Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

[AmericanSherlock]

Why has what we are talking about changed? It's back to the Wallace case "correct solution" (rubbish solution is more like it)

Before it was insisting that when someone says "any man with common sense" he is talking about the opinion of "not too bright people" rather than the OBVIOUS fact that he is saying a certain opinion is the "common sense" one, i.e. the one he agrees with. That is SO obvious a 4 year old could understand it.

This again reminds me of politicians who play with basic words and need the most concrete concepts defined and analyzed before answering a straightforward question, typically to evade them being caught with their pants down metaphorically speaking (and sometimes literally.) This is quite frankly the most glaring example of evasion and prevarication I have ever seen in my life.

And then the argument was switched for a 3rd TIME to picking at semantic differences between obvious implications and literal quotes.

Again, an evasion tactic to dodge the OBVIOUS fact this poster was WRONG.

It is quite tiring this level of pedantic back and forth rubbish, all to humor someone incapable of primary school reasoning capabilities and comprehension.

Someone so ideologically possessed in his argument, that he is unable to concede the most rudimentary and obvious areas in which he was wrong.

I am grateful in the wisdom of the publishing houses, that this guy was unable to ever get a book written.

Everyone sees thru this madman. The only refuge he has is online posts to create a false image of spurious authority. No one is fooled.

But let him have his small, petty consolation prize in a vast life filled with disappointments and failures.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another desperately pointless post.

Yawn.

[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]

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?”

[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.

[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]

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.