Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is there evidence of you having solved anything? I thought you solved the case. Where is the evidence?

There is none.

Rod believes that if you can manufacture a scenario that might possibly explain what happened then it’s game over.

Let’s be glad that the police don’t follow the Crosby Method

[John G]

Okay, first of all let me say that I have a great deal of respect for all the posters who have contributed to this thread. However, I do feel that things of gone astray, particularly as the consensus seems to be that Wallace was probably guilty. What I therefore intend to do is to focus on the substantive scientific evidence; evidence for which no amount of speculation or theorizing about the obstacles that another assailant might have had can take precedence over.

As an overview, in response to claims that "Wallace is the only suspect", you have to question why he's a suspect at all. Thus, at the trial John Johnston, the next door neighbour who must have known them well, under cross-examination described the Wallace's as , "a very loving couple, very affectionate, I thought." In fact, as far as I'm aware, there's not a shred of evidence of any marital discord between the couple whatsoever. And no amount of speculation about Wallace's demeanour after the discovery of the murder, or "I've seen a grainy picture of the man and he looks like a demented serial killer to me, is going to change that. Particularly as nobody on this board has even met the man.

Now for the crucial scientific evidence. What I will show is that for Wallace to have been the killer he would, in effect, have to be some sort of Marvel Comic evil genius, who I will refer to as Super Shield Man.

Thus, Dr McFall, a Professor of Forensic Medicine, described how Julia was struck eleven times: the first blow resulted in arterial spray, the other ten blows were struck whilst she was on the ground.

As a consequence of the first blow blood flew out in every direction: hitting the violin case, which was on the ground, the walls and the furniture. PuLse McFall conceded that the assailant would have got blood on his left hand, on his face, his hair, and possibly under his fingernails, which would have been very difficult to remove. Moreover, as additional blows were struck whilst Julia was on the ground he would have got blood on his legs.

The problem is, of course, forensic evidence proved that William had not washed off the blood in the house. Now, it's speculated that he may, theoretically, have used the coat as a shield. However, unless he put it over his head, or held it in front of his face. But in that case he wouldn't be able to see, although that might explain the number of blows! Additionally, unless he had the super power of foresight, how would he know which direction the blood would spray? Thus, putting the coat over his head would leave the lower half of his body unprotected, a real problem if he was wearing his suit. I mean, it's not as if he had time to head off to the nearest dry cleaners!

But let's say he miraculously avoided any blood splatter. What does he do next? Well, crazily he places the Macintosh under Julia's shoulders. However, as Dr McFall conceded, this would necessitate the assailant lifting up the head and shoulder, which would leave him "dabbled in blood", the very thing that is super cunning plan was intended to avoid! I mean, what an idiot! Or maybe telekinesis was another one of his powers.

What about the murder weapon that was never found? This again relates to substantive evidence. We know the police carried out an extensive search of the house and surrounding area. It's also the case that William had hardly any time to hide the weapon, maybe just a few spare seconds, and his very limited options extended to the house or between the house and the tram stop. So was the ability to make solid objects invisible another one of his amazing powers?

And why would be take the weapon from the house anyway. For starters, it would be a huge risk to leave the house swinging an iron bar covered in blood and gore. And if he hides it under his suit, then that garment's going to get stained.

However, if he struck Julia with, say, the poker-Sarah Draper said a poker was missing-he can just discard this common household item in the room. Yes, it would have his fingerprints on, but it would have anyway, seeing as though it was his poker. Also, with any luck, Parry may have been asked to stoke the fire by Julia during one of his many visits, do his fingerprints would also be on the poker, thus incriminating him.

What of timing issues? Well, based upon Wildman's evidence, he may have only had seven minutes to commit a murder, possibly get dressed, hide the murder weapon so thoroughly that it was never found, and stage a robbery. At the very least, considering his age and poor health, it makes it unlikely. But some people have concluded that, to the contrary, it makes him the only suspect, or at least the most viable.

In conclusion, it should be evident that the weight of scientific research evidence rules William out. Against this, any other assailant would simply have to avoid being seen going into the house and exiting the house.

What of Parry? Well, if he did it I don't think the murder was planned, more likely a robbery gone wrong. And yes, he would have to have luck, debit wouldn't be physically impossible for him to have done it. I suppose it largely comes down to whether you believe Brine or Parkes, but that's for another post.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Interesting insight into your antecedents....Thanks for sharing

Meanwhile...





'The jury was of a type that could not recognize a non sequitur...’ Gerald Abrahams in The Legal Mind (London, 1954)

Perhaps someone else would care to explain to this pair their silly error of fact and logic?

