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.