Originally posted by caz
View Post
I sometimes shake my head at my own reluctance to state the bleeding obvious.
The man is probably not doing cartwheels down the passage, no dialogue is heard, so he isn't acting "funny", or talking "funny", it can only be his appearance. There was something "funny" about what the customer "saw", therefore - he looked "funny" for this part of town.
Gee,... I wonder who it could be?
Over the years on a number of Hutchinson threads I've learned one consistent point. Posters who are not inclined to just believe Hutchinson tend to make the strangest objections. It's almost become a matter of desperation to conjure up any argument rather than just accept what he said was true.
In these exchanges with seanr I don't recall him saying what his actual view of Hutchinson was, he just began raising objections to comments I wrote.
These four observations by four different witnesses still amount to circumstantial evidence, yet many criminal cases are decided on circumstantial evidence as opposed to hard proof.
And yet still objectors query, "why did Abberline believe Hutchinson?".
Comment