Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

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

  • "Produce the One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable fact which exonerates Wallace".

    Will you accept three instead of one?

    Wallace didn't have the MOTIVE, TIME or PHYSICAL ABILITY to murder his wife.

    'nuff said?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ansonman View Post
      "Produce the One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable fact which exonerates Wallace".

      Will you accept three instead of one?

      Wallace didn't have the MOTIVE, TIME or PHYSICAL ABILITY to murder his wife.

      'nuff said?
      Not even close.

      How do you know that he had no motive? How do you know what was in Wallace’s mind or what went on behind closed doors? We have some evidence that the Wallace’s marriage might not have been contented one that others mentioned. Wallace himself took medication for depression. Husbands kill wives. No one suspected Crippen until he killed Cora. We only discovered a motive after he was caught.

      We can’t know exactly how much time Wallace had to kill Julia. He probably had around 10-12 minutes. How long does it take to strike someone around 11 times? 30 seconds? A minute? What else did he have to do? Turn the gas jets down, put his coat on? He could even have emptied the cash box earlier in the day. Using the mackintosh could have prevented him getting blood on him. One forensic expert even suggests that it’s entirely possible that the killer got no blood on him. It’s noticeable that there was only blood on the left hand side of the room as you look in so none in the direction where the kille would have been.

      How much ‘physical ability’ would it take to hit a frail 70 with a bar. Wallace wasn’t disabled. He walked miles each day in all weathers.

      So those three can easily be dismissed. I asked for Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable facts. There are none. Even Antony, who doesn’t favour a guilty Wallace, would confirm this. Anyone can say “I don’t think that Wallace was guilty” and that’s fine. We all have opinions. But Wallace can’t be dismissed on evidence.
      Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 09-15-2021, 07:18 PM.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes



      “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

      “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by RodCrosby View Post
        Yawn... I said you'd display your ignorance.
        ‘Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt.. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.’ Viscount Sankey in Woolmington v DPP [1935]

        Keep on whittling in the dark...
        And that proves that a scenario equates to a solution how?

        Another meaningless cut and paste job. Is that all you have? Post as many pointless quotes as you like but you still haven’t provided the incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact the exonerates Wallace. In your own time.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes



        “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

        “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

        Comment


        • Nor would any rational person - let alone a man of science, like Wallace - embark upon a plot so alleged by the Prosecution that it amounted to nine-or-ten rounds of Russian-roulette.

          Mathematics alone demonstrates that Wallace was, beyond reasonable doubt, NOT guilty. [meaning, overwhelmingly UNLIKELY to be guilty]

          But of course, that won't satisfy someone so removed from the facts and reality that he thinks the Judges are wrong, the Prosecution was incompetent, and the Burden of Proof is reversed....

          "Wallace must prove himself not guilty, to ME, and ME alone !!!!"

          Get real...
          Last edited by RodCrosby; 09-15-2021, 07:54 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by RodCrosby View Post
            Nor would any rational person - let alone a man of science, like Wallace - embark upon a plot so alleged by the Prosecution that it amounted to nine-or-ten rounds of Russian-roulette.

            Mathematics alone demonstrates that Wallace was, beyond reasonable doubt, NOT guilty. [meaning, overwhelmingly UNLIKELY to be guilty]

            But of course, that won't satisfy someone so removed from the facts and reality that he thinks the Judges are wrong, the Prosecution was incompetent, and the Burden of Proof is reversed....

            "Wallace must prove himself not guilty, to ME, and ME alone !!!!"

            Get real...
            Very silly stuff. I find your last comment supremely ironic coming from someone who believes the case to be solved because you think that you know what happened.

            You can’t prove or disprove guilt by mathematics anymore than you can by carpentry.

