Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[AmericanSherlock]

I'll debate anyone who is equipped with the tools to do so.

"I'd challenge you to a battle of wits, but I see you are unarmed..."

And before you foolishly adopt the mantle of the Great Detective, you'd be wiser to study his methods first...

“Data! Data! Data! I can’t make bricks without clay.”

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”

“Still, it is an error to argue in front of your data. You can find yourself insensibly twisting them round to suit your theories.“

“Let me run over the principal steps. We approached the case, you remember, with an absolutely blank mind, which is always an advantage. We had formed no theories. We were simply there to observe and to draw inferences from our observations.”

“It is of the highest importance in the art of detection to be able to recognize, out of a number of facts, which are incidental and which vital. Otherwise your energy and attention must be dissipated instead of being concentrated.”

“Detection is, or ought to be, an exact science, and should be treated in the same cold and unemotional manner.”

‘The emotional qualities are atagonistic to clear reasoning.’

200 pages of epic fails on all counts...

I promise you Sherlock would not agree with your solution

Far from unemotional or logical, you continuously display such derision for a difference of opinion that one can only conclude you have an emotional investment in your position. I know you said your grandfather was a member of the chess club and believed in Wallace's innocence. That is no reason to carry on like this though.

One could also argue for Wallace's innocence without your particular niche conspiracy theory which you hold so dear.

So perhaps it is a fragile ego issue...

[RodCrosby]

"Anyone could understand this!"

Really? Yawn....

"ANY MURDERER MAY HAVE USED A WEAPON AND TAKEN IT AWAY WITH HIM AFTERWARDS"
Inspector Gold to Superintendent Moore [Police File, February 1931]

Such as.. a sneak-thief who had panicked and killed, and now had to exit the property in the full knowledge that he might encounter either a returning W.H. Wallace, or a concerned neighbour alerted by a noise. He might have to kill again, to effect his escape, and for that you need a weapon...

So you see, joining a silly club and using a silly name doesn't change your fundamental silly state of being; it just confirms it..

I did warn you to learn a little more about this case, and examine all the evidence, not just "Wallace could have been guilty; here's how..." Any fool can do that, and can selectively make a superficial "case" against just about anyone. Jack Sharpe Johnston, for example.

So, to no surprise, once again, you crash and burn.

Shortly before quashing Wallace's conviction, the Lord Chief Justice had turned to Hemmerde KC and said:

"Are you not really saying that if it be assumed that this man committed the murder, other circumstances fit in with that?"

Meaning that such an approach was unanalytical, unsupportable, unjust and indeed, un-Holmesian... And in 1931 they did not have the additional evidence we now have [or at least were unable to use it publicly]

And all we see, 87 years later - in petulant opposition to the Correct Solution - are the same, flawed, doomed efforts that Hemmerde and the Police tried.

Slow learners, here, obviously...

[AmericanSherlock]

"Anyone could understand this!"

Really? Yawn....

"ANY MURDERER MAY HAVE USED A WEAPON AND TAKEN IT AWAY WITH HIM AFTERWARDS"
Inspector Gold to Superintendent Moore [Police File, February 1931]

Such as.. a sneak-thief who had panicked and killed, and now had to exit the property in the full knowledge that he might encounter either a returning W.H. Wallace, or a concerned neighbour alerted by a noise. He might have to kill again, to effect his escape, and for that you need a weapon...

So you see, joining a silly club and using a silly name doesn't change your fundamental silly state of being; it just confirms it..

I did warn you to learn a little more about this case, and examine all the evidence, not just "Wallace could have been guilty; here's how..." Any fool can do that, and can selectively make a superficial "case" against just about anyone. Jack Sharpe Johnston, for example.

So, to no surprise, once again, you crash and burn.

Shortly before quashing Wallace's conviction, the Lord Chief Justice had turned to Hemmerde KC and said:

"Are you not really saying that if it be assumed that this man committed the murder, other circumstances fit in with that?"

