Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[RodCrosby]

Yawn....

First he lies about the evidence....

Then he attacks the judges!

Just to respond to this laughable quote.

Then he lies about the evidence again....

Because the police officers knew that the blood was there. According to Wallace he didn’t.

OLIVER KC: What did you do ?
WALLACE: The door was closed to, and I pushed it a little open, and then I struck a match in quite the ordinary way. That I probably did every night I went into the room in the dark. I held it up, and as I held it up I could see my wife was lying there on the floor.

OLIVER KC: You told the offlcer you thought she was in a fit ?
WALLACE: That was my first impression, but it only lasted possibly a fraction of a second, because I stooped down, with the same match, and I could see there was evidence of signs of a disturbance and blood, and I saw that she had been hit.

Such fun filleting these fools in public!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsL5acnXTNM

[RodCrosby]

Yawn...

'He... had been living there for some years with his wife, apparently on terms of happiness and comradeship. In fact, so far as the happiness of this house-hold is concerned, the Crown knows nothing to the contrary of the view that these two people were very happy together.'
HEMMERDE KC, opening speech, Rex v Wallace

'All the evidence is that the prisoner and his wife, to all appearances, were living together in happiness and in amity. You have heard the evidence....as far as the prisoner is concerned there is no apparent motive.'
Mr Justice WRIGHT, summing-up in Rex v Wallace

As I said: "....at best, dreamers with too much time of their hands, and little grasp of the case, or the simply prejudiced..."

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yup. After seeing post #2686 before I logged in I can see that I made an error. I was working from a fallible memory without waiting until I was home and could check books. Humans make errors. Men hold their hands up and admit to them. Children crow and gloat about them.

Most of us can remember when Rod said that the cash upstairs was a red herring until I pointed out to him that it was part of his own ‘Correct Solution’ as posted on here. Did Rod admit his ‘error?’ Of course he didn’t. He wriggled a squirmed like a worm. Unlike me.

If Rod is so gullible that anytime someone says “we’ll they seemed like a happy couple “ he thinks that it exonerates anyone then all I can say is that he’s welcome to that nonsense. They said the same about the Crippen’s. Wallace had motive and opportunity to murder Julia. He’s the only person that can be placed at the seen.

But hey, he couldn’t have done it because they seemed kinda happy-ish.

[RodCrosby]

Yawn...

just buy The Book, folks.

Fresh thinking... New Evidence... Abductive Reasoning...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Move-Murder-Cold-Case-Jury/dp/1907324739

[AmericanSherlock]

Yup. After seeing post #2686 before I logged in I can see that I made an error. I was working from a fallible memory without waiting until I was home and could check books. Humans make errors. Men hold their hands up and admit to them. Children crow and gloat about them.

Most of us can remember when Rod said that the cash upstairs was a red herring until I pointed out to him that it was part of his own ‘Correct Solution’ as posted on here. Did Rod admit his ‘error?’ Of course he didn’t. He wriggled a squirmed like a worm. Unlike me.

If Rod is so gullible that anytime someone says “we’ll they seemed like a happy couple “ he thinks that it exonerates anyone then all I can say is that he’s welcome to that nonsense. They said the same about the Crippen’s. Wallace had motive and opportunity to murder Julia. He’s the only person that can be placed at the seen.

But hey, he couldn’t have done it because they seemed kinda happy-ish.

Rod is still quoting Justice Wright. Earlier on the thread I pointed out Wright thought Wallace guilty (just that the evidence wasnt enough to convict which I agree with). The quote was obvious where he said "any man with common sense would think his alibi too good to be true." It is so plain and clear what was intended with this quote here, it seems to hardly require explanation, and indeed The "Chess and Wallace" site, which Rod himself has praised and written into accepts it as given, quoting it as even "surprising" that Wright seemed to think Wallace guilty.

A normal person who is an honest debator would admit it is OBVIOUS what Wright meant, but instead Rod said Wright meant that a "man with common sense" as a perjorative... i.e. a "common man" would think that but a cleverer person could see he was innocent.

It was so blatantly obvious an example of someone refusing to concede even minor points when they are unequivocally wrong that it was embarrassing. At that point, I knew there is no further point discussing anything with someone who can display that level of illogic. Except to laugh at a polymath pilot whacko Not surprised nothing has changed.

The dude is a disgrace.

I have found more information out about his theory and how it is featured in the book etc. There will be a review coming soon and no one will be spared!

[RodCrosby]

I pointed out Wright thought Wallace guilty...

Another liar...

'Did Lord Wright really think that Wallace was guilty or not guilty of murdering his wife?

"I thought then, and looking back on the evidence I still think that the case was insufficiently strong to convict. There was no point against him which did not seem to be too weak or break down. There were a number of points which might have told against him but when you analysed them each one broke down at some stage.

