Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stride..a victim?

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

  • #91
    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.
    I think he took arterial bleeding into consideration as evidenced by the Kelly murder. She was bled out over the far side of the bed, and I think he did it purposefully.
    there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      I dont accept that these victims were strangled before their throats were cut it doesn't seem logical for the killer to be armed with a long-bladed knife to go to the trouble of strangling them and then cut their throats after they are already dead.

      The cutting of the throats was a swift method of killing them by a killer who knew how to kill swiftly and silently, and those actions were a prelude to the mutilations that followed.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      Arterial spray Trevor,... if for no other reason than the lack of it, strangulation, garroting, whatever your tastes....likely preceded the throat cut. When it didnt, like in Room 13, we have spray. Even Strides scarf was twisted and tight. Also the opinion that most were lying on the ground when the throats were cut....splain that one without strangulation and loss of consciousness. Just look at Polly and Annies face and the autopsies....
      Michael Richards

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by c.d. View Post

        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.
        Would that be with or without the coins in Stride's pocket?
        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

          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?
          I've already said there was an event involving both a throw-down and a quarrel, and provided the relevant quote.
          There seems little reason to doubt this event occurred, and multiple people apparently witnessed it.
          However, multiple people did not witness the event on Berner St, because that was not the location!

          What I'm not explaining clearly about there being no such thing as bs man, is that the Met version of the Schwartz event emphasizes the throw-down...

          he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly.

          Whereas the Star version hardly even qualifies as a struggle...

          The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage, but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street. Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter...

          In fact in the Star version, it is Knifeman who is the main aggressor, not Quarrelman.

          Here is the point; people base the notion of bs man being the killer on their conception of him as a thug - but that conception is based on their perception of the man in the Met version of the story.
          That is akin to looking at a hologram from a certain angle and stating "my point of view is the real truth".
          The problem is that in the Star version, Schwartz' first man is pushy and quarrelsome, but no thug - in fact in the real event, he appears to be the husband.
          He is also tipsy. What he is not is a thug likely to kill. He has a different personality.
          In the Met version, Schwartz seems more interested in explaining why fled from the scene. Sure he does in the Star version too, but I get the impression that on that occasion Schwartz was more interested in framing Michael Kidney.

          A big question for me is; who constructed the whole Schwartz story?
          I do have someone firmly in mind, but still working on the details.
          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

            I've already said there was an event involving both a throw-down and a quarrel, and provided the relevant quote.
            There seems little reason to doubt this event occurred, and multiple people apparently witnessed it.
            However, multiple people did not witness the event on Berner St, because that was not the location!

            What I'm not explaining clearly about there being no such thing as bs man, is that the Met version of the Schwartz event emphasizes the throw-down...

            he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly.

            Whereas the Star version hardly even qualifies as a struggle...

            The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage, but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street. Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter...

            In fact in the Star version, it is Knifeman who is the main aggressor, not Quarrelman.

            Here is the point; people base the notion of bs man being the killer on their conception of him as a thug - but that conception is based on their perception of the man in the Met version of the story.
            That is akin to looking at a hologram from a certain angle and stating "my point of view is the real truth".
            The problem is that in the Star version, Schwartz' first man is pushy and quarrelsome, but no thug - in fact in the real event, he appears to be the husband.
            He is also tipsy. What he is not is a thug likely to kill. He has a different personality.
            In the Met version, Schwartz seems more interested in explaining why fled from the scene. Sure he does in the Star version too, but I get the impression that on that occasion Schwartz was more interested in framing Michael Kidney.

            A big question for me is; who constructed the whole Schwartz story?
            I do have someone firmly in mind, but still working on the details.
            I particularly like the fact that you first say that we often go "This is what I see" when looking at a hologram, and then you say that BS mans personality is "different" and he is not a thug, likely to kill from your point of view.

            Nevertheless, let me know when you are ready for the disclosure. I try to keep an open mind.

            Comment


            • #96
              Well...this thread has come along way since my original post/question.

              As usual we have plenty in favour for Stride being a victim, and plenty for her not.

              This was my point really with so many pro's and cons,
              and yet The authorities of the time didnt have any doubts whatsoever it seems, which suggests to me that just maybe they knew something that has been lost over time, and we're unaware of.

              Regards

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by spyglass View Post
                Well...this thread has come along way since my original post/question.

                As usual we have plenty in favour for Stride being a victim, and plenty for her not.

                This was my point really with so many pro's and cons,
                and yet The authorities of the time didnt have any doubts whatsoever it seems, which suggests to me that just maybe they knew something that has been lost over time, and we're unaware of.

                Regards
                I think too that we have been given part of a jigsaw puzzle and are asked to complete it with our imagination. But thats the eternal hope here isnt it? That one day information previously unknown will appear, spelling out exactly what we need to know to complete the puzzle to the satisfaction of all.

                Does that really sound likely to you?

                Michael Richards

                Comment


                • #98
                  I've often used the jigsaw puzzle idea, and I would love to think that the missing pieces that I think are out there somewhere, will be found.
                  But even if they were, I'm sure the arguments will still continue.

                  Regards

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    ....or, all the pieces are already there, and we just put them in the wrong holes.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                      Blood is a liquid. Liquids run.
                      When the first doctor arrived, Diemschitz was asked about the quantity of blood...

                      Baxter: What quantity of blood should you think had flowed from the body?
                      Diemschitz: I should say quite two quarts.

                      Two quarts is about 2ž litres.
                      Diemschitz didn't appear concerned that the liquid he observed might be a mixture of blood and rain water, so perhaps we could assume there was negligible water in the gutter, at the time.
                      Given that assumption, how much of that 2 quarts do you suppose was due to your insight into the nature of blood and liquids?
                      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                        But thats the eternal hope here isnt it? That one day information previously unknown will appear, spelling out exactly what we need to know to complete the puzzle to the satisfaction of all.

                        Does that really sound likely to you?
                        What, like a DNA soaked shawl purloined from a victim? Or did you mean actual, real information?
                        Thems the Vagaries.....

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                          What, like a DNA soaked shawl purloined from a victim? Or did you mean actual, real information?
                          Or maybe a Diary with confessions...
                          Michael Richards

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                            Or maybe a Diary with confessions...
                            Or a bag with a knife and some other bollocks that passed for evidence in that "Uncle Jack" book.

                            (And if anyone's wondering what book I mean, trust me, ignorance is bliss)
                            Thems the Vagaries.....

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                              I particularly like the fact that you first say that we often go "This is what I see" when looking at a hologram, and then you say that BS mans personality is "different" and he is not a thug, likely to kill from your point of view.

                              Nevertheless, let me know when you are ready for the disclosure. I try to keep an open mind.
                              Did you misrepresent what I said, accidently or on purpose?
                              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                                Did you misrepresent what I said, accidently or on purpose?
                                On porpoise.
                                My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X