Why are you debating by using irrelevant quotes

What the hell has the jury got to do with it?

I wonder if you’d be able to follow and understand the points being made if we typed slower

[AmericanSherlock]

I can’t understand why you don’t get this John?

If the plan was created by Parry he’s relying on things going right for him that he cannot control and that could very easily have gone wrong. For example (as I said in my last post) Wallace might have discovered that MGE didn’t exist and decided not to go (plan falls.) He And Julia may have had plans for the evening and so he couldn’t go (plan fails.) Wallace might not have mentioned the name Qualtrough or MGE to Julia which would have meant that she didn’t let ‘Qualtrough’ in on the Tuesday evening (plan fails.)

I mentioned 7 ways the plan could have fallen, I think Caz has added a couple. Yet if Parry (disguising hisvoice) or Qualtrough had actually spoken to Wallace by telephone whilst he was at the club they would have been almost certain of success instead of leaving things in the lap of the gods.

If Wallace had created the plan and made the call however he would have known for a fact that he would have gone looking for MGE and that he would have told the police that Julia knew about Qualtrough and MGE.

Wallace needed no good fortune here. Unlike Parry.

I think he doesn't want to get it for whatever reason

[Herlock Sholmes]

Obviously, anyone else can choose what to do or what not to do, assuming they have free will.

And Wallace doesn't just need to rely on chance, he needs a series of miracles to work in his favour!

Very straightforward.

I can’t understand why you don’t get this John?

If the plan was created by Parry he’s relying on things going right for him that he cannot control and that could very easily have gone wrong. For example (as I said in my last post) Wallace might have discovered that MGE didn’t exist and decided not to go (plan falls.) He And Julia may have had plans for the evening and so he couldn’t go (plan fails.) Wallace might not have mentioned the name Qualtrough or MGE to Julia which would have meant that she didn’t let ‘Qualtrough’ in on the Tuesday evening (plan fails.)

I mentioned 7 ways the plan could have fallen, I think Caz has added a couple. Yet if Parry (disguising hisvoice) or Qualtrough had actually spoken to Wallace by telephone whilst he was at the club they would have been almost certain of success instead of leaving things in the lap of the gods.

If Wallace had created the plan and made the call however he would have known for a fact that he would have gone looking for MGE and that he would have told the police that Julia knew about Qualtrough and MGE.

Wallace needed no good fortune here. Unlike Parry.

[AmericanSherlock]

Interesting insight into your antecedents....Thanks for sharing

Meanwhile...





'The jury was of a type that could not recognize a non sequitur...’ Gerald Abrahams in The Legal Mind (London, 1954)

Perhaps someone else would care to explain to this pair their silly error of fact and logic?

Is there evidence of you having solved anything? I thought you solved the case. Where is the evidence?

[RodCrosby]

Interesting insight into your antecedents....Thanks for sharing

Meanwhile...

That’s 7 simple ways where the plan crumbles. There’s only one way that the plan was 100% certain to succeed and that’s if Wallace created it.

Obviously, Wallace can control what he chooses to do or not do.

Whereas another planner has to rely on several factors of chance working in their favor for the plan to not be nixed.

Pretty straightforward.

'The jury was of a type that could not recognize a non sequitur...’ Gerald Abrahams in The Legal Mind (London, 1954)

Perhaps someone else would care to explain to this pair their silly error of fact and logic?

[AmericanSherlock]

You obviously haven’t spent your time away from the Forum learning how to debate I see.

Your response, therefore, to any contradictions or anything that doesn’t add up is “ well, mad things happen.” You should have been a Barrister.

Same old boring, childish insults

For someone who mocks someone with an interest in Sherlock Holmes you tend to quote the man pretty often.

True story: I have a crazy uncle who got worse and worse as the years went on, festering hate and anger. Always he is right and the rest of the world is wrong. With few friends or people to call his family because of his behavior. As he got older, the more entrenched in his ways he has become. I am reminded of this here on this thread and of the saying "A leopard never changes his spots". Sad, really.

[AmericanSherlock]

Obviously, anyone else can choose what to do or what not to do, assuming they have free will.

And Wallace doesn't just need to rely on chance, he needs a series of miracles to work in his favour!

Very straightforward.

John, that is a separate point. I'm sure you will make that plenty in your long post we are anxiously awaiting.

However, your objection to caz is a non starter to mind. I will let her reply for herself though, perhaps I shouldn't have stuck my nose in but it just seemed an odd (and somewhat combative) objection.

As the point is only Wallace can control Wallace. Whether he was capable of committing the crime due to other factors is up for debate. It was clear from the post she was talking about (by Herlock) that the conversation was specifically how difficult it would be for a Parry and accomplice theory to work, given the many things they would have to rely on in regards to Wallace's behavior. Point is only he can decide his own behavior.

