So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel?

[Harry D]

Did Baxter never make a mistake? Was his judgement always sound?

What about Andy Griffiths? Does the same go for him?

[Fisherman]

That's not medical science, nor science and completely omits the function of Coroner to just a man sitting on chair wagging his mouth.

Wrong on all counts.

The medical implications are there from the outset. They do not change. A wound does not become smaller or larger because that fits with subsequent acts on behalf of the killer. Llewellyn didn´t change his mind. He believed that the neck was cut after the abdomen was attacked, and he did so on account of the implications on the crime scene. altering those implications is not possible.

It is possible, however, to question implications and to reinterpret them. And when we see that the cutting of the necks was a primary matter in the following cases, it is only natural to look at the option that it was the same in the Nichols case.

But the signs that should have been there are not. There is no blood splatter, there is no large pool under her body and Llewellyn actually found the blood that was lacking on the street in her abdominal cavity. And so the signs are pretty much in line with the abdomen coming first in the Nichols case. And that is not something that should be regarded as very odd - if the killer did for Tabram, the neck was never cut at all.

As for Baxter, he was never a man to sit quietly and listen to things. He was a very active coroner, offering his own thinking on several occasions. And that is precisely because we can all offer our own interpretations. When a coronor with no medical qualifications whatsoever takes it upon himself to distrust what an experienced and highly qualified medico says, we may have trouble on our hands.

You want us to believe Baxter over Llewellyn. Does that belief stretch to how we must also believe that Baxter was right about how the deeds were the outcome of an american doctors will to pay for specimens taken from the human body?

Or are you cherrypicking?

[Harry D]

Don´t be any dafter than you have to, Harry. If this was the case, then no experts´verdict would be in any way useful unless we all were served with a complete list of everything he or she knew about the case and the exact information he or she had access to as they offered their view.

You are only searching for a way out, nothing else. But there is no such way out. Griffiths was well informed and read up and he had access to the exact same material I was given, a very full and comprehensive compilation of newspaper articles and police reports. Plus I and Edward spoke with him a lot during the shooting of the docu, and so it became obvious that he was somebody who took a genuine interest in the case, was well informed and asked if there was something that needed clarification.

And just like any other expert who comments on anything in docus, books and articles, his word counts for a whole lot. That is how it was yesterday, how it is today and how it will be tomorrow. In that respect, it does not differ materially from the existence of those who need to disbelieve what experts say on account of how they are disagreed with - they too are a constant occurrence.

When I'm working on legal cases I often consult our resident solicitor/barrister for the benefit of his expertise. However, I can only afford to summarise the case to him, and the slightest omission or misrepresentation of the facts can skew his opinion. I'm also aware that experts can often differ in their conclusions, which is why I always suggest clients seek a second opinion.

Professionals in law and criminology have supported other suspects and theories that contradict your findings that Lechmere is the best suspect. There is no one single authority in this case. We should be careful about relying uncritically on experts, as you are doing.

[Batman]

No, the medical implications can never change. What can change is how we interpret them.

That's not medical science, nor science and completely omits the function of Coroner to just a man sitting on chair wagging his mouth.

[Batman]

You state that Baxter was correct. The fact that he was not infallible seems relevant to me. As does the fact that you have made several factual blunders on here recently.

I really wouldn't be trying to push the position that JtR is reversing his MO and Signature and after Nichols, but if you want to do that, have at it.

However, that's going to be completely your choice.

I make mistakes. I don't claim to be infallible. Do you? I can even show posts where I go, aha, made a mistake. I wonder if you can?

Anyway, it seems you have a choice to make at this juncture.

Do you press on with this MO and Signature swapping claim or do you walk away from it and leave Fisherman to the consequences of his own making?

[Abby Normal]

...are both inconclusive.

Yes they are but more inclonclusive is the idea the killer cut throats because he was a jew and it was part of some ritual. While interesting take on it, its really just one step away from the poster whos being lambasted on here for his black magic/venus theory.

