Different Killers

[Batman]

Bottle in the hand, unconscious grin

Ever seen a drunk person with a bottle fall over and pass out with the bottle still in hand?

Heck any professional drunk knows how to crash-land without spilling a drop and even sit it up straight while being subject to a self-inflicted sudden lights out.

Seriously, this idea falling people always drop stuff is nothing but a fairy tale. In fact, when you fall back, you would automatically cling to what you could, including whatever is in your hand. Better something, anything, than nothing.

Plus dropping a bag and dropping sweets end in two different results. A bag you can wipe down but sweets that will taste like muck. Once dropped or spilled, that's it over for them unless you have a taste for strong organics from the horses travelling that path.

[FrankO]

The rear attack hypothesis holds that her throat was cut from the rear. The lack of blood on her front which should be there because gravity doesn't suspend itself suggests she was killed while lying down.

...

In addition to this the absence of blood is not a mystery at all. It is pooled behind her head and running on the ground. As expected if she was killed while lying down.

This is why Dr. Blackwell deposed at the inquest:
In reply to a juryman, who asked whether he could give any information as to whether the throat was cut while the woman was lying down or standing up, the doctor said: I formed the opinion that probably the murderer took hold of the silk scarf, which was tightly knotted, and pulled the woman backwards, and cut her throat in that way. The position of the blood would indicate that her throat was cut when she was lying down or as she fell. It is, perhaps, most probable that she was on the ground first before her throat was cut.

The best,
Frank

[Batman]

Hello BM. Stride's holding the cachous refutes your hypothesis about lying down, as does the absence of mud on her back.

Watch my reenactment and LEARN--especially about arterial spray. And DO stop talking twaddle. You're beginning to bore me.

Cheers.
LC

What completely obliterates the idea that dying people never hold onto anything is the amount of forensic evidence to the opposite including handfuls of hair, skin, guns, knives, handbags, even shopping bags in each hand. After floods, hurricanes, tidal waves we have bodies galore of people holding onto things, including each other, even in death. Then you have the fencing response and all sorts of spinal injury causing clutching. The fact is people hold onto things in death as much as they do in life. Even suicides grip their briefcases all the way down several floors. People hold onto their possessions and some don't give it up so easily.

And besides the rear attack doesn't explain why they would hold onto anything any more than if they where on the ground!

P.S - it's not my hypothesis. It's Dr. Phillips. See the inquest. She was killed after being grabbed by the shoulders and thrown onto the ground. You hold a modern view.

[lynn cates]

refuting the prone hypothesis

Hello BM. Stride's holding the cachous refutes your hypothesis about lying down, as does the absence of mud on her back.

Watch my reenactment and LEARN--especially about arterial spray. And DO stop talking twaddle. You're beginning to bore me.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

observations

Hello John. Thanks.

I don't think "stolen" is correct. How about panhandled?

Right. No evidence of violence. Of course:

1. his words

2. his charts

3. his wife

indicate he was a violent man--but only when delusional.

If Mrs. Fiddymont's man had been merely fighting, he should have known where to cross the street? He crossed the same street three times! Clearly confused.

His coat? To be sure. But since "LA" was observed in precisely that way, I am suggesting habitual. It had NOTHING to do with concealment.

"And then, of course, we'd have to accept that he wandered around for an hour and half, prior to showing up at the pub, covered in blood and gore, in a delusional or semi-delusional state, without having attracted the suspicions of a single witness."

The dustman, perhaps? Recall a dustman had spotted a man with some blood stains at that time.

It you take Cadosch's timings--from "No" until the fall--there was time for a struggle AND the bruising to her face. (See Dr. Phillip's remarks.)

The parallel cuts are, of course, crucial to my hypothesis.

I made no claim about a sexual homicide.

Other girls may have turned down his request for coins. Bu they may nave been better able to escape. Recall both Polly and Annie were severely impaired.

Finally, I agree that JI was nothing like today's serial killer. Had he been I should have passed him over--quickly.

Cheers.
LC