Meaning that such an approach was unanalytical, unsupportable, unjust and indeed, un-Holmesian... And in 1931 they did not have the additional evidence we now have [or at least were unable to use it publicly]

And all we see, 87 years later - in petulant opposition to the Correct Solution - are the same, flawed, doomed efforts that Hemmerde and the Police tried.

Slow learners, here, obviously...

I recommend everyone to put this poster on ignore and not respond to him again. I will be doing just that after this post. That's the correct way to deal with trash. What would you do if a homeless bum on drugs kept shouting at you?

[RodCrosby]

I promise you Sherlock would not agree with your solution

Far from unemotional or logical, you continuously display such derision for a difference of opinion that one can only conclude you have an emotional investment in your position. I know you said your grandfather was a member of the chess club and believed in Wallace's innocence. That is no reason to carry on like this though.

One could also argue for Wallace's innocence without your particular niche conspiracy theory which you hold so dear.

So perhaps it is a fragile ego issue...

He would have to, because unlike you and the imaginary gallery, I follow his methods...

I never met my grandfather. He died in 1949. His opinion is irrelevant, and I understand it was simply based on "instinct", so has no probative value. Other (living) members of the family are ambivalent, or even think Wallace guilty. I've told them to their faces why I think them wrong, without fear or favour...

[RodCrosby]

I recommend everyone to put this poster on ignore and not respond to him again. I will be doing just that after this post. That's the correct way to deal with trash. What would you do if a homeless bum on drugs kept shouting at you?

And the cheerleader of the imaginary gallery arrives on cue...

[AmericanSherlock]

He would have to, because unlike you and the imaginary gallery, I follow his methods...

I never met my grandfather. He died in 1949. His opinion is irrelevant, and I understand it was simply based on "instinct", so has no probative value. Other (living) members of the family are ambivalent, or even think Wallace guilty. I've told them to their faces why I think them wrong, without fear or favour...

I'll give you one more chance before banishing you...forever.

You act like having the opinion Wallace was guilty is a crime. Like what difference does it make? The man is not on trial. Not that it matters, but I have said personally I would not convict. Why do you react so harshly to a difference of opinion? It reeks of insecurity.

I enjoy discussing this case with people who have varying points of view. You get insulting to anyone who does not agree with your "unique" theory. It's quite bizarre.

[RodCrosby]

Oh.. and as for the nonsense about the "bins". There were none.

People burnt their rubbish [a lot less of it then, less materialistic tat] on the fire, and all that remained was ash, that went in the ash-bin, which was a container wedged in a hole in the wall, collected by the ash-collectors...

http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/showthread.php?13392-Ash-Bins

But if you'd studied the case, you'd know that. It's on the plan of Wolverton Street exhibited in court, and there is even a photo of Sergeant Harry Bailey standing next to it in the alley...

http://inacityliving.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/the-wallace-murder-case.html

Stuff they couldn't burn, people would give to the rag-and-bone man...

[Herlock Sholmes]

"Anyone could understand this!"

Really? Yawn....

"ANY MURDERER MAY HAVE USED A WEAPON AND TAKEN IT AWAY WITH HIM AFTERWARDS"
Inspector Gold to Superintendent Moore [Police File, February 1931]

And of course you accept as gospel the opinion of one of those police officers that you believe were hell-bent on convicting Wallace.

Such as.. a sneak-thief who had panicked and killed, and now had to exit the property in the full knowledge that he might encounter either a returning W.H. Wallace, or a concerned neighbour alerted by a noise. He might have to kill again, to effect his escape, and for that you need a weapon...

Illogical nonsense. For a start Rod, have you stopped believing your ‘solution’ because in it you say that Qualtrough would have had between an hour and an hour and a half. He’d been there far less than an hour. No need to panic.

He was a sneak-thief....what noise. Julia was dead after the first blow or two.

A sneak-thief now becomes Rambo....killing his way out.

No fingerprints....no connection to the weapon....no need to take it away!


So you see, joining a silly club and using a silly name doesn't change your fundamental silly state of being; it just confirms it..

