Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    As we’ve said many times before, simply coming up with a scenario doesn’t qualify as proof of its validity. It would be foolish to be so overconfident. After all, anyone can come up with a scenario by simply imagining an accomplice to ‘explain’ the facts. It’s pretty easy. invents one; I’ll use Parry (at least he existed )

    Wallace gets Parry involved in a plot to kill Julia (no more or less believable than Parry and the invisible man.)

    Parry makes the Qualtrough phonecall. Wallace kills Julia in the Parlour using his mackintosh to shield himself from blood (as Wallace himself suggested.) He washes his hands, possibly using a chemical from his lab. He puts the weapon into a bag or wraps it in paper. He goes into the kitchen and takes the money from the cashbox and puts it in his pocket and through force of habit combined with the pressure of the situation he puts it back onto the shelf. He drops a few coins on the floor to make it look like the robber did so in the rush. He then pulls the door from the cupboard (he may even have previously loosened it.) Then he goes upstairs and quickly tries to make the room look like it’s been searched by a thief. Wallace feels a bit rushed because the milk boy was late arriving. He takes the notes from his pocket and puts them into the vase. When he’d taken it from the cash box he didn’t notice that he still had a small bit of blood on his hand which he transferred to the notes. By the time he put them into the vase though the blood had dried (explaining why the blood didn’t transfer from one note to the one it touched.) He goes back downstairs notices the bit of blood on his hand and washes it off.
    He turns off the lights so that any unwanted visitor (his sister-in-law for eg) won’t raise the alarm when they get no response. He leaves by the back door and meets Parry in Richmond Park. Parry drives Wallace to his tram stop then drives away to dispose of the weapon. Wallace ‘searches’ for Menlove Gardens East before returning home. Whilst he’s been ‘searching’ Parry thinks of something; maybe a part of the plan that concerns him. Parry waits on Richmond Park for Wallace to return. As they are talking they are seen by Lillian Hall.
    Wallace goes to the house and goes from back door to front ‘trying to get in. What he’s actually trying to do is a) hoping that someone sees him and b) trying to give the impression that the killer was still inside; escaping via the front door when Wallace enters at the back. He goes inside. He still wants to delay the finding of he body as long as possible thinking that it my muddy the waters as far as time of death. He goes through the back kitchen, checks the kitchen and, despite the fact that the parlour door is right next to the kitchen door he walks past it and goes upstairs. He even checks his lab even though it could be safely assumed that that would be the very last room in the house that Julia went into. (Perhaps Wallace had left the bottle of chemicals that he used to clean up in the kitchen and needed to return it to the lab?) He then ‘finds’ Julia.

    I’ve created a simple scenario. I’ve used an accomplice (one that I can name)
    This scenario explains:

    Why Beattie didn’t suspect the voice on the phone.
    Why the killer knew Wallace was going to chess.
    Why the killer knew that Wallace would take the bait.
    Why no one saw or heard anyone at the door.
    Why the lights were turned off.
    Why Julia allowed her killer into the parlour.
    Why the blood smear was transferred the other notes.
    The presence of the mackintosh.
    Why Wallace wasn’t covered in blood.
    How the weapon was disposed of.
    How Wallace got to his first tram by 7.06 or 7.10.
    Lillian Hall sighting.
    Why Wallace messed around trying to get into the house.
    Why he avoided the parlour to go upstairs.

    Compare this ‘scenario’ to effort. So why can’t I say that this is The Correct Solution just because the ‘scenario’ fits?

    Because I’m not a That’s why.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    A reasoned debate?

    Nope......didn’t think so

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    You’ve never had a case

    Leave a comment:


  • RodCrosby
    replied
    I rest my case, gentle reader...

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Unlike Rod I find it difficult to simply dismiss trial testimony as a misprint just because it ‘doesnt fit.’

    Again, from Wallace’s statement in court, under oath and on trial for his life:

    “I walked up Richmond Park, (note the use of the word ‘up’ meaning ‘along,’ turned the corner by the church and up Belmont Road and there caught the tram.“

    In his police statement “.....and got the tram at Belmont Road.”

    Different yes. But the stop at the Belmont Road junction with Breck Road, according to the map, was actually in Breck Road. Why then did he not say “at the junction of...” or “in Breck Road near to Belmont Road.”

    And so we have 2 statements. The first absolutely crystal clear, the second quite vague. So why must we assume that the latter interpretation is the correct one?

    has said why would Wallace go so far out of his way? Good point.

    I would ask why did Wallace walk straight past the stops at the ends of Richmond Park and Newcombe Street?

    Wallace obviously wasn’t questioned too closely on this matter. The police never bothered to track down the driver of the first tram. They knew that Wallace could have gotten to the phonebox in time to make the call and they knew roughly what time he’d arrived at the club. How he’d gotten there wasn’t important.