The crazy jew theory is pretty lame to begin with.

[Harry D]

The cry of lipski and GSG for example.

...are both inconclusive.

[Fisherman]

They most certainly can and one function of the Coroner is to legally recognize the need to amend previous findings when new information arrives.

This can happen in a series of events, such as with disease, epidemics or a series of violent homicides.

It is exactly this sort of series in which a serial offender is at large that can undergo such amendments the more we learn.

A meta-review can and does revise/amend the content it is reviewing.

This most certainly applies the most to historical situations.

No, the medical implications can never change. What can change is how we interpret them.

[Fisherman]

Griffiths' word carries no more weight than anyone else's if we aren't privy to the information he was provided with when forming his opinion, otherwise it's what we call an argumentum ad verecundiam.

Don´t be any dafter than you have to, Harry. If this was the case, then no experts´verdict would be in any way useful unless we all were served with a complete list of everything he or she knew about the case and the exact information he or she had access to as they offered their view.

You are only searching for a way out, nothing else. But there is no such way out. Griffiths was well informed and read up and he had access to the exact same material I was given, a very full and comprehensive compilation of newspaper articles and police reports. Plus I and Edward spoke with him a lot during the shooting of the docu, and so it became obvious that he was somebody who took a genuine interest in the case, was well informed and asked if there was something that needed clarification.

And just like any other expert who comments on anything in docus, books and articles, his word counts for a whole lot. That is how it was yesterday, how it is today and how it will be tomorrow. In that respect, it does not differ materially from the existence of those who need to disbelieve what experts say on account of how they are disagreed with - they too are a constant occurrence.

[MrBarnett]

Those are not arguments against the points at hand though. Besides, Bond corroborates him.

Anyway, if Llewellyn (who himself corrected his own mistake on assuming the murderer was left-handed later) objected to the Coroner making this amendment, he could have contested it, but did not.

You state that Baxter was correct. The fact that he was not infallible seems relevant to me. As does the fact that you have made several factual blunders on here recently.

[Batman]

Did Baxter never make a mistake? Was his judgement always sound?

Those are not arguments against the points at hand though. Besides, Bond corroborates him.

Anyway, if Llewellyn (who himself corrected his own mistake on assuming the murderer was left-handed later) objected to the Coroner making this amendment, he could have contested it, but did not.

[MrBarnett]

You ignore that Baxter is considering more than one doctor's opinion on the murders and has correctly LINKED them, and then sided with the opinion that Nichols had actually had her throat cut first like Chapman.

Baxter was correct.

You also ignore Bond, a doctor who was given a meta-analysis, agreed with Baxter.

Instead, you want Cross to now be confused over his MO and signature. You bend reality to have Cross slicing a throat that isn't bleeding out when he calls a witness over to see him practically at it.

Did Baxter never make a mistake? Was his judgement always sound?

[harry]

Is tying a person to the case,the same thing as tying that person to the killing?It is not.It is known,with reasonable certainty,where,how,and when Nichols was killed.What is lacking is evidence to show who was with Nichols when she was killed.Evidence can place Cross at the scene of the crime,it cannot place him with the victim when she was killed.Several persons can be placed at or near the crime scene in a time previous to when it is believed Nichol's died,so each is a better prospect than Cross,who can by evidence,only be placed at the scene,after the killing had taken place.

It becomes easier to understand if the murder scene is thought of as the time the killer was there with the victim,and a crime scene for what took place there aferwards,and evidence shows that Cross is only tied to the latter.

[Abby Normal]

Anderson had his reasons. There's a strong possibility the killer was a Jew when we examine the characteristics of the murders. The throat-cutting, for instance, may have been ritualistic rather than a simple practical matter.

Hi harry
Eventhough ive got koz on my top tier of possible suspects, i think the evidence shows tje killer was NOT a jew. The cry of lipski and GSG for example.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Scott,

Which of the Swanson family do you mean?

Regards,

Simon