Hi Paul,
Your post #927 can be turned on its head.
Was the 'private information' real or not? You have to make a good case for it being real, and you haven't done that.
Now, I neither believe nor disbelieve the accuracy and truthfulness of Macnaghten. I am simply trying to treat a potentially valuable historical source fairly, trying to assess what the source tells me, and trying to decide whether it's trustworthy or not.
You, on the other hand, have decided on no evidence whatsoever that the 'private information' was real. Why? Because you desperately want it to be real so you can keep one of Ripperology's sacred cows from the slaughterhouse.
Regards,
Simon
Your post #927 can be turned on its head.
Was the 'private information' real or not? You have to make a good case for it being real, and you haven't done that.
Now, I neither believe nor disbelieve the accuracy and truthfulness of Macnaghten. I am simply trying to treat a potentially valuable historical source fairly, trying to assess what the source tells me, and trying to decide whether it's trustworthy or not.
You, on the other hand, have decided on no evidence whatsoever that the 'private information' was real. Why? Because you desperately want it to be real so you can keep one of Ripperology's sacred cows from the slaughterhouse.
Regards,
Simon
Comment