Pathetic. You keep quoting Holmes, you even quote him in your signature then when someone mentions an interest in Holmes you resort to childish mocking.

I did warn you to learn a little more about this case, and examine all the evidence, not just "Wallace could have been guilty; here's how..." Any fool can do that, and can selectively make a superficial "case" against just about anyone. Jack Sharpe Johnston, for example.

Staggering! The world’s most biased man accuses me of being biased! A man that will twist every fact to fit his theory. Laughable!

So, to no surprise, once again, you crash and burn.

You’ve lost every single argument here except in your own imagination of course.

Shortly before quashing Wallace's conviction, the Lord Chief Justice had turned to Hemmerde KC and said:

"Are you not really saying that if it be assumed that this man committed the murder, other circumstances fit in with that?"

Meaning that such an approach was unanalytical, unsupportable, unjust and indeed, un-Holmesian... And in 1931 they did not have the additional evidence we now have [or at least were unable to use it publicly]

And all we see, 87 years later - in petulant opposition to the Correct Solution - are the same, flawed, doomed efforts that Hemmerde and the Police tried.

Slow learners, here, obviously...

Petulant only describes you. Everyone sees it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He would have to, because unlike you and the imaginary gallery, I follow his methods...

I never met my grandfather. He died in 1949. His opinion is irrelevant, and I understand it was simply based on "instinct", so has no probative value. Other (living) members of the family are ambivalent, or even think Wallace guilty. I've told them to their faces why I think them wrong, without fear or favour...

Gloves = no prints = no connection to the weapon = no need to risk taking it away.

Very, very straightforward. Elementary even

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh.. and as for the nonsense about the "bins". There were none.

People burnt their rubbish [a lot less of it then, less materialistic tat] on the fire, and all that remained was ash, that went in the ash-bin, which was a container wedged in a hole in the wall, collected by the ash-collectors...

http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/showthread.php?13392-Ash-Bins

But if you'd studied the case, you'd know that. It's on the plan of Wolverton Street exhibited in court, and there is even a photo of Sergeant Harry Bailey standing next to it in the alley...

http://inacityliving.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/the-wallace-murder-case.html

Stuff they couldn't burn, people would give to the rag-and-bone man...

Unlike you Rod, I’ve never claimed to know everything. And strangely enough I’m not an expert on 1930’s Liverpool refuse collection. A photograph of a bin means nothing to me. It’s a bin!

I’ll ask a question of someone who’s so obviously an expert in rubbish: couldn’t he have just taken the bar and pushed it into the ash in someone’s bin?

[AmericanSherlock]

Unlike you Rod, I’ve never claimed to know everything. And strangely enough I’m not an expert on 1930’s Liverpool refuse collection. A photograph of a bin means nothing to me. It’s a bin!

I’ll ask a question of someone who’s so obviously an expert in rubbish: couldn’t he have just taken the bar and pushed it into the ash in someone’s bin?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I just have to add something because it’s difficult to ignore Rod’s frankly bizarre comments and the remarkable lengths that he will go to twist logic to fit his laughable ‘solution.’

"Anyone could understand this!"

Really? Yawn....

"ANY MURDERER MAY HAVE USED A WEAPON AND TAKEN IT AWAY WITH HIM AFTERWARDS"
Inspector Gold to Superintendent Moore [Police File, February 1931]

As the weapon was actually missing I think that the above statement can be taken as obvious Rod!

Such as.. a sneak-thief who had panicked and killed, and now had to exit the property in the full knowledge that he might encounter either a returning W.H. Wallace, or a concerned neighbour alerted by a noise. He might have to kill again, to effect his escape, and for that you need a weapon...

Or Wallace, because a murder with a household implement would naturally point more to a householder than a stranger....duh!

So you see, joining a silly club and using a silly name doesn't change your fundamental silly state of being; it just confirms it..

You persist in quoting Holmes then you mock someone who has an interest in him and knows far more about him than you I might add!