Seemed like a conflation of ideas.

[AmericanSherlock]

Surely, if this was a plan to steal some takings, and the thief planned for Mr Wallace to be out of the house, he could have easily arranged a ploy to get both people out of the house. It seems to me the murder was not incidental to some thievery, but the intended outcome.

Absolutely agree

[John G]

Obviously, Wallace can control what he chooses to do or not do.

Whereas another planner has to rely on several factors of chance working in their favor for the plan to not be nixed.

Pretty straightforward.

Obviously, anyone else can choose what to do or what not to do, assuming they have free will.

And Wallace doesn't just need to rely on chance, he needs a series of miracles to work in his favour!

Very straightforward.

[etenguy]

Obviously, Wallace can control what he chooses to do or not do.

Whereas another planner has to rely on several factors of chance working in their favor for the plan to not be nixed.

Pretty straightforward.

Surely, if this was a plan to steal some takings, and the thief planned for Mr Wallace to be out of the house, he could have easily arranged a ploy to get both people out of the house. It seems to me the murder was not incidental to some thievery, but the intended outcome.

[AmericanSherlock]

Obviously, Wallace can control what he chooses to do or not do.

Whereas another planner has to rely on several factors of chance working in their favor for the plan to not be nixed.

Pretty straightforward.

[John G]

Afternoon All,

I keep coming back to Herlock's observation that so many elements were left to chance, any of which could have scuppered Qualtrough's master plan, if the idea was to get Wallace out of his house for a couple of hours on the Tuesday evening for whatever purpose.

Whoever answered the phone to Qualtrough had to take the message seriously, make a note of all the essential details - customer name, time and address - and pass it on faithfully.

Wallace had to attend the chess club that evening and not decide to give it a miss. He and his wife were both, or had recently been quite unwell, and the weather in January would be unpredictable.

Qualtrough couldn't know for sure that Wallace had attended and got the message. He could hardly have followed him all the way to the club after making the call from the box near Wallace's home.

Without knowing if Wallace was even aware of the message on Tuesday morning, Qualtrough would equally have no idea if the Wallaces both woke up feeling well enough for husband to leave wife alone again for a second evening on the trot.

Qualtrough would also have no idea what Wallace's movements were going to be that day, even supposing Wallace himself did and stuck to them. Qualtrough would have to be in position and watching that house - front and back?? - from late afternoon, or he wouldn't know if or when Wallace might return home for tea, and if or when he might leave again.

If it suddenly began bucketing down with rain, for example, would Wallace not sensibly decide to stay indoors, rather than set out on that winter's evening to visit a stranger at an unfamiliar destination? How long was Qualtrough planning to loiter close to the house, waiting to see if Wallace would indeed emerge, before giving up if he failed to do so?

Even if he did see Wallace emerge, how could he be certain that it was in response to his message? If it was, how could he know that Wallace, using the tongue in his head to ask for precise directions, would not ascertain from the first person he met on the way, that MGE didn't exist, and head straight back home?

The only person who had any control over the events of the Monday and Tuesday evening was Wallace himself. And he had total control over his own movements, right up until the discovery of Julia's body in the presence of their neighbours.

Love,

Caz
X

In what way did he have"total control over the events" and his own movements?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yawn...

Logic - and vaporising "straw-man" arguments - is my speciality...

They did try to eliminate everything that could go wrong.

Remember?
'It was planned with extreme care and extraordinary imagination...', James Agate in Ego 6, 1944

Anything that could have gone wrong - except the unforeseen event that actually did go wrong - would have been inconsequential, and afforded a risk-free exit from the plot at every step...

Therefore, every reason to proceed with such a clever plot...

Quoting Agate is pointless and pathetic.

1. Beattie could have forgotten to give the message.
2. Wallace could have had plans for that night.
3. Wallace might just have decided not to go.
4. Julia might have had a visitor that night (sister-in-laws for eg.)
5. Someone in the club could have said “ I know the area well, there’s no Menlove Gardens East.
6. Wallace could have checked during the day on Tuesday and found that MGE didn’t exist.
7. Wallace might have just said to Julia “I’m going out on business tonight.” By not mentioning MGE or Qualtrough there’s no way she’d have let him in.

That’s 7 simple ways where the plan crumbles. There’s only one way that the plan was 100% certain to succeed and that’s if Wallace created it.

Why didn’t our genius Parry wait until Wallace got to the club and either disguised his own voice or got his gullible accomplice to make the phone call. This would have ensured success.

Arguing with you is way too easy Rod