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.
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?
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.
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.
__________________ "Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"
-Edgar Allan Poe
"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
-Frederick G. Abberline