Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[AmericanSherlock]

You're reasoning syntheticslly, but not analytically

Also what on earth is that graph supposed to demonstrate?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock, some good points. We have not only bad luck for Wallace if innocent but good luck for another killer if guilty... another point would be the Johnston's heard the milk boy knock at the door but no one else.

A certain poster should really stop quoting "the judge" one who thought Wallace should be acquitted, but also remarked that he was probably guilty. Which is our EXACT position. When this was pointed out, "poster x" claimed it was a poorly sourced quote, however a full quote is in Jonathan Goldman's (who argued for Wallace's innocence himself!) book.

I’d forgotten the fact about the milk boy

[AmericanSherlock]

Sorry for typos it appears you can no longer edit after a couple minutes!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Also what on earth is that graph supposed to demonstrate?

Absolutely nothing AS. He’s just made up a graph?! Can you get more desperate?

Not only is he reduced to re-posting his old posts but those posts themselves are just cut and paste quotes from other people

No answers to anything. Just avoidance and obfuscation and the same old boring insults combined with fairy stories about people that agree with him and his non-existent book.

One good point though, after the recent sad death of Ken Dodd the people of Liverpool can take comfort in the fact that there’s still one clown left.

[AmericanSherlock]

Absolutely nothing AS. He’s just made up a graph?! Can you get more desperate?

Not only is he reduced to re-posting his old posts but those posts themselves are just cut and paste quotes from other people

No answers to anything. Just avoidance and obfuscation and the same old boring insults combined with fairy stories about people that agree with him and his non-existent book.

One good point though, after the recent sad death of Ken Dodd the people of Liverpool can take comfort in the fact that there’s still one clown left.

Our resident jester.

Imagine using these tactics in real life.

Wife asks why you're home late with lipstick on your collar

Just quote barristers from the 1930s as a response.

[Herlock Sholmes]

When I first read Rod’s posts I used to get frustrated that he wouldn’t engage in proper debate and that he’d just obfuscate or disappear when he was shown to be talking nonsense but I don’t anymore. It’s par for the course. And when the police say that a refusal to answer might be seen to incriminate you it applies to debate as well

Avoidance speaks volumes.

As does childish drivel, pointless quotes and meaningless graphs of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve been trying to think of another valid reason why Julia might have had the mackintosh. Rod’s explaination doesn’t hold up to the slightest scrutiny of course. Another suggestion could be that Wallace was in the Parlour adjusting his tie in the mirror and Julia brought it in for him thinking that he was going to wear it.

Or maybe this was the way that Wallace got Julia into the parlour. “Julia dear could you bring me my mackintosh please?”

[RodCrosby]

A certain poster should really stop quoting "the judge" one who thought Wallace should be acquitted, but also remarked that he was probably guilty.

Disinformation, all they have is DISINFORMATION...

The Judge of course never said that, no matter how much you cling to it, as a drowning man to an anchor...

Not that it matters one jot, in any case.

Anyone speaking prior to 1981 and 2001 would not have had the key evidence to arrive at the Correct Solution.

But still, for the record, he never said it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another desperately pointless post.

Yawn.

[AmericanSherlock]

On page 171 Hussey wrote: ‘Barrister Abrahams states: “The judge ... summed up strongly for acquittal.”’ He did indeed, and it is perhaps surprising to find the following on page 309 of Goodman:

‘A few years before his death, in an interview with a Liverpool Echo reporter, he [Mr Justice Wright, who took the title Lord Wright of Durley] said:

“Never forget that Wallace was a chessplayer. ... I should say that, broadly speaking, any man with common sense would have said that Wallace’s alibi was too good to be true, but that is not an argument you can hang a man on.”’



Checkmate, my dear polymath.

Of course the odds that this lunatic will admit he was wrong when it as plain as day that he is are about the same as the odds of the "correct solution" being correct.

Absolute Zero on the Kelvin Scale.

[RodCrosby]

On page 171 Hussey wrote: ‘Barrister Abrahams states: “The judge ... summed up strongly for acquittal.”’ He did indeed, and it is perhaps surprising to find the following on page 309 of Goodman:

‘A few years before his death, in an interview with a Liverpool Echo reporter, he [Mr Justice Wright, who took the title Lord Wright of Durley] said:

“Never forget that Wallace was a chessplayer. ... I should say that, broadly speaking, any man with common sense would have said that Wallace’s alibi was too good to be true, but that is not an argument you can hang a man on.”’



Checkmate, my dear polymath.

Of course the odds that this lunatic will admit he was wrong when it as plain as day that he is are about the same as the odds of the "correct solution" being correct.

Absolute Zero on the Kelvin Scale.

You, of course, omit the rest.

"...but that is not an argument you can hang a man on. So many strange things happen in life."

As I said. He never said what you claimed. Like all trolls, all you have is DISINFORMATION.

"But it seems to me...that there must be on the evidence some possibility that someone else knew of the prisoner’s possible movements, prospective movements, with sufficient confidence to take some action upon them."
Mr. Justice Wright, in Rex v Wallace.

So what the Judge is really saying is that Wallace unfortunately was faced with a jury of "common sense" [i.e. none-too-bright] who just couldn't deal with a complex alibi that appeared to them to be "too good to be true" whereas the Judge, a wise man, knows that, in fact, so many strange things happen in life.


Sadly for you, I play n-dimensional chess...

[AmericanSherlock]

The judge was obviously saying that while the case was not adequately proved beyond a reasonable doubt, he personally thought Wallace was probably guilty. That is OBVIOUS and PLAIN to see. Otherwise why would it be described as "surprising"?

I'm glad that the previous post is up here for all to see. You will not see a clearer example of someone being proven wrong and STILL arguing against cold and hard fact. Instead of having a modicum of humility and civil discourse and conceding incontrovertible proof on a minor point.

Absolutely ridiculous.

[RodCrosby]

As I said. He NEVER said he "personally thought Wallace was probably guilty."

It's just another of your malignant, stupid, trollish INVENTIONS.

And as I've demonstrated, time and again, that's all you got...

[AmericanSherlock]

Let's get a vote who is correct here.

I don't think it will end well for our "self-employed psephologist."

It will probably go as well for him as the meeting with Antony did

[RodCrosby]

Troll-on-the-run clings to "the pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of the individually ignorant...", hoping it will save him.

There is no need for a vote on Pythagoras' Theorem, no more than a vote will change the Correct Solution to the Wallace Case.

Truth and Logic always transcend mere fancy and prejudice.