Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[Herlock Sholmes]

So the omniscient one even knows how much cash I have in the bank?!

“pecuniary-challenged troll.”

With every post he reveals himself all the more as a joke

[Herlock Sholmes]

Btw Rod, is that your pocket money

[Admin]

Due to a series of events converging on Admin within the same 24 hour period last week which included a family funeral, a beloved pet being put to sleep and Admin's thumb being mistaken for a carrot and attempted detachment, Admin took a few days off to drink.

Admin is now back and the thread is now re-opened. Infractions have yet to be assigned but will be coming as the thread is read through. Do not continue in the conversational vein that was being displayed or the thread will be permanently closed.

Thank you.

[Spitfire]

Sorry to hear all that.

[Spitfire]

I think the Qualtrough fiction was more likely to bring suspicion upon Wallace without providing him with much of an alibi. Surely he could have arranged a genuine appointment with a real client which would have given him as much of an alibi but without the suspicion attendant on the non-existent Qualtrough and his non-existent address.

[AmericanSherlock]

I think the Qualtrough fiction was more likely to bring suspicion upon Wallace without providing him with much of an alibi. Surely he could have arranged a genuine appointment with a real client which would have given him as much of an alibi but without the suspicion attendant on the non-existent Qualtrough and his non-existent address.

But then it wouldn't look like there was someone out there who was trying to hoax Wallace to rob/kill Julia. The point of Qualtrough would be to cast suspicion away from WHW onto a mysterious, shadowy figure. Meeting a real person would not do that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Also, if the address actually existed Wallace couldn’t have justified wandering around asking people where it was.

[RodCrosby]

OLIVER: What I am putting to you is that everything in that
room is consistent with a knock at the front door, and the
admission of someone, and the visitor being taken into
the parlour ?

Supt. MOORE: It is quite possible.
...

OLIVER: When you say you think it was six o’clock, it might
have been four o’clock in the afternoon or might have
been eight o’clock ? — And there were other factors as
well.
So it follows she might have met her death at any hour
within this time that night ?

Dr. PIERCE: Yes.
....

Mr. Justice WRIGHT: ...the evidence is quite consistent with some unknown criminal, for some unknown motive,
having got into the house and executed the murder and gone away.

And I have shown the evidence that demonstrates this is the Correct Solution.

[RodCrosby]

“To any objective observer, the hypothesis which is the prosecution’s case is something so intrinsically difficult of acceptance that the defence does not seem to matter. Putting the prosecution at its highest, it leaves doubt.”’
Gerald Abrahams (Liverpool lawyer and chess-player) in According to the Evidence (1958)

The Correct Solution, on the other hand, is not "so intrinsically difficult of acceptance." It is, in fact, merely an ingenious variation on an everyday crime, to "any objective observer"...

[AmericanSherlock]

A quick note : Justice Wright believed Wallace to be guilty and said so in an interview shortly before his death.

[RodCrosby]

"...I thought, and the Court of Criminal Appeal thought, the final inference of guilt could not safely be drawn from the complex mass, and the prisoner was finally acquitted by the Court of Criminal Appeal..." Baron Wright in Legal Essays and Addresses (1939)

There is a quote somewhere, poorly sourced, made toward the end of his very long life, where he supposedly somewhat jocularly said that Wallace's alibi was "too good to be true. But you can't hang a man on that!"

Even if he privately thought him guilty [a stretch, based on the above], so what? He was not then in possession of all the evidence that we have now, and he was not a member of any jury, in any case...

He had, in fact, almost begged the jury in 1931 to acquit Wallace.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Wallace#Trial

[AmericanSherlock]

So nothing.

You are the one quoting him like it's gospel so I was just noting that you might want to provide a fuller context if you are going the "quote others in lieu of my own arguments" route.

[AmericanSherlock]

Let's talk about Gerald Abrahams. Are you a fan of his?

[AmericanSherlock]

"...I thought, and the Court of Criminal Appeal thought, the final inference of guilt could not safely be drawn from the complex mass, and the prisoner was finally acquitted by the Court of Criminal Appeal..." Baron Wright in Legal Essays and Addresses (1939)

There is a quote somewhere, poorly sourced, made toward the end of his very long life, where he supposedly somewhat jocularly said that Wallace's alibi was "too good to be true. But you can't hang a man on that!"

Even if he privately thought him guilty [a stretch, based on the above], so what? He was not then in possession of all the evidence that we have now, and he was not a member of any jury, in any case...

He had, in fact, almost begged the jury in 1931 to acquit Wallace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Wallace#Trial

I myself have said I would have acquitted Wallace. Justice Wright seems to have had the same opinion as Herlock and I, that Wallace was likely guilty but it is "not an argument you can hang a man on"

[Herlock Sholmes]

“To any objective observer, the hypothesis which is the prosecution’s case is something so intrinsically difficult of acceptance that the defence does not seem to matter. Putting the prosecution at its highest, it leaves doubt.”’
Gerald Abrahams (Liverpool lawyer and chess-player) in According to the Evidence (1958)

The Correct Solution, on the other hand, is not "so intrinsically difficult of acceptance." It is, in fact, merely an ingenious variation on an everyday crime, to "any objective observer"...

I'm nothing like alone when I say that I find the, 'sneak thief' plot 'intrinsically difficult to accept.'. But I don't find it difficult to suspect Wallace.
If the case was proven then there would be no reason to continue debating the subject. We all have opinions,, we could all be wrong. At a distance of 87 years the only thing that we can be certain of is that we should guard against over-confidence.