"I should say that broadly speaking any man with commonsense 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. So many strange things happen in life."'
Lord Wright of Durley, 27th November 1958, interview with Robert Jackson, Liverpool Echo

'too good to be true'
phrase
'If you say that something seems too good to be true, you are suspicious of it because it seems better than you had expected, and you think there may something wrong with it that you have not noticed.', Collins English Dictionary

In other words, 'too good to be true' is not a direct synonym for 'untrue', only that it might be 'untrue', because it seems so good! Lord Wright explained why, of course, that was 'not an argument you can hang a man on', because 'so many strange things' do indeed 'happen in life'...

Lord Wright was a Cambridge Tripos prizewinner who understood the English language perfectly, unlike the dross we see around us today...

NOWHERE, not once, did the Judge EVER say he "thought Wallace guilty"...

Not that it would matter one jot if he did but, for the record, he DID NOT.

On the contrary, 'each...' 'point against him...' 'broke down...' 'when you analysed them...'

Such fun filleting these fools in public!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsL5acnXTNM

[AmericanSherlock]

Another liar...

'Did Lord Wright really think that Wallace was guilty or not guilty of murdering his wife?

"I thought then, and looking back on the evidence I still think that the case was insufficiently strong to convict. There was no point against him which did not seem to be too weak or break down. There were a number of points which might have told against him but when you analysed them each one broke down at some stage.

"I should say that broadly speaking any man with commonsense 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. So many strange things happen in life."'
Lord Wright of Durley, 27th November 1958, interview with Robert Jackson, Liverpool Echo

'too good to be true'
phrase
'If you say that something seems too good to be true, you are suspicious of it because it seems better than you had expected, and you think there may something wrong with it that you have not noticed.', Collins English Dictionary

In other words, 'too good to be true' is not a direct synonym for 'untrue', only that it might be 'untrue', because it seems so good! Lord Wright explained why, of course, that was 'not an argument you can hang a man on', because 'so many strange things' do indeed 'happen in life'...

Lord Wright was a Cambridge Tripos prizewinner who understood the English language perfectly, unlike the dross we see around us today...

NOWHERE, not once, did the Judge EVER say he "thought Wallace guilty"...

Not that it would matter one jot if he did but, for the record, he DID NOT.

On the contrary, 'each...' 'point against him...' 'broke down...' 'when you analysed them...'

Such fun filleting these fools in public!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsL5acnXTNM

Took you off ignore because this is too fun

Your avatar is too bad to be true

[AmericanSherlock]

Another liar...

'Did Lord Wright really think that Wallace was guilty or not guilty of murdering his wife?

"I thought then, and looking back on the evidence I still think that the case was insufficiently strong to convict. There was no point against him which did not seem to be too weak or break down. There were a number of points which might have told against him but when you analysed them each one broke down at some stage.

"I should say that broadly speaking any man with commonsense 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. So many strange things happen in life."'
Lord Wright of Durley, 27th November 1958, interview with Robert Jackson, Liverpool Echo

'too good to be true'
phrase
'If you say that something seems too good to be true, you are suspicious of it because it seems better than you had expected, and you think there may something wrong with it that you have not noticed.', Collins English Dictionary

In other words, 'too good to be true' is not a direct synonym for 'untrue', only that it might be 'untrue', because it seems so good! Lord Wright explained why, of course, that was 'not an argument you can hang a man on', because 'so many strange things' do indeed 'happen in life'...

Lord Wright was a Cambridge Tripos prizewinner who understood the English language perfectly, unlike the dross we see around us today...

NOWHERE, not once, did the Judge EVER say he "thought Wallace guilty"...

Not that it would matter one jot if he did but, for the record, he DID NOT.

On the contrary, 'each...' 'point against him...' 'broke down...' 'when you analysed them...'

Such fun filleting these fools in public!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsL5acnXTNM

"So many strange things happen in life. I should not and never did demand a motive for any crime. Very often the only motive is mere impulse and you must remember that Wallace was a highly strung man. But if Wallace did murder his wife, as the jury thought, there might have been a motive. After the trial, the station master at Birkenhead station mentioned the case to me as I waited for a train. He said it was the opinion of people in the district that there was another woman in the case. That certainly never came out at the trial. But at the time I could not help thinking that Wallace found domestic felicity a little boring, as it is apt to be occasionally to anybody."-Justice Wright

Just admit you were wrong you old fool.

[RodCrosby]

So...
'IF, Wallace did murder his wife, as the jury thought...' [but not the Judge, see above; or the Court of Appeal]

the [cough] "station master at Birkenhead station...said it was the opinion of people in the district that there was another woman in the case."

"That certainly never came out at the trial." [i.e. no evidence for it]

"But at the time I could not help thinking that Wallace found domestic felicity a little boring, as it is apt to be occasionally to anybody."

