Tweet
Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer
View Post
I'm not biased... That's why I've argued so many different solutions... This is what I think is right at present.
But I am of course.
I do think solo Wallace is disproven because there is too much about the idea that doesn't work very well. For example, he's clearly attempted to frame Gordon Parry for the crime. This is not helpful, to limit the suspects so much, not unless you know that you can frame the person because you know they made the call. This is just one example, but there are quite a few.
The only thing disproven is that Parry killed Julia. Then, as we can see that the evidence shows that it’s next to impossible for Parry to have done anything crime-related that night (like meeting up with anyone after the crime) then this makes his participation much less likely.
I haven’t said that he definitely tried to frame Parry. What I’ve said is this - it’s quite possible that William pointed the police in his direction. The whole crime isn’t based on this and it doesn’t crumble if nothing comes of it. A guilty William would have had a level of confidence that he could have fooled the police - the Qualtrough call, the search for MGE, the lack of blood on him, the apparent lack of motive, his previous good character. He wasn’t relying on Parry being arrested but it would have been a bonus. You are talking as if Wallace was staking everything on Parry being charged which is nonsense because he would obviously have accepted the very reasonable chance that Parry might have had a solid alibi.
Rod's theory is disproven to the near 0% possibility degree. Solo Wallace is not, but it is in fact very unlikely.
No one, and I mean no one, who has ever read the Wallace threads can ever accuse me of being biased in favour of Rod! But the Accomplice Theory simply hasn’t been disproved. Personally I don’t think it likely but disproved...no way. How? - Man turns up pretending to be Qualtrough - he asks to go to the loo but goes and empties the box - Julia catches him - he takes her back into the Parlour and tells if if she keeps quiet she won’t get hurt - he thinks she’s scared enough to do as he says - he goes to look for more cash by pulling off the cupboard door - Julia tries to sneak out - he pulls her into the Parlour and kills her.
Now you can throw loads of questions and doubts on that scenario but you cannot categorically disprove it.
You keep saying that Wallace is very unlikely and I’ll keep saying that it’s overwhelmingly likely and by far the most sensible theory. We’re just repeating ourselves.
I don't buy Parry being confused about his days as a possibility. I legitimately and truly do not think it is in the realm of a reasonable answer. It's reaching. THIS I will state as fact not opinion. I guess he knows what brand of cigarettes he bought on the day of the killing but when it comes to the day prior to that he has total amnesia or something... Nah... I will stand by it being factual that he lied.
Then if we are truly accurate about logic you are wrong. It’s something that simply cannot be stated as a fact. The fact that he had no need to lie (never mind a moronic one) and the obvious fact that he couldn’t have even hoped to have gotten away with it at least gives room for doubt. And even if he had lied it STILL doesn’t mean that he lied because he made the call. And so as a point that one of the main ones used against Parry it’s as weak as water.
Clearly it benefits anyone to bolt the front door. Moreso intruders funny enough, but also William to an extent...
Do you think they're actually thinking "well we're in the house with a dead body, might as well not take 2 seconds to bolt the doors since only William has a key [they apparently know this I guess] and he won't be back for at least X amount of time so meh, what's the point?", does that sound like something people would do in that situation?
Come on. The people in that story hadn’t a clue how long they’d got before anyone came back. Your accomplices however were working to a plan by Parry who’d have had a very reasonable earliest time for William to have returned so he’d have said something like “you need to be out of there by 8.15 at the latest or even . If they had gone in just after William left they’d have had an hour! If they’d have gone in at around 7.30 as per Qualtrough they would have had 45 mins with zero chance of anyone entering with a key.
Why is William turning off the lights? I thought you said the thick Edwardian curtains would prevent light from escaping. The lights being down is beneficial for anyone. William though would not ever turn on the parlour lights, so he would only have turned down the kitchen lights anyway... ... But I guess he didn't think to turn down the ones upstairs but meh.
The lights upstairs were dim ones in the bathroom and the middle bedroom which wouldn't have been seen from outside so this doesn’t affect anything I’ve said. There was also no light in the hallway.
So at what point do these guys turn out the lights. Before the murder just to make it more difficult for themselves in an unfamiliar house? Or after the murder just as they are about to scarper by the back entrance. It was commented on that the back kitchen curtains did let out light so the back door is opened, two men step out, the door is closed. Is two seconds of backdoor light going to have any possible baring on events? Of course not. The lights point very obviously to Wallace.
I do think people stayed in the house for a short time after her murder.
You have no evidence for that though.
It is quite proven William was familiar with some parts of Mossley Hill/Allerton. Specifically Green Lane, the cinema (albeit he visited just the once), and Calderstones Park. There is not any proof he is familiar with Menlove Avenue and Gardens. He knows of Avenue, and it borders Calderstones park. He knows where it is too (he knows it's somewhere near Calderstones, and has a rough idea of how he can get there by tram as relayed to Caird). But there's nothing disputing that he wasn't very familiar with the area in general. As he said he would make inquiries once he got in the general vicinity.
Two people gave him advice on how to get there. Caird was one of them. He ignored his advice. I’ve never said that he knew every street but he certainly knew how to get to the area that he was intending. There can be no doubt on this. He was also familiar with the general area but with few specifics. And so describing himself as a complete stranger was, as Churchill once said “a terminological inexactitude.” A lie.
You do realize, simply going down to some real address in Sefton Park, knocking on a door, asking if Mr. Wilson is there for a business appointment, being told no, then going home... That's his alibi secured... Lol.
