash upstairs.”

I’ll wait why you look

[Harry D]

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.

Yeah, it's not like anyone's ever disguised their voice over the phone before!

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...

He was creating an alibi for murder, it was always going to involve an element of risk. And since the person who made the call from the phone box was never seen, Wallace cannot be ruled out.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yeah, it's not like anyone's ever disguised their voice over the phone before!



He was creating an alibi for murder, it was always going to involve an element of risk. And since the person who made the call from the phone box was never seen, Wallace cannot be ruled out.

Good points Harry.

Plus, the three operators all stated that the voice they heard was a normal one; an older man. Beattie on the other hand said that it was a gruff voice.

This might indicate that the caller used a different voice to speak to Beattie. Why? Because Beattie knew him.

[RodCrosby]

Yeah, it's not like anyone's ever disguised their voice over the phone before!

As a matter of fact, experiments have shown it's almost impossible to do successfully. And who would risk their neck on something almost impossible?

He was creating an alibi for murder, it was always going to involve an element of risk. And since the person who made the call from the phone box was never seen, Wallace cannot be ruled out.

We don't know the caller was never seen. But he was never observed. There is a difference, which is a point in Wallace's favour as he was well-known by almost everyone and distinctive in height and dress. And it's an odd 'alibi for murder' that deliberately draws attention to the box, by communicating with the operators unnecessarily. 'Cannot be ruled out' is never the test applied in any court I know of to determine guilt...

OLIVER KC: "If he did not send that message, he was an innocent man, and how can it be said that the Prosecution have even started to prove that he sent it ?"

[Herlock Sholmes]

Any experiments that might have been done have been done after the case so Wallace would have been unaware of that dubious fact. He thinks ‘I’ll put on a gruff voice.’ Why would he go into the psychology of disguised voices?

As you’ve said many times. People try stuff. They aren’t always brilliant.

Even if Beattie had said “we’ll, perhaps he might have sounded a little like Wallace,’ the prosecution would have torn him to shreds.

Can you be certain it was Wallace.

Would he have contributed towards sending Wallace to the gallows on such a flimsy ‘maybe.’

[AmericanSherlock]

Yeah, it's not like anyone's ever disguised their voice over the phone before!



He was creating an alibi for murder, it was always going to involve an element of risk. And since the person who made the call from the phone box was never seen, Wallace cannot be ruled out.

This is a strong point. I also contend that any murder plan requires some degree of risk, so arguing that for Wallace to have been guilty would require he have left too much to chance has always rung as a weak defense to me.

Yes, the caller was never seen. I would add to bear in mind that WHW left at 7:15 on his own accord and the call was made in a location 3 minutes away by walking distance...3 minutes later! This call (and critically the call box's location!) was only traced due to a technical error that the caller could not have foreseen! This is so strongly suggestive of Wallace's guilt, that the only attempt I have ever seen to mitigate this fact is to claim that WHW was being stalked and the caller made the call as soon as he disappeared from view on the way to the chess club. (Since barring this we are dealing with a 1 in a million coincidence that another caller happened to dial the club from the same phone box that Wallace could have walked by at that exact moment based on the uncontroversial timing of his departure and the location of the call box!)

There may be no smoking gun in this case, but there is sure as hell a lot of circumstantial evidence against Mr. Wallace.

[RodCrosby]

Logic left the building again?

Wallace was convicted despite a resolute NO from Beattie...

We may assume if he'd wavered, the jury would have licked their lips even moreso.

And the Court of Appeal may not have come to the rescue...

[Harry D]

As a matter of fact, experiments have shown it's almost impossible to do successfully. And who would risk their neck on something almost impossible?

There have been times where I couldn't recognise someone's voice over the phone even when they weren't trying to disguise themselves. And that's without even getting into prank calls.

[RodCrosby]

There have been times where I couldn't recognise someone's voice over the phone even when they weren't trying to disguise themselves. And that's without even getting into prank calls.

Did they then come into your presence half-an-hour later and essentially repeat the same conversation with you? And you still not recognise them?

Because that's what you think Wallace did, and believed he could get away with, risking a date with the hangman as his 'chip'...And Wallace would never know that Beattie was truly fooled until that day, then long in the future, when he would stand up in Court and say either "Yes", "No", or "Maybe". But Wallace would have to go ahead with the murder with that uncertainty. Would anyone risk ALL on such a gamble?

Beattie was a smart cookie, a cotton broker, who had known Wallace for 8 years, btw...

[AmericanSherlock]

Wallace has a free shot at it. He gets to see how Beattie reacts, if he suspects him at all when arriving at the club. If Beattie says "come on man was that you having a laugh?". If not, he is unlikely to change his mind under questioning. Also, note the phone lines in 1931 were hardly comparable today in terms of auditory quality.

The refrain "Is that a risk Wallace would risk his neck on?" is not particularly useful, when as said before by others, there would always be some risk in any plan. As far as risks go, the odds of a friend of his changing his mind and deciding it was in fact Wallace under questioning, when he hadn't suspected it before, is very slim.