-
My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account
-
Any progress on your movie Dave?
Cheers, GeorgeThe needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff HammComment
-
Nope.
Busy staying alive.
Thanks though
Still seeking a suitable screenwriter to tell the truth.Waiting on some writers from Warnambool.Contact caught co-vid.My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email accountComment
-
There are definitely problems with those reports. However, the later report begins:Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
The body of the murdered woman, which now lies in St. George's Mortuary, close to St. George's Parish Church, presents a dreadful spectacle. It is the corpse of a woman about 40 years of age, and, as it lies on the slab, exhibits prominently a fearful wound on the throat.
That sounds to me like the reporter is at the mortuary, observing the corpse at first hand.
Would a fall resulting in bruising to the temple, necessarily result in that sort of head trauma?Also in Phillip's testimony he reports "...On removing the scalp there was no sign of bruising or extravasation of blood between it and the skull-cap. ..." negating the idea she suffered any kind of head injury, otherwise an interesting idea.
If he pulls the scarf - not enough to strangle but enough to prevent speech or screams - and then quickly gets her to the ground and cuts her throat, when does this stuff occur ...?I'm not being clear, and that's my fault. What I'm referring to is the idea that she tries at some point to move away from her attacker. He grabs her scarf, and this halts her forward motion suddenly. That would be similar to being hit in the throat, so she might not be able to speak temporarily, but by the time she would have recovered he's cut her throat. I'm not suggesting he used the scarf as a ligature as in pulling on it until she passes out. Rather, the doctor's suggestion that the killer pulled her backwards with the scarf seems to make sense.
"...Over both shoulders, especially the right, from the front aspect under colar bones and in front of chest there is a bluish discolouration which I have watched and seen on two occasions since...."
It's a very tricky problem. I seriously wonder is she were sitting down when the attack began. Then any fall or rapid decent becomes more like a fairly gentle recline.There were cachous found in the gutter as well, so they did get a bit scattered. She doesn't appear to have dropped them completely, so it seems to me she must have been put to the ground very quickly.
Lamb: She looked as if she had been laid quietly down. Her clothes were not in the least rumpled.
I'm fairly confident that Schwartz existed, however I'm undecided on whether he saw less or more than he claimed to.Maybe, but of course, you're now saying Schwartz existed and saw something again.
Do you mean, not very strong evidence that it was JtR? Isn't there strong support for the idea that Stride was an interrupted murder? What is that support based on, if not the apparent skills of the murderer?The cut does appear to have been very clean and done without any signs of hesitation (there aren't any small cuts reported suggesting he held it against her throat first, etc), so it would appear once the knife was in his hand the decision to cut her throat had already been made and it was used directly, that is consistent with skill with using a knife. It's also consistent with someone who is not having to overcome any doubts about progressing on to murder. Mind you, this sort of thing is not very strong evidence and the ideas that come with them should not be viewed as strongly supported ideas.
- JeffAndrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothingComment
-
Sorry i must be missing something ,this Sutton guy is he a suspect ?Originally posted by DJA View Post
You said'' Sutton struck '' is that right ?'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard FeynmanComment
-
Sutton was being blackmailed over his sexual orientation.He was looking at two years hard labor.
Nichols obviously panicked him.He was then being blackmailed for murder.
He possibly supplied drugs to paedophiles to pacify their victims.Mary Ann Kelly was an early victim.
The Five were hunting him,not the other way round.
My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email accountComment
-
Why did Sutton bother with the mutilations?Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothingComment
-
You actually seriously believe this theory ?Originally posted by DJA View Post'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard FeynmanComment
-
Yep.Can back it up.Originally posted by FISHY1118 View PostMy name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email accountComment
-
Im tempted to elevate this guy above Druitt at No1 ,but alas, In you go at
No 5. Henry Gawen Sutton'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard FeynmanComment
-
Go on then humour meOriginally posted by DJA View Post'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard FeynmanComment
-
They were not mutilations.Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
I've explained Eddowes' wounds more than once.
Like Nichols,they were both inpatients of Sutton's from December 1867 with rheumatic fever.The 'strep makes it's home in the small intestine.
Eddowes also had Xanthelasma.
Not to mention cancer.My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email accountComment
-
You can possibly look through my previous posts.Originally posted by FISHY1118 View PostMy name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email accountComment
-
Another for my ignore list
My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email accountComment
Tweet
Comment