Originally posted by Trevor Marriott
View Post
As to not readily accepting secondary? sources (I'm sure you mean press articles), the alternate is often that the theorist will invent a solution of their own making. How is that intended to benefit anyone, but the theorist?
That is not a legitimate approach.
In the rare occasion where we have two contrary accounts, both must be held as credible when we cannot demonstrate which is at fault.
For once I would like to read a book that takes all witness accounts as potentially credible and see in what direction the case seems to go.
The only exception is where stories were shown to be false by Scotland Yard at the time.
Sadly, theorists are too wrapped up in their own beliefs to write a balanced account of these murders.
Leave a comment: