Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by RodCrosby View Post
    ah... so it's all just ad hominem and personal inadequacy. Who'd have thunk it?

    It is the Correct Solution, based on the available evidence.I've said many times something new could [in theory] upend it.

    Until then...
    Parkes
    Regards

    Herlock






    "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

    Comment


    • Originally posted by RodCrosby View Post
      ah... so it's all just ad hominem and personal inadequacy.Who'd have thunk it?

      It is the Correct Solution, based on the available evidence. I've said many times something new could [in theory] upend it.

      Until then...
      And this from someone who feels compelled to constantly boast childishly.
      Regards

      Herlock






      "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

      Comment


      • .
        I've listed the evidence many times. And the logic is impeccable
        Hopefully my last post of the night because I’m bored of listening to unreasoned boasting.

        1. You claim that Parry planned the crime.

        2. When you plan anything you don’t plan (you can’t plan) for a huge slice of luck.

        3. There is absolutely, categorically no way, at all, however you try and twist it, that Parry could have expected or even hoped that Wallace would mention the name Qualtrough or even Menlove Gardens East to a wife who took absolutely no interest whatsoever in her husband’s business affairs. By your own admission (the scenario) Julia had to have heard of Qualtrough to have been willing to admit her eventual killer into the house. This is a central part of your theory - the explaination for why Julia let him in. Even then it’s by no means certain that Julia would have wanted to risk being seen letting a strange man in to her house after dark whilst her husband was out though.

        Therefore - no one goes to all the trouble that our planner apparently did - to find an accomplice willing to take 100% of the risks whilst Parry remained in safety. To come up with a plan where a message ( and a strange one considering the request for Wallace’s address) is passed via a third party using a disguised voice. To check tram times so that he would have at least a reasonable idea how long Wallace would be out of the house. Then to watch Wallace on the Monday night (following him along Breck Road in his car) to ensure that he actually went to the chess club. - and yet he leaves the most important part of the plan (the part about Qualtrough actually getting admitted to the house) entirely down to luck.

        It simply doesnt work Rod. There is an utter absence of logic.

        QED
        Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 02-02-2019, 11:15 PM.
        Regards

        Herlock






        "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

        Comment


        • Yawn...

          I follow the real Great Detective, and pay no heed to his green-eyed, obsessive, anti-matter manqué... Click image for larger version  Name:	antimatter.jpeg Views:	0 Size:	6.9 KB ID:	701021


          "I cannot agree with those who rank modesty among the virtues. To the logician all things should be seen exactly as they
          are, and to underestimate one's self is as much a departure from truth as to exaggerate one's own powers."

          Sherlock Holmes in The Adventure of The Greek Interpreter
          Last edited by RodCrosby; 02-02-2019, 11:16 PM.
          "I make a point of never having any prejudices, and of following docilely where fact may lead me..."
          Sherlock Holmes, in The Adventure of The Reigate Squires
          The Accomplice Theory - 'on balance, the best explanation for one of the most puzzling murder cases in British criminal history' - Move to Murder, 2018
          https://www.dropbox.com/s/hc1n5xu7nn...heory.pdf?dl=0

          Compendium of Resources
          https://forum.casebook.org/forum/soc...882#post650882

          Comment


          • Originally posted by RodCrosby View Post
            Yawn...

            I follow the real Great Detective, and pay no heed to his green-eyed, obsessive, anti-matter manqué... Click image for larger version Name:	antimatter.jpeg Views:	0 Size:	6.9 KB ID:	701021


            "I cannot agree with those who rank modesty among the virtues. To the logician all things should be seen exactly as they
            are, and to underestimate one's self is as much a departure from truth as to exaggerate one's own powers."

            Sherlock Holmes in The Adventure of The Greek Interpreter
            A pathetic personal insult
            Regards

            Herlock






            "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              A pathetic personal insult
              Only if you imagine you are something you are not.


              Oh, I forgot - you really DO......


              Solz...
              Last edited by RodCrosby; 02-02-2019, 11:39 PM.
              "I make a point of never having any prejudices, and of following docilely where fact may lead me..."
              Sherlock Holmes, in The Adventure of The Reigate Squires
              The Accomplice Theory - 'on balance, the best explanation for one of the most puzzling murder cases in British criminal history' - Move to Murder, 2018
              https://www.dropbox.com/s/hc1n5xu7nn...heory.pdf?dl=0

              Compendium of Resources
              https://forum.casebook.org/forum/soc...882#post650882

              Comment


              • Hi Herlock,

                although I can readily understand and even appreciate why people think Wallace's behavior was contrived and suspicious (and thus he was guilty) I am intrigued by the possibility that our own suspicions are leading us astray.

                I've known a few of the 'absent-minded professor' types. They can be very analytical, but at the same time quite naďve when it comes to human matters. My old friend, JK, for instance. Highly intelligent but at the same time foolish about the 'ways of the world.' I can readily imagine JK wandering around the streets of Liverpool looking for a non-existent address and quizzing a dozen people, never imagining for a minute that someone was 'messing him about.' I certainly don't know if Wallace fits 'this type,' but from what I've read, it strikes me as a possibility. It's a classic case, because much of the so-called 'evidence' really boils down to psychology and how we perceive Wallace's character and behavior. Meanwhile, we have Parry lurking in the shadows, never fully explained.

                On the other hand, there is one snippet from the trial that sticks in my mind. For the 'Wallace dunnit' theory, it's difficult to ignore.
                James Edward Rothwell, examined by Mr. Hemmerde.
                I am a police constable of the Liverpool City
                Police Force. I have known the accused as a collector for
                the Prudential for about two years. I saw him on January
                20th, about 3.30, in Maiden Lane.

                How was he dressed ? — He was dressed in a tweed suit,
                and a light fawn raincoat, a mackintosh.

                Mr. Justice Wright — raincoat? — Yes, my Lord.

                Mr. Hemmerde — What was he doing ? Did you notice
                anything about him ? — His face was haggard and drawn,
                and he was very distressed — unusually distressed.

                What signs of distress did he show ? — He was dabbing
                his eye with his coat-sleeve, and he appeared to me as if
                he had been crying.




                The prosecution's argument, of course, was that this strange scene took place only a short time after Wallace left Julia. (At lunch, but not when he supposedly beat her to death). The defense, as you know doubt know, suggested that Rothwell misinterpreted the event, and Wallace was simply wiping his eyes because of the cold. Regards, RP
                Last edited by rjpalmer; 02-02-2019, 11:31 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by RodCrosby View Post

                  Only if you imagine you are something you are not.

                  Oh, I forgot - you really DO......
                  No debating the unarguable logic I see.

                  ’Surprise, surprise
                  Regards

                  Herlock






                  "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                    Hi Herlock,

                    although I can readily understand and even appreciate why people think Wallace's behavior was contrived and suspicious (and thus he was guilty) I am intrigued by the possibility that our own suspicions are leading us astray.

                    I've known a few of the 'absent-minded professor' types. They can be very analytical, but at the same time quite naďve when it comes to human matters. My old friend, JK, for instance. Highly intelligent but at the same time foolish about the 'ways of the world.' I can readily imagine JK wandering around the streets of Liverpool looking for a non-existent address and quizzing a dozen people, never imagining for a minute that someone was 'messing him about.' I certainly don't know if Wallace fits 'this type,' but from what I've read, it strikes me as a possibility. It's a classic case, because much of the so-called 'evidence' really boils down to psychology and how we perceive Wallace's character and behavior. Meanwhile, we have Parry lurking in the shadows, never fully explained.

                    On the other hand, there is one snippet from the trial that sticks in my mind. For the 'Wallace dunnit' theory, it's difficult to ignore.
                    James Edward Rothwell, examined by Mr. Hemmerde.
                    I am a police constable of the Liverpool City
                    Police Force. I have known the accused as a collector for
                    the Prudential for about two years. I saw him on January
                    20th, about 3.30, in Maiden Lane.

                    How was he dressed ? — He was dressed in a tweed suit,
                    and a light fawn raincoat, a mackintosh.

                    Mr. Justice Wright — raincoat? — Yes, my Lord.

                    Mr. Hemmerde — What was he doing ? Did you notice
                    anything about him ? — His face was haggard and drawn,
                    and he was very distressed — unusually distressed.