I did warn you to learn a little more about this case, and examine all the evidence, not just "Wallace could have been guilty; here's how..." Any fool can do that, and can selectively make a superficial "case" against just about anyone. Jack Sharpe Johnston, for example.

Pot....kettle....black! You accuse others of being biased when the evidence is apparent to anyone that can read that it’s you who are biased. This is evidenced by the pathetic childish comments and the avoidance of anything that shows up your ‘solution.’ All you have to offer is boring repetition.

So, to no surprise, once again, you crash and burn.

Your ‘theory’ crashed and burned long ago. It’s no longer worth discussing. Wallace wasn’t killed by a ‘sneak-thief. The evidence is overwhelming. It must be embarrassing for you. You will get over it eventually though Rod. Try another case. There are many to choose from. Who pushed humpty dumpty from that wall perhaps. Maybe a sneak-thief?

Shortly before quashing Wallace's conviction, the Lord Chief Justice had turned to Hemmerde KC and said:

"Are you not really saying that if it be assumed that this man committed the murder, other circumstances fit in with that?"

Meaning that such an approach was unanalytical, unsupportable, unjust and indeed, un-Holmesian... And in 1931 they did not have the additional evidence we now have [or at least were unable to use it publicly]

If you are suggesting, for example, the belated wittering of that obvious liar Parkes then you are really skating on thin ice!

And all we see, 87 years later - in petulant opposition to the Correct Solution - are the same, flawed, doomed efforts that Hemmerde and the Police tried.

And the delusions of an illogical fantasist cannot be taken seriously

Slow learners, here, obviously...

I think the time has come to start ignoring this poster. This is a forum for the purpose of debating a subject that has no bearing on the lives of any of us. Yet we constantly have to put up with childish repetition to avoid answering questions and petty insults when he’s disagreed with. No one else behaves like this because no one else on here treats the case like its a point of personal honour. The rest of us have other things in our lives.

We all know that Julia Wallace wasn’t killed by a sneak-thief. The evidence against it is enormous and obvious to anyone capable of logical, unbiased thought. To be honest, the only reason that the ‘debate’ with Rod has lasted this long is because a) we might have hoped for a change in his attitude and b) it’s easy to rise to the constant stream of petty insults and childish comments that substitute for debate in his world.

So a request from everyone Rod........do us a favour......go away

[RodCrosby]

Ah, the silly, petulant children are going to take their ball away because I keep scoring too many goals...

I'm gutted. Sob!

Not really, as I've already been talent-spotted and offered a transfer to the Premier League...

If you behave yourselves I'll come back and sign your ball.

[AmericanSherlock]

I just have to add something because it’s difficult to ignore Rod’s frankly bizarre comments and the remarkable lengths that he will go to twist logic to fit his laughable ‘solution.’




I think the time has come to start ignoring this poster. This is a forum for the purpose of debating a subject that has no bearing on the lives of any of us. Yet we constantly have to put up with childish repetition to avoid answering questions and petty insults when he’s disagreed with. No one else behaves like this because no one else on here treats the case like its a point of personal honour. The rest of us have other things in our lives.

We all know that Julia Wallace wasn’t killed by a sneak-thief. The evidence against it is enormous and obvious to anyone capable of logical, unbiased thought. To be honest, the only reason that the ‘debate’ with Rod has lasted this long is because a) we might have hoped for a change in his attitude and b) it’s easy to rise to the constant stream of petty insults and childish comments that substitute for debate in his world.

So a request from everyone Rod........do us a favour......go away

Maybe Jack the Ripper was a sneak thief. Trying to rob prostitutes of their wages and if they caught a look at his face he had no choice but to do away with them. Sneak theft may explain all of the world's mysteries.

Kennedy Assassination? It was a sneak theft gone wrong

Shroud of Turin? Not Jesus, actually an ancient sneak thief

Lord Lucan? He was innocent, the real perpetrator was Mr. X, a prolific sneak thief

[AmericanSherlock]

Anyone here a fan of Nietzsche? Rod is an ubermensch. Us commoners can't grasp his brilliance