Ben:
"We are now in possession of proof that the police both communicated with the Echo and supplied them with accurate information."
You may think that this is so, but you somehow seem to disregard the very obvious possibility that the police supplied only parts of the information they had, thus not giving the full picture. But it´s up to you if you wish to do so.
"Any newspaper that finds it necessary to pass critical, patronising commentary on a witness’ appearance with references to a “doleful looking body” with “negress-type features” doesn’t strike me as being very objective."
Agreed - but if you can set your moral indignation aside for a second, you may need to ask yourself WHY they reported what they reported, and what implications it may have.
"There is no evidence of any doubt being attached to either Lewis or Prater, and to claim that three-day late Hutchinson is more reliable is to be at odds with both the police view at the time, and frankly, overwhelming common sense."
Many an obvious thing lacks the evidence to prove it, as you well know, Ben. And being three days late should have nothing to do with the reliability of the evidence itself, as I have painstakingly pointed out to you numerous times by now. You are welcome to your view, but please do not disregard that what you dub common sense is sometimes not regarded like that by other, perfectly logical and discerning posters.
"We’ve already established from a reference to a Birmingham suspect that Lewis’ evidence was still taken seriously. The suspect was described as having a gentlemanly appearance and resembled a description supplied "at the late inquest".
I´m afraid that "we" have established no such thing, since it was said that the man in question was seen in company with Kelly.
"I don’t think there’s anything “too good to be true” about Lewis’ Wednesday encounter. It wasn’t presented as soon as the inquest terminated"
But it is not as if all evidence given after an inquest is automatically wrong, Ben. If you keep pursuing that line, it will look very much as if you are desperate to tarnish Hutchinson at any cost.
And you would never do such a thing, would you?
The best,
Fisherman
"We are now in possession of proof that the police both communicated with the Echo and supplied them with accurate information."
You may think that this is so, but you somehow seem to disregard the very obvious possibility that the police supplied only parts of the information they had, thus not giving the full picture. But it´s up to you if you wish to do so.
"Any newspaper that finds it necessary to pass critical, patronising commentary on a witness’ appearance with references to a “doleful looking body” with “negress-type features” doesn’t strike me as being very objective."
Agreed - but if you can set your moral indignation aside for a second, you may need to ask yourself WHY they reported what they reported, and what implications it may have.
"There is no evidence of any doubt being attached to either Lewis or Prater, and to claim that three-day late Hutchinson is more reliable is to be at odds with both the police view at the time, and frankly, overwhelming common sense."
Many an obvious thing lacks the evidence to prove it, as you well know, Ben. And being three days late should have nothing to do with the reliability of the evidence itself, as I have painstakingly pointed out to you numerous times by now. You are welcome to your view, but please do not disregard that what you dub common sense is sometimes not regarded like that by other, perfectly logical and discerning posters.
"We’ve already established from a reference to a Birmingham suspect that Lewis’ evidence was still taken seriously. The suspect was described as having a gentlemanly appearance and resembled a description supplied "at the late inquest".
I´m afraid that "we" have established no such thing, since it was said that the man in question was seen in company with Kelly.
"I don’t think there’s anything “too good to be true” about Lewis’ Wednesday encounter. It wasn’t presented as soon as the inquest terminated"
But it is not as if all evidence given after an inquest is automatically wrong, Ben. If you keep pursuing that line, it will look very much as if you are desperate to tarnish Hutchinson at any cost.
And you would never do such a thing, would you?
The best,
Fisherman
Comment