** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

[RodCrosby]

The moniker Cacques Jlouseau is still free... No-one could mock you for that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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...

Oh dear. You were doing so well. A couple of posts without resorting to personal insults. I'm deeply hurt.

There is nothing about the accomplice theory that admits of only one interpretation so your silly circumstantial evidence point doesn't stand up.

You didn't use abductive reasoning. You just filled the gaps and then said "yeah, that will do." But hey...I notice that you've done a little sneaky sidestep. "Best explanation?" Where has that come from? You've always falsely claimed that the case was solved. So you're rolling back a little? Keep rolling and you might just get there in the end.

[RodCrosby]

It's not an insult to call out outrageous falsehood. Hussey did NOT invent the Accomplice Theory. The Accomplice Theory rejects the Hussey Theory, as anyone who can read can see for themselves. I believe Sherlock Holmes could read...

"Best explanation?" Where has that come from?. Errr, from the definition of "Abductive Reasoning"! I told you you didn't understand the first thing about it. "Explanation" is a synonym for "Solution", btw.

Save up for a thesaurus.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's not an insult to call out outrageous falsehood. Hussey did NOT invent the Accomplice Theory. The Accomplice Theory rejects the Hussey Theory, as anyone who can read can see for themselves. I believe Sherlock Holmes could read...

"Best explanation?" Where has that come from?. Errr, from the definition of "Abductive Reasoning"! I told you you didn't understand the first thing about it. "Explanation" is a synonym for "Solution", btw.

Save up for a thesaurus.

It’s not a falsehood to say that you took the Hussey theory and adapted it slightly. It’s a fact.

If someone says “this is the best explanation that we have” it doesn’t follow that it must be the correct explanation. The correct explanation might not have been arrived at yet. You’re playing silly games Rod.

What you have come up with is simply a scenario. Nothing more. It’s a ‘possible’ at best. You can’t be misunderstanding this concept surely? You appear to be happy to quote Antony selectively. He does not say that the accomplice theory is the solution to the case. He believes it to be the likeliest of the ‘possibles.’ He admits that there are issues with it. He also admits that it’s not proven that Wallace was innocent. This isn’t difficult stuff.

Anyway, I hope I’ve cleared this up for you.

[RodCrosby]

It’s not a falsehood to say that you took the Hussey theory and adapted it slightly. It’s a fact.

Nope. Just another falsehood, which can be easily disproved.

I had not even read Hussey's book when I posited my embryonic Correct Solution in 2008...

I had only read Murphy (ironically the one which took me to the jackpot, because I suddenly saw the Correct Solution which he, in his blinkered stupidity, had missed...), and

Wilkes, which, although a true tour de force of a book, had narrowly missed the Correct Solution (owing, understandably, to the unavailability of the witness statements in 1981, which subsequently became available to blind-as-a-bat Murphy)

I explained all this to :drum roll Mark Russell (before he embarrassed himself so abjectly) and asked him which was the book I should buy next. I listed all the unread, including Hussey....

You see, as a seasoned, honest, serious researcher, featured in books, on TV, radio, etc. I am alert to the fact that many years later someone might try to pull this kind of crap on me.

Unluckily for you, I keep a public paper-trail of the Truth....

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nope. Just another falsehood, which can be easily disproved.

I had not even read Hussey's book when I posited my embryonic Correct Solution in 2008...

I had only read Murphy (ironically the one which took me to the jackpot, because I suddenly saw the Correct Solution which he, in his blinkered stupidity, had missed...), and

Wilkes, which, although a true tour de force of a book, had narrowly missed the Correct Solution (owing, understandably, to the unavailability of the witness statements in 1981, which subsequently became available to blind-as-a-bat Murphy)

I explained all this to :drum roll Mark Russell (before he embarrassed himself) and asked him which was the book I should buy next. I listed all the unread, including Hussey....

You see, as a seasoned, honest, serious researcher, featured in books, on TV, radio, etc. I am alert to the fact that many years later someone might try to pull this crap on me. Unluckily for you, I keep a public paper-trail of the Truth....

How would you go about proving that you hadn’t read Hussey?

[RodCrosby]

I can't prove a negative. No-one can.

So you still don't understand EVIDENCE ?

Thanks again for your revelations...

[Herlock Sholmes]

I can't prove a negative. No-one can.

So you still don't understand EVIDENCE ?

Thanks again for your revelations...

I was making a point. Keep up Rod.

We only have your word that you hadn’t read Hussey.

I don’t believe you.

So that’s where we stand on that issue.

[RodCrosby]

I was making a point. Keep up Rod.

We only have your word that you hadn’t read Hussey.

