Serial Killer at large in Manchester?

[johnmc]

Yes, 'unexplained' sounds weird for people drowning but I, like almost everyone else, have no knowledge of the procedure for determining a cause of death.

If they don't know how the person fell into the water can they say 'drowned'?
Is 'drowned' even an option open to the coroner?
Does the presence of any other sort of injury prevent them from saying for an absolute fact that 'drowning' is the cause of death?
Does