            But of course, that won't satisfy someone so removed from the facts and reality that he thinks the Judges are wrong, the Prosecution was incompetent, and the Burden of Proof is reversed....
            We’re not in court and we aren’t undertaking a police investigation. We are interpreting events that occurred 90 years ago, the majority of which can be interpreted in more than one way. You certainly wouldn't be able to prove the accomplice theory in a court of law so why do I have to prove Wallace guilty to court of law standards? All I’m saying is that in my opinion I believe Wallace to have been the likeliest killer. I accept the possibility that he might have been innocent. You’re the one stating your opinion as if it’s a fact. You really should learn the difference. It’s important.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes



            “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

            “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post


              We’re not in court and we aren’t undertaking a police investigation.
              I told you 4 years ago. You can follow your fantasy case, based on nothing but Prejudice, Fancy, Assumption, Superstition....

              And I will discuss the Real case, based on the Evidence, and the Law.

              So gracious of you to admit (once more) that you're only interested in your fantasy case....

              Yawn... [fish in a barrel gets boring soon enough]
              Last edited by RodCrosby; 09-15-2021, 08:55 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by RodCrosby View Post

                I told you 4 years ago. You can follow your fantasy case, based on nothing but Prejudice, Fancy, Assumption, Superstition....

                And I will discuss the Real case, based on the Evidence, and the Law.

                So gracious of you to admit (once more) that you're only interested in your fantasy case....

                Yawn...
                You’ve posted some evidence? I must have missed it? Where did you post it? Could you provide a link to it? All that you appear to have done is some nifty cut and pasting, as ever, of something that we already know.

                There’s nothing ‘fantasy’ about it. We are all interpreting and speculating. The difference is that most people can tell the difference between this and fact. Opinion and fact. Scenario and solution.

                So, you’ve given your opinion, which is that the accomplice theory is the likeliest, in your opinion, solution. Some people agree with you and some people don’t.

                So that’s where we stand. Those are the facts. We have an unsolved case that will remain unsolved unless new evidence surfaces. That is also a fact.

                Its much easier when we get these definitions correct don’t you think?
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ansonman View Post
                  "Produce the One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable fact which exonerates Wallace".

                  Will you accept three instead of one?

                  Wallace didn't have the MOTIVE, TIME or PHYSICAL ABILITY to murder his wife.

                  'nuff said?
                  Wow, as sweeping statements go, this is an absolute doozy.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by barnflatwyngarde View Post

                    Wow, as sweeping statements go, this is an absolute doozy.
                    You’ll find a lot of them in this case Barn. I don’t know why some have an issue with simply saying “we don’t know?”
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes



                    “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                    “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      You’ll find a lot of them in this case Barn. I don’t know why some have an issue with simply saying “we don’t know?”
                      Absolutely Herlock, that's why the case is still a fascinating mystery close to a hundred years later.

                      It seems to be regarded as a weakness if people say that having looked at all the evidence, they still, simply don't know.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by barnflatwyngarde View Post

                        Absolutely Herlock, that's why the case is still a fascinating mystery close to a hundred years later.

                        It seems to be regarded as a weakness if people say that having looked at all the evidence, they still, simply don't know.
                        We just don’t know Barn. You can’t just look at a crime and come up with a possible scenario for what might have happened and, because you like it, claim that the case is now solved. Who could possibly think like that? It’s not even approaching a ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ situation because a list of doubts and objections can be produced.
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes



                        “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                        “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                        Comment


                        • a) it's not just me who likes it. TWO authors have adopted it in their books on the Wallace case. The first used it without permission or attribution, and wove his own baseless, fantastical theory around my key insight that there were two people involved, Parry making the call and A.N. Other killing Julia, with Parry being the getaway man via the route that I had identified. Antony Brown is in fact the second author to adopt it as his preferred solution, in a more sober and cautious manner, as we both prefer, sticking to the known facts, and reasonable inferences. And of course, it is now the most popular theory according to the CCJ poll.

                          b) Rather than "come up" with the theory, I abduced it in 2008 strictly from the available evidence. The witness statements, both the formal ones from 1931, and informal statements given by Parkes, Parry and others years later. "Abduction" is the proper name for the process adopted by the Great Detective in arriving at the Correct Solution, and I slavishly follow his methods... The circumstantial evidence ["often the best evidence"] against Parry (in his correct role as prime mover, but not killer) points all one way, whereas all the supposed circumstantial evidence against Wallace also has an innocent explanation, and as the trial Judge told the Jury, was of "no use" to them in establishing his guilt, for that reason...

