Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stride..a victim?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post

    True she may have had a weak heartbeat (if any); but her heart was also full of clot [post mortem report] which is consistent with it having been stopped .
    So was the slope steeper than I suppose, or was there other liquid in the gutter?
    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

      Something like this?...

      Voice: You're not safe here. Perhaps try Mitre Square?
      I try not to imagine what a voice inside a serial killer's head might say but get out of here now would work for starters.

      c.d.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        If you remove the taking away of the organs you are left with just murder and mutilation, which in my opinion was the sole motive in these murders

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        But I have never stated that the killer had decided always to eviscerate, Trevor. If you had actually informed yourself about what I am saying, I am instead claiming that there would have been a whole array of possibilities open to the killer. He need n ot take out organs to be satisfied, although he could well do so.

        If you are going to claim that peopleīs theories are dismissed, then maybe you should try and find out what the theories claim before it?

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

          Minutely so perhaps, but they were not on a hill.
          Phillips would not be surprised by the amount of blood if it were a simple matter of gravity.
          Why not? If there had run a smallish river from Stride up to the kitchen door and formed a pool there, as per Mrs Diemschitz, then why could that not be enough to impress Phillips?

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

            But I have never stated that the killer had decided always to eviscerate, Trevor. If you had actually informed yourself about what I am saying, I am instead claiming that there would have been a whole array of possibilities open to the killer. He need n ot take out organs to be satisfied, although he could well do so.

            If you are going to claim that peopleīs theories are dismissed, then maybe you should try and find out what the theories claim before it?
            Its what the killer did that is all we should be concerned with, not what he might or could have done based on speculation!

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

              By that logic he should have done 5 'Kelly's'
              I’m sure if he had the time and opportunity like Kelly provided him he would have been far worse. He still did a pretty brutal job on Eddowes in just a matter of minutes.
              "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
              - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                So was the slope steeper than I suppose, or was there other liquid in the gutter?
                Blood is a liquid. Liquids run.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  Its what the killer did that is all we should be concerned with, not what he might or could have done based on speculation!

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  Donīt move the goalposts. You claimed that my theory was dismissed if the killer wasnīt always an eviscerator. You were wrong, I corrected you.

                  NOW, we can move on to other topics.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                    As ha

                    As has been pointed out there is no logic to strangling first then cutting the throat in order to kill

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    I have always assumed the strangulation was to prevent arterial spurt when cutting the throat, which would lessen the risk of getting her blood on himself.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                      re the blood flow and it already trickling across the ground: it supports my idea that BS man cut her throat in the street either during or right after the initial struggle that IS saw. the ripper thinks better of going any further and bolts. Stride puts her hand instinctively to the wound and stumbles into the yard toward the voices and percieved help but expires in the yard. diemshitz then fiends her and the blood has had some time to flow toward the gutter. simps.
                      There is no such thing as BS Man, as commonly understood.
                      That identity - if that is the right word - was merely one of two versions of Schwartz' first man.
                      The other version was given to the Star reporter. In that version, the first man merely quarrels with Stride.
                      There is no throw-down, as there is with the 'Met version'.

                      What you're doing in this post is assuming that the Met version is true version.
                      The truth is that neither version is the true one, but both are simply lifted from a real event, which very likely did not occur on Berner St.

                      Star, Oct 2: In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

                      Of course they have reason to doubt the truth of the story - there are two versions of it, with a common source, which was obtained from another party at another time and location!
                      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Azarna View Post

                        I have always assumed the strangulation was to prevent arterial spurt when cutting the throat, which would lessen the risk of getting her blood on himself.
                        It may have been the plan, but the fact of the matter is that the heart will normally go on beating for a minute or two after the strangulation. Sometimes it beats for many minutes. And there is some arterial spray, even if the heart has stopped beating, so it would be a risky method. Of course, the splash on the fence in Chapmans case may be something that surprised the killer if he worked along your suggestion!

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                          There is no such thing as BS Man, as commonly understood.
                          That identity - if that is the right word - was merely one of two versions of Schwartz' first man.
                          The other version was given to the Star reporter. In that version, the first man merely quarrels with Stride.
                          There is no throw-down, as there is with the 'Met version'.

                          What you're doing in this post is assuming that the Met version is true version.
                          The truth is that neither version is the true one, but both are simply lifted from a real event, which very likely did not occur on Berner St.

                          Star, Oct 2: In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

                          Of course they have reason to doubt the truth of the story - there are two versions of it, with a common source, which was obtained from another party at another time and location!
                          The Star version does not say that Stride was not thrown down. It could well be part of the struggle spoken about, could it not? And we do not have Schwartz himself witnessing here, it is the paper that refers to his testimony AFTER he spoke to the police, which was on the 30:th of September.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            If you remove the taking away of the organs you are left with just murder and mutilation, which in my opinion was the sole motive in these murders

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            Some were for sure based on those goals Trevor. But you also need to discern whether the organs taken makes comparative sense later in the alledged "series".
                            Michael Richards

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                              The Star version does not say that Stride was not thrown down. It could well be part of the struggle spoken about, could it not? And we do not have Schwartz himself witnessing here, it is the paper that refers to his testimony AFTER he spoke to the police, which was on the 30:th of September.
                              The word 'version' is slightly too strong, in this context. It's closer to 'emphasis'.

                              Sure Schwartz is witnessing in the Star version - a quarrel. At least, he hears one.
                              What's a little odd in that version is; The man who came at him with a knife he also describes, but not in detail.

                              As for the remainder of Schwartz tale, part of it comes from 'the chase', and then of course there is 'Lipski!' - which I think occurred on Settles St that night.
                              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                                The word 'version' is slightly too strong, in this context. It's closer to 'emphasis'.

                                Sure Schwartz is witnessing in the Star version - a quarrel. At least, he hears one.
                                What's a little odd in that version is; The man who came at him with a knife he also describes, but not in detail.

                                As for the remainder of Schwartz tale, part of it comes from 'the chase', and then of course there is 'Lipski!' - which I think occurred on Settles St that night.
                                But the throwing down of Stride was PART of the quarrel, NBFN! So were the three soft cries - but they are not mentioned by the Star either. Does it mean it didnīt happen?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X