                    What signs of distress did he show ? — He was dabbing
                    his eye with his coat-sleeve, and he appeared to me as if
                    he had been crying.






                    The prosecution's argument, of course, was that this strange scene took place only a short time after Wallace left Julia. (At lunch, but not when he supposedly beat her to death). The defense, as you know doubt know, suggested that Rothwell misinterpreted the event, and Wallace was simply wiping his eyes because of the cold. Regards, RP
                    it was BEFORE.

                    Read Lustgarten, for the unbridled ridicule and scorn which he pours on the abject methods of the "Jiggery-Pokery Brigade" in this regard.

                    Sayers too.
                    Last edited by RodCrosby; 02-02-2019, 11:46 PM.
                    "I make a point of never having any prejudices, and of following docilely where fact may lead me..."
                    Sherlock Holmes, in The Adventure of The Reigate Squires
                    The Accomplice Theory - 'on balance, the best explanation for one of the most puzzling murder cases in British criminal history' - Move to Murder, 2018
                    https://www.dropbox.com/s/hc1n5xu7nn...heory.pdf?dl=0

                    Compendium of Resources
                    https://forum.casebook.org/forum/soc...882#post650882

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                      Hi Herlock,

                      although I can readily understand and even appreciate why people think Wallace's behavior was contrived and suspicious (and thus he was guilty) I am intrigued by the possibility that our own suspicions are leading us astray.

                      I've known a few of the 'absent-minded professor' types. They can be very analytical, but at the same time quite naďve when it comes to human matters. My old friend, JK, for instance. Highly intelligent but at the same time foolish about the 'ways of the world.' I can readily imagine JK wandering around the streets of Liverpool looking for a non-existent address and quizzing a dozen people, never imagining for a minute that someone was 'messing him about.' I certainly don't know if Wallace fits 'this type,' but from what I've read, it strikes me as a possibility. It's a classic case, because much of the so-called 'evidence' really boils down to psychology and how we perceive Wallace's character and behavior. Meanwhile, we have Parry lurking in the shadows, never fully explained.

                      On the other hand, there is one snippet from the trial that sticks in my mind. For the 'Wallace dunnit' theory, it's difficult to ignore.
                      James Edward Rothwell, examined by Mr. Hem-
                      MERDE — I am a police constable of the Liverpool City
                      Police Force. I have known the accused as a collector for
                      the Prudential for about two years. I saw him on January
                      20th, about 3.30, in Maiden Lane.

                      How was he dressed ? — He was dressed in a tweed suit,
                      and a light fawn raincoat, a mackintosh.

                      Mr. Justice Wright — raincoat? — ^Yes, my Lord.

                      Mr. Hemmerde — ^What was he doing ? Did you notice
                      anything about him ? — His face was haggard and drawn,
                      and he was very distressed — unusually distressed.

                      What signs of distress did he show ? — He was dabbing
                      his eye with his coat-sleeve, and he appeared to me as if
                      he had been crying.


                      The prosecution's argument, of course, was that this strange scene took place only a short time after Wallace left Julia. The defense, as you know doubt know, suggested that Rothwell misinterpreted the event, and Wallace was simply wiping his eyes because of the cold. Regards, RP
                      Hi Roger,

                      Youre right of course. Wallace’s behaviour on his MGE does appear strange, suspicious even, but we can’t go anywhere near as far as saying it’s proof of guilt. It might have been in character for him. The only point that I’d make is that he was told, for the second time, by a policeman, that the address didn’t exist but still continued. Wouldn’t a Wallace of the type you describe be more likely to go with the opinion of an authority figure like a policeman. Certainly not black and white though.

                      I also think the testimony of Rothwell is far too easily dismissed as inconvenient (cue for Rod to cut and paste the testimony of those who said he appeared normal to them) Rothwell was very specific ‘he was very distressed, unusually distressed.’ If he was ‘upset’ in any way naturally he’d have composed himself before knocking on a door. He’d have then acted normally which is what he did.

                      Could he have lied and bern a part of a police conspiracy to convict Wallace? We have no reason to believe that.
                      Could he have been mistaken and that Wallace was just wiping his eyes? Possibly but I don’t recall Wallace ever admitting doing so (then again why would he recall something so apparently trivial.) Or was this the result of Wallace contemplating what he was about to do?

                      We can’t know for certain but we can’t just dismiss because it may be inconvenient.
                      Regards

                      Herlock






                      "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by RodCrosby View Post

                        it was BEFORE.

                        Read Lustgarten, for the unbridled ridicule and scorn which he pours on the abject methods of the "Jiggery-Pokery Brigade" in this regard.
                        Sayers too.
                        Why do Lustgarten and Sayers carry any more weight than anyone else?

                        oh yes...they suit your argument so they must be correct.....sorry I forgot the rules.
                        Regards

                        Herlock






                        "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                          Could he have lied and been a part of a police conspiracy to convict Wallace? We have no reason to believe that.
                          "The Liverpool City Police Force - known affectionately at the time as 'The Jiggery-Pokery Brigade'"
                          Merseyside Police Wallace File (!)

                          or Google a little...
                          Last edited by RodCrosby; 02-03-2019, 12:04 AM.
                          "I make a point of never having any prejudices, and of following docilely where fact may lead me..."
                          Sherlock Holmes, in The Adventure of The Reigate Squires
                          The Accomplice Theory - 'on balance, the best explanation for one of the most puzzling murder cases in British criminal history' - Move to Murder, 2018
                          https://www.dropbox.com/s/hc1n5xu7nn...heory.pdf?dl=0

                          Compendium of Resources
                          https://forum.casebook.org/forum/soc...882#post650882

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            Why do Lustgarten and Sayers carry any more weight than anyone else?

                            oh yes...they suit your argument so they must be correct.....sorry I forgot the rules.
                            Nope. They are acknowledged independent expert criminologists....
                            Last edited by RodCrosby; 02-03-2019, 12:08 AM.
                            "I make a point of never having any prejudices, and of following docilely where fact may lead me..."
                            Sherlock Holmes, in The Adventure of The Reigate Squires
                            The Accomplice Theory - 'on balance, the best explanation for one of the most puzzling murder cases in British criminal history' - Move to Murder, 2018
                            https://www.dropbox.com/s/hc1n5xu7nn...heory.pdf?dl=0

                            Compendium of Resources
                            https://forum.casebook.org/forum/soc...882#post650882

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by RodCrosby View Post

                              "The Liverpool City Police Force - known affectionately at the time as 'The Jiggery-Pokery Brigade'"
                              Merseyside Police Wallace File (!)

                              or Google a little...
                              Final post of the night and hopefully the last time that I’ll need to make this childishly obvious point...

                              Rod....please at least try and understand....everyone else can.

                              Just because there was corruption in the Merseyside Police we cannot assume that every single action that they took was corrupt or that even every single bobby on the beat was corrupt. This is self-serving nonsense.

                              Evenin’ all.
                              Regards

                              Herlock






                              "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                              Comment


                              • "It was an episode without point, without bearing, without force; it defies connection with reasoning and logic; it detracts by its almost imbecile irrelevance from the dignity with which the trial was otherwise invested...

                                The notion is farcical, and I doubt whether Hemmerde relished the job of presenting such a witness. He was never afraid to criticise police follies, and one can imagine the blistering comment he would have made if this particular episode had occurred in a case which he had been trying in his capacity as Recorder of the city.

                                'I wonder,' Oliver said, 'if it occurred to you that your eyes could water with the cold?'

                                The constable assented.

                                'And you might rub them?' '

                                Quite possible.' "

                                Verdict in Dispute, Edgar Lustgarten (1950)
                                Last edited by RodCrosby; 02-03-2019, 12:31 AM.
                                "I make a point of never having any prejudices, and of following docilely where fact may lead me..."
                                Sherlock Holmes, in The Adventure of The Reigate Squires
                                The Accomplice Theory - 'on balance, the best explanation for one of the most puzzling murder cases in British criminal history' - Move to Murder, 2018
                                https://www.dropbox.com/s/hc1n5xu7nn...heory.pdf?dl=0

                                Compendium of Resources
                                https://forum.casebook.org/forum/soc...882#post650882

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X