                          c) If you "accept the possibility that Wallace might have been innocent", STOP there. There was no evidence of his guilt, as the trial Judge intimated, and the Appeal Judges found. "Likeliest" is irrelevant. Not all murdered wives are killed by their husbands.
                          Last edited by RodCrosby; 09-16-2021, 02:15 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by RodCrosby View Post
                            a) it's not just me who likes it. TWO authors have adopted it in their books on the Wallace case. The first used it without permission or attribution, and wove his own baseless, fantastical theory around my key insight that there were two people involved, Parry making the call and A.N. Other killing Julia, with Parry being the getaway man via the route that I had identified. Antony Brown is in fact the second author to adopt it as his preferred solution, in a more sober and cautious manner, as we both prefer, sticking to the known facts, and reasonable inferences. And of course, it is now the most popular theory according to the CCJ poll.

                            Yes, it’s whole 8% ahead of Wallace being guilty so it’s hardly overwhelming is it especially considering that the author of the book itself favours the accomplice theory. If you consider that ‘case solved’ then you must have different criteria to the rest of the world.

                            b) Rather than "come up" with the theory, I abduced it in 2008 strictly from the available evidence. The witness statements, both the formal ones from 1931, and informal statements given by Parkes, Parry and others years later. "Abduction" is the proper name for the process adopted by the Great Detective in arriving at the Correct Solution, and I slavishly follow his methods... The circumstantial evidence ["often the best evidence"] against Parry (in his correct role as prime mover, but not killer) points all one way, whereas all the supposed circumstantial evidence against Wallace also has an innocent explanation, and as the trial Judge told the Jury, was of "no use" to them in establishing his guilt, for that reason...

                            Strange that you ‘slavishly’ follow the methods of the Great Detective because when I mentioned my interest in Holmes a few years ago you thought it was a subject for mockery. But it’s ok for you, fine. The evidence doesn’t point any way as you claim. For example Parry could have passed on the information to someone else and those other 2 planned and executed it. Also as WWH suggested perhaps 2 people went to Wolverton Street that night? As long as there are alternatives that cannot be categorically dismissed it’s blatantly inaccurate to say that the case was ‘solved.’ And I have to add that any theory that relies heavily on Parkes is in trouble from the off as his story is probably the least believable in the history of UK crime.

                            c) If you "accept the possibility that Wallace might have been innocent", STOP there. There was no evidence of his guilt, as the trial Judge intimated, and the Appeal Judges found. "Likeliest" is irrelevant. Not all murdered wives are killed by their husbands.

                            Simply parroting the Appeal Court is vacuous, irrelevant and extremely boring. I’ll say for the last time (hopefully) I don’t care about the court of appeal. They made the correct call based on the evidence presented at the trial. We’ve now had time to re-examine. Hemmerde was poor. Wallace was let off the hook.
                            There is circumstantial evidence against Wallace. Far more than against Parry who’s behaviour than night looked absolutely nothing like a guilty man. Certainly not a getaway driver. Wallace couldn’t have looked more guilty if he’d tried. If people stopped feeling the need to bend over backwards to defend him they could see what was in front of them. Could your accomplice theory get Parry convicted in a court of law? The answer is an overwhelming no. So why do I have to prove Wallace’s guilt to court of law standards? Let’s leave the goalposts where they are shall we?
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes



                            “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                            “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                            Comment


                            • . my key insight that there were two people involved,
                              You don’t like any mention of Hussey do you?
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes



                              “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                              “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                              Comment


                              • So you establish, yet again

                                You can't read - Hussey makes clear he thinks the killer was known to Julia Wallace, and "phoner and murderer were identical!" [p.112] The Accomplice Theory rejects both those propositions...
                                You don't understand circumstantial evidence - the Judge correctly said it's of "no use" if it points both ways...
                                You don't understand abductive reasoning - inventing alternatives or elaborations out of thin air does not alter the "best explanation".

                                And I did't mock Sherlock Holmes. I am his most devoted student. Clueless wanabees and manqués, on the other hand, are fair game...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X