I don’t believe you.

So that’s where we stand on that issue.

Why would I falsely deny reading a book, which we have already proven from your previous LIES, has no bearing on, and is in fact 180 degrees opposite from my position? What benefit is there to me not to tell the Truth about a book that I trounce in my analysis?

Antony Brown is excellent in exploding this kind of doublethink doubletalk bullshit in relation to the Wallace Case...

Your assistance in that is noted. [titters]

Your "input" merely ensured that Wallace was eliminated as a seriously candidate from the get-go in the Second Edition, whereas he survived almost to the final furlong in the First Edition, without your mewlings...

Keep up the great work, Herlock !

"If you sit down at the poker table and can't see who the sucker is - the sucker is YOU....."

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why would I falsely deny reading a book, which we have already proven from your previous LIES, has no bearing, and is in fact 180 degrees opposite from my position? What benefit is there to me not to tell the Truth about a book that I trounce in my analysis?

Antony Brown is excellent in exploding this kind of doublethink doubletalk bullshit in relation to the Wallace Case...

Your assistance in that is noted. [titters]

Your "input" merely ensured that Wallace was eliminated as a seriously candidate from the get-go in the Second Edition, whereas he survived almost to the final furlong in the First Edition, without your mewlings...

Keep up the great work, Herlock !

"If you sit down at the poker table and can't see who the sucker is - the sucker is YOU....."

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No need to get hysterical Rod. Calm down.

Put very simply, you would deny reading Hussey because you don’t want to admit that you saw his theory and changed it slightly to arrive at your own. There’s nothing to be embarrassed about. It happens all the time.

Anyway, on the subject of Wallace, and as you seem keen on lecturing about ‘correctness,’ I’ll ask again if you could point out to me the Incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact or facts that categorically disprove the possibility that Wallace murdered Julia? And I’d be grateful if you avoided your ‘interpretation’, your ‘opinion’ and anymore cutting and pasting of quotes about the Appeal Court.

[RodCrosby]

Put very simply, you would deny reading Hussey because you don’t want to admit that you saw his theory and changed it slightly to arrive at your own.

So why did I freely admit I had read Wilkes? The same applies....

Run away and play.

Only ADULT intellects are accepted here...

Yawn...

[Herlock Sholmes]

So why did I freely admit I had read Wilkes? The same applies....

Run away and play.

Only ADULT intellects are accepted here...

Yawn...

Another strange answer. Also, you appear to have forgotten to post the Incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact or facts that prove Wallace to have been innocent.

I’ll let you have have think about it.

Goodnight Rodders.

[RodCrosby]

Prove a negative?

LOL. Run away and play...

That's not how it works, nor can it ever work.

Only ADULT intellects are admitted here.

Bye-bye....

[jmenges]

Rod’s gone.

Carry on.

JM

[ColdCaseJury]

Wow, I literally go for a long walk (finishing off The Ridgeway) and there are pages of comment! There's more heat than light. Let's go back to 1) the call and then 2) the murder.

1) Wallace cannot be eliminated from making the call the call. Ditto for Parry. They are both suspects.

2) Some people eliminate Wallace from the murder (time constraints, lack of blood etc), although I think it is possible he did it. Parry could not have killed (given Olivia Brine). However, an accomplice could have.

So, there are two basic theories. I think Accomplice is the leading non-Wallace theory and Wallace alone is the leading opposite theory.

Now, contra Murphy and Russell, the Appeal Court Judges did not believe any piece of evidence could only be interpreted in terms of Wallace's guilt. Neither did they find the set of circumstantial evidence was sufficient to convict with the certainty that is necessary BUT that does not mean he was actually innocent.

As husband with a murdered wife in his parlour, Wallace starts with the highest prior probability (about 60-65% based on Home Office stats I got). This means that if you think the EVIDENCE points equally to innocence or gulit, your verdict, should be Wallace with a posterior probability of 60-65%. If you think the evidence points to Wallace, then your level of belief will increase (say to 85%). If, as I do, you interpret the evidence in Wallace's favour, then the posterior probability might drop to, say, 45%, meaning you find Wallace innocent, but it's a close call.

However, unless you make extreme judgements, e.g. it was impossible for Wallace to have killed his wife in the time available (say) then Wallace will always be in the frame.

On Hussey, my view is that he clearly thinks Parry was the culprit (sneak thief) and did not involve an accomplice. It is an important book in that he goes into to detail how Parry might have done it. Then comes the police file (Brine), and then Rod.

Sorry to be the dull one...

P.S. You can eliminate Wallace if you accept Parkes with 100% confidence. But as it was not fully corroborated I cannot see how this can be done.