Ergo, Wright was saying "IF Wallace murdered his wife [although he, Wright J, had already said he was not convinced, to put it mildly] then perhaps this tittle-tattle about another woman [for which there was no evidence, btw] might explain it, and perhaps Wallace did find "domestic felicity a little boring" (but don't we all, from time-to-time)...'

In other words "If I'm wrong [and the jury right], here might be the explanation..."

But Lord Wright did not think he was wrong.
'each...' 'point against him...' 'broke down...' 'when you analysed them...'
Lord Wright, 1958

So
The Cambridge-educated Judge v the stationmaster at Birkenhead station (6 miles from Anfield, btw)

You decide... not that any of it matters one jot, of course...

[AmericanSherlock]

So...
'IF, Wallace did murder his wife, as the jury thought...' [but not the Judge, see above; or the Court of Appeal]

the [cough] "station master at Birkenhead station...said it was the opinion of people in the district that there was another woman in the case."

"That certainly never came out at the trial." [i.e. no evidence for it]

"But at the time I could not help thinking that Wallace found domestic felicity a little boring, as it is apt to be occasionally to anybody."

Ergo, Wright was saying "IF Wallace murdered his wife [although he, Wright J, had already said he was not convinced, to put it mildly] then perhaps this tittle-tattle about another woman [for which there was no evidence, btw] might explain it, and perhaps Wallace did find "domestic felicity a little boring" (but don't we all, from time-to-time)...'

In other words "If I'm wrong [and the jury right], here might be the explanation..."

But Lord Wright did not think he was wrong.
'each...' 'point against him...' 'broke down...' 'when you analysed them...'
Lord Wright, 1958

So
The Cambridge-educated Judge v the stationmaster at Birkenhead station (6 miles from Anfield, btw)

You decide... not that any of it matters one jot, of course...

Ask Antony his opinion. Go on...

Although he told me he doesnt want to post here anymore, so embarrassed he is at your behavior.

[AmericanSherlock]

So...
'IF, Wallace did murder his wife, as the jury thought...' [but not the Judge, see above; or the Court of Appeal]

the [cough] "station master at Birkenhead station...said it was the opinion of people in the district that there was another woman in the case."

"That certainly never came out at the trial." [i.e. no evidence for it]

"But at the time I could not help thinking that Wallace found domestic felicity a little boring, as it is apt to be occasionally to anybody."

Ergo, Wright was saying "IF Wallace murdered his wife [although he, Wright J, had already said he was not convinced, to put it mildly] then perhaps this tittle-tattle about another woman [for which there was no evidence, btw] might explain it, and perhaps Wallace did find "domestic felicity a little boring" (but don't we all, from time-to-time)...'

In other words "If I'm wrong [and the jury right], here might be the explanation..."

But Lord Wright did not think he was wrong.
'each...' 'point against him...' 'broke down...' 'when you analysed them...'
Lord Wright, 1958

So
The Cambridge-educated Judge v the stationmaster at Birkenhead station (6 miles from Anfield, btw)

You decide... not that any of it matters one jot, of course...

It doesn't matter much for sure. It just showcases how you refuse to concede obvious points. Can't admit you are wrong to even a tiny degree. A hint to your lack of intellectual honesty and flawed thought process. No wonder you have been kicked off so many forums.

No one likes you here. Antony is appalled by you. I have showed this thread to a few people for comedic value. Keep em coming, Stringer.

[RodCrosby]

Run out of [cough] 'ideas' again?

The 'insults' just make me chuckle. I heard better ones when I was 4 years old...

Game, Set and Match then...!

I recommend people buy The Book.

It's a good book.

Fresh thinking... New Evidence... Abductive Reasoning...

[AmericanSherlock]

Run out of [cough] 'ideas' again?

The 'insults' just make me chuckle. I heard better ones when I was 4 years old...

Game, Set and Match then...!

I recommend people buy The Book.

It's a good book.

Fresh thinking... New Evidence... Abductive Reasoning...

The book is rubbish and where is YOUR book? You promised your own book! Better you don't show your face at a publishers...

[AmericanSherlock]

Rod has reported my post and got me a serious warning! There are about 100 of his posts so far I could have reported but I refuse to do that. I won't run crying to mommy. Everyone here is aware of who is ultimately engaging in trolling and should be banned (if anyone should) to ensure respectful conversation and open and fair dialogue.

If I will be banned permanently for airing my view on this, then so be it. I can see in the rules one is not supposed to disagree

This thread has been destroyed so much anyway, that the creator has left due to this poster!

I won't be run out of here with these nonsense tactics, I'll have to be permabanned first.

[RodCrosby]

Not me.

Someone else must have got tired of you...