Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Did BS-man murder Liz Stride?

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

  • lynn cates
    replied
    proof

    Hello Michael. Thanks.

    Then the "proof" is imaginary.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    two mints in one

    Hello Rocky. Thanks.

    "Would Liz stride buy candy or was it given to her by someone?"

    Relevant?

    "Pipeman was a smoker and cachous are associated with smokers."

    By whom? There have been multiple threads on the cachous and this is the first mention of such.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    frontal assault

    Hello Batman. Thanks.

    "Why? A frontal assault is sufficient."

    No, it isn't. Try recreating it and you'll see. Or--what is easier--look at my recreation. the piece CANNOT fit with a frontal assault.

    "She held onto the only thing of value she had."

    That she held onto it is NOT the question. HOW she did IS.

    By the way, she had other things of value held in trust.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • Rosella
    replied
    Cachous were throat lozenges as well as breath fresheners so perhaps Liz Stride had a bit of a sore throat coming on the day she died. Or maybe she didn't brush her teeth that often and decided her breath wasn't the best.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Good Michael
    replied
    Originally posted by lynn cates View Post

    Evidence, perhaps? No proof possible for an empirical object.
    Literally, no, but from an individual's perspective, yes...if delusional.


    Mike

    Leave a comment:


  • RockySullivan
    replied
    Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
    Hello (again) Rocky.

    "they were used as an after smoking mint"

    Eh?

    Cheers.
    LC
    Would liz stride buy candy or was it given to her by someone? Pipeman was a smoker and cachous are associated with smokers. Pipeman had lighted his pipe as schwartz passed...it could be time for a cachous soon afterward

    Leave a comment:


  • Batman
    replied
    Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
    Hello Batman.

    "Also a more simplified reason for the clutching was that she thought that he was a thief after her sweets."

    And so she closed her eyes whilst he walked around behind her?

    Cheers.
    LC
    Why? A frontal assault is sufficient. She held onto the only thing of value she had.

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    walk around

    Hello Batman.

    "Also a more simplified reason for the clutching was that she thought that he was a thief after her sweets."

    And so she closed her eyes whilst he walked around behind her?

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    Was bedeutet . . . ?

    Hello (again) Rocky.

    "they were used as an after smoking mint"

    Eh?

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • Batman
    replied
    Reflexes to trauma can be strange. Fencing response. Even in death. Lazarus signs.

    Also a more simplified reason for the clutching was that she thought that he was a thief after her sweets.

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    Cachous--greatest of all time.

    Hello Rocky.

    "Schwartz is an interesting witness because he may have actually walked right past a ripper murder in progress and done nothing."

    BSM was going at Liz by the gates; she was killed in the yard.

    "What do the cachous mean?'

    It means that her attacker:

    1. attacked unawares

    2. was NOT in a face to face confrontation

    3. was surprised by a motion to the throat causing her to 'clutch'

    "How did Liz get them and why were they in her hand?"

    Perhaps she bought them and were readying to put one in her mouth?

    "These are a huge clue and I doubt the police could have overlooked their importance."

    Nor yet the medical examiners. (see report)

    "Could BS man have stepped on Liz's hand. . ."

    No, it would have been bruised.

    ". . . while he choked her with the scarf. . . "

    Eh? Pulled her off balance?

    ". . . or could someone have placed the cachous in Liz's hand?"

    Why? And surely NOT her assailant--given he was so pressed for time he could not mutilate.

    "If BS man knew he'd been seen killing stride, could he have placed the cachous in her hand in an attempt to make it look like he wasn't the killer?"

    How would that work?

    'Could there be any type of symbolism with cachous?"

    Well, perhaps that investigators have been nodding off in light of the obvious conclusion.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • RockySullivan
    replied
    Wouldn'tt pipeman be the most likely to be in possession of cachous as he was smoking a pipe and they were used as an after smoking mint? A prostitute, a broad shouldered thug in a peaked cap and a pipeman....my bet would be the cachous belonged to pipeman.

    Leave a comment:


  • RockySullivan
    replied
    Schwartz is an interesting witness because he may have actually walked right past a ripper murder in progress and done nothing. How many others witnessed a ripper murder but what too afraid to stop or report it. What do the cachous mean? How did Liz get them and why were they in her hand? These are a huge clue and I doubt the police could have overlooked their importance. Could BS man have stepped on liz hand while he chocked her with the scarf or could someone have placed the cachous in liz hand? If BSman knew he'd been seen killing stride, could he have placed the cachous in her hand in an attempt to make it look like he wasn't the killer? Could there be any type of symbolism with cachous?

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    proof

    Hello Michael. Thanks.

    Evidence, perhaps? No proof possible for an empirical object.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • The Good Michael
    replied
    Originally posted by lynn cates View Post

    Of course, some achieve it without trying.

    Agree about Neil's book.

    Achieving intellectual dishonesty without trying to, would be akin to convincing oneself, without absolute proof, that what they are saying is true. Now who would...never mind. I get it.

    Mike

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X