Ben writes:
"That's as far as I am going, Fish. So what's the problem?"
The problem is, Ben, that you cannot both state that Hutch´s testimony was an impossibility and that you are not going any further than to say that there is a good case to be made for him being a liar. It adds up exceptionally poorly. But long as you acknowledge that it cannot be stated that Hutch´s testimony must have been false, I have no problems at all - then we are in total agreement.
And it matters very little, Ben, what wiews Sugden and Evans hold or have held on Ripper suspects. The only thing I am trying to show here is that three of the most prominent Ripper authors have no objections at all to the suggestion that Hutch´s testimony could have been perceived in the way he suggested himself. THAT is what I am getting at here, as you will have understood perfectly well.
This thread has taken on the likeness of some weird secteristic ritual at times, and I don´t like that at all. I think that some sobriety was called for, and that was why I quoted Evans, Rumbelow and Sugden. Ultimately, I think it is a sad thing that one has to do that to reach some recognition for points that should be extremely obvious without the support of any "authority".
The best,
Fisherman
"That's as far as I am going, Fish. So what's the problem?"
The problem is, Ben, that you cannot both state that Hutch´s testimony was an impossibility and that you are not going any further than to say that there is a good case to be made for him being a liar. It adds up exceptionally poorly. But long as you acknowledge that it cannot be stated that Hutch´s testimony must have been false, I have no problems at all - then we are in total agreement.
And it matters very little, Ben, what wiews Sugden and Evans hold or have held on Ripper suspects. The only thing I am trying to show here is that three of the most prominent Ripper authors have no objections at all to the suggestion that Hutch´s testimony could have been perceived in the way he suggested himself. THAT is what I am getting at here, as you will have understood perfectly well.
This thread has taken on the likeness of some weird secteristic ritual at times, and I don´t like that at all. I think that some sobriety was called for, and that was why I quoted Evans, Rumbelow and Sugden. Ultimately, I think it is a sad thing that one has to do that to reach some recognition for points that should be extremely obvious without the support of any "authority".
The best,
Fisherman
Comment