Abstract
Phillip Kuhn has unearthed a great deal of new information regarding the trial of Ernest Jones in 1906 for indecent assault and in the process has cast doubt on Jones's innocence. The discussant, while praising Kuhn for this investigative work, argues that his paper is marred by a tendentious and obfuscating interpretive structure, as well as the author's refusal to address the issue of Jones's guilt or innocence.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.