    Has everyone just assumed that Wallace meant the Breck Road/Belmont Road stop when in actual fact he might have meant the Belmont Road/West Derby Road stop? If we believe the trial transcript then that’s exactly what he meant. The police statement is less clear (no mention of junctions though) Was Wallace just putting distance between himself and the call box? If asked why he went so far couldn’t he have said that it was cheaper from there? Or, it’s the stop that I always use and I like the walk?

    Was the Belmont Road/West Derby Road stop the one that Wallace was talking about but the police just assumed that he meant the closer one because it seemed logical? If it was, and it’s only an if, I’d say it makes Wallace’s alibi for the phone call far less believable.

    Leave a comment:


  • RodCrosby
    replied
    Disinformation upon DISINFORMATION from Tweedledumb and Tweedledee.

    They should get a room and consummate their trolldom...

    Fear not, gentle reader. The best book on the Wallace Case is at the printers... Guaranteed troll-free, or your money back.

    This thread is for amusement purposes only, as I have demonstrated ad libitum...

    Don't feed the trolls.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
    Looks like Herlock has driven away our resident genius with some cold, hard logic.

    Lovely evisceration, like a work of art.

    HS, Wallace sure seemed to know plenty of details about Parry from the get go, didn't he?
    Cheers AS.

    I just thought it a bit.....strange.

    Leave a comment:


  • AmericanSherlock
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    Rod, see if you can find a local toddler who can explain the point to you.

    Then again, we all know that you actually do know that AS is so obviously correct in the point that he was making, you’re just doing your usual dishonest mental and verbal contortions to try and make everything support the innocence of St William.

    It’s just like when you were proved utterly wrong about the Constable telling Wallace that there was categorically no MGE. There it was, in black and white for all to see. The fact that he then said that he could try Menlove Avenue if he wanted to was utterly irrelevant. Wallace was still left with the fact that MGE did not exist. But no, you twist like a worm on a hook.

    It’s like the way you twisted when we made the oh so obvious point that a sneak-thief (sorry I can’t help laughing when I say that) would have had absolutely no need to take away the weapon. An inarguable point. Yet wriggle and squirm you did.

    And the childishly obvious ridiculousness of Parry going to get his car cleaned by Parkes, blabbing about the crime and telling him where the weapon was hidden....yeah right! And you said, and this was truly staggering, that he did it in panic....yes panic

    You wriggle and dodge a question about the trams that you know the answer to but don’t like it.

    I quote Wallace from the trial transcript and because it doesn’t support your ‘Correct Solution’ fairy story you dismiss it as a misprint!

    Then, the only Troll on the forum, accuses others of the same. Even though anyone can read out posts when he’s not here and see that the opposite is true.

    Then there’s his totally imaginary supporters. No names yet Brother Rod?

    Everyone sees through you Rod. We know your motives, your personality defects, your dishonesty and your unpleasantness.

    You lose every single argument on here. You’ve been utterly wiped out. Your ‘Solution’ is in tatters at your feet. Your ‘book’ won’t happen unless you self-finance and you know it.

    Keep talking because the more you talk the deeper the hole you dig for yourself

    Bravo. Devastating knockout.

    And yes, I remember Rod doing the same thing with the MGE charade. What Rod doesn't realize is to deny plain cold hard facts makes his position look worse.

    Any reasonable person when confronted with having been wrong in plain black and white print just admits their error. This doesn't necessarily invalidate their entire position obviously. But here is a man so ideologically blinded (little surprise he subscribes to absurd conspiracy theories in many facets of life), that he can't accept anything that goes against his narrative. Even if it's a minor point for the other side if the argument and not a dealbreaker. And more importantly even if it is so blatantly factual that to deny it makes one look like a fool.

    Seeing the last couple pages of posts should be instructive to anyone as to Just how far gone this madman is.

    The internet attracts some strange characters...

    Leave a comment:


  • AmericanSherlock
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    You are inarguably, categorically, resoundingly correct


    You mean it wasn't DISINFORMATION from a malignant troll???

    Leave a comment:


  • AmericanSherlock
    replied
    Looks like Herlock has driven away our resident genius with some cold, hard logic.

    Lovely evisceration, like a work of art.

    HS, Wallace sure seemed to know plenty of details about Parry from the get go, didn't he?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    I wonder why Wallace knew Parry’s girlfriend’s address?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Can anyone suggest why a sneak-thief would bother turning off the downstairs lights before he made his getaway?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Beating Brother Rod is becoming way too easy

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    I notice that there’s no response to my point about how incredibly fortunate our sneak-thief was that not one single person in Wolverton Street saw or heard him on the night of the murder.
    And just to add a point but an important one. Our non-existent sneak-thief would not only have knocked the door and gone unheard by neighbours on both sides he would also have had a conversation with Julia which would have lasted at least 30 seconds (probably longer) and yet no one heard or saw him.

    Is this likely?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
    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
    You are inarguably, categorically, resoundingly correct

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X