But I am of course.
I do think solo Wallace is disproven because there is too much about the idea that doesn't work very well. For example, he's clearly attempted to frame Gordon Parry for the crime. This is not helpful, to limit the suspects so much, not unless you know that you can frame the person because you know they made the call. This is just one example, but there are quite a few.
The only thing disproven is that Parry killed Julia. Then, as we can see that the evidence shows that it’s next to impossible for Parry to have done anything crime-related that night (like meeting up with anyone after the crime) then this makes his participation much less likely.
I haven’t said that he definitely tried to frame Parry. What I’ve said is this - it’s quite possible that William pointed the police in his direction. The whole crime isn’t based on this and it doesn’t crumble if nothing comes of it. A guilty William would have had a level of confidence that he could have fooled the police - the Qualtrough call, the search for MGE, the lack of blood on him, the apparent lack of motive, his previous good character. He wasn’t relying on Parry being arrested but it would have been a bonus. You are talking as if Wallace was staking everything on Parry being charged which is nonsense because he would obviously have accepted the very reasonable chance that Parry might have had a solid alibi.
Rod's theory is disproven to the near 0% possibility degree. Solo Wallace is not, but it is in fact very unlikely.
No one, and I mean no one, who has ever read the Wallace threads can ever accuse me of being biased in favour of Rod! But the Accomplice Theory simply hasn’t been disproved. Personally I don’t think it likely but disproved...no way. How? - Man turns up pretending to be Qualtrough - he asks to go to the loo but goes and empties the box - Julia catches him - he takes her back into the Parlour and tells if if she keeps quiet she won’t get hurt - he thinks she’s scared enough to do as he says - he goes to look for more cash by pulling off the cupboard door - Julia tries to sneak out - he pulls her into the Parlour and kills her.
Now you can throw loads of questions and doubts on that scenario but you cannot categorically disprove it.
You keep saying that Wallace is very unlikely and I’ll keep saying that it’s overwhelmingly likely and by far the most sensible theory. We’re just repeating ourselves.
I don't buy Parry being confused about his days as a possibility. I legitimately and truly do not think it is in the realm of a reasonable answer. It's reaching. THIS I will state as fact not opinion. I guess he knows what brand of cigarettes he bought on the day of the killing but when it comes to the day prior to that he has total amnesia or something... Nah... I will stand by it being factual that he lied.
Then if we are truly accurate about logic you are wrong. It’s something that simply cannot be stated as a fact. The fact that he had no need to lie (never mind a moronic one) and the obvious fact that he couldn’t have even hoped to have gotten away with it at least gives room for doubt. And even if he had lied it STILL doesn’t mean that he lied because he made the call. And so as a point that one of the main ones used against Parry it’s as weak as water.
Clearly it benefits anyone to bolt the front door. Moreso intruders funny enough, but also William to an extent...
Do you think they're actually thinking "well we're in the house with a dead body, might as well not take 2 seconds to bolt the doors since only William has a key [they apparently know this I guess] and he won't be back for at least X amount of time so meh, what's the point?", does that sound like something people would do in that situation?
Come on. The people in that story hadn’t a clue how long they’d got before anyone came back. Your accomplices however were working to a plan by Parry who’d have had a very reasonable earliest time for William to have returned so he’d have said something like “you need to be out of there by 8.15 at the latest or even . If they had gone in just after William left they’d have had an hour! If they’d have gone in at around 7.30 as per Qualtrough they would have had 45 mins with zero chance of anyone entering with a key.
Why is William turning off the lights? I thought you said the thick Edwardian curtains would prevent light from escaping. The lights being down is beneficial for anyone. William though would not ever turn on the parlour lights, so he would only have turned down the kitchen lights anyway... ... But I guess he didn't think to turn down the ones upstairs but meh.
The lights upstairs were dim ones in the bathroom and the middle bedroom which wouldn't have been seen from outside so this doesn’t affect anything I’ve said. There was also no light in the hallway.
So at what point do these guys turn out the lights. Before the murder just to make it more difficult for themselves in an unfamiliar house? Or after the murder just as they are about to scarper by the back entrance. It was commented on that the back kitchen curtains did let out light so the back door is opened, two men step out, the door is closed. Is two seconds of backdoor light going to have any possible baring on events? Of course not. The lights point very obviously to Wallace.
I do think people stayed in the house for a short time after her murder.
You have no evidence for that though.
It is quite proven William was familiar with some parts of Mossley Hill/Allerton. Specifically Green Lane, the cinema (albeit he visited just the once), and Calderstones Park. There is not any proof he is familiar with Menlove Avenue and Gardens. He knows of Avenue, and it borders Calderstones park. He knows where it is too (he knows it's somewhere near Calderstones, and has a rough idea of how he can get there by tram as relayed to Caird). But there's nothing disputing that he wasn't very familiar with the area in general. As he said he would make inquiries once he got in the general vicinity.
Two people gave him advice on how to get there. Caird was one of them. He ignored his advice. I’ve never said that he knew every street but he certainly knew how to get to the area that he was intending. There can be no doubt on this. He was also familiar with the general area but with few specifics. And so describing himself as a complete stranger was, as Churchill once said “a terminological inexactitude.” A lie.
You do realize, simply going down to some real address in Sefton Park, knocking on a door, asking if Mr. Wilson is there for a business appointment, being told no, then going home... That's his alibi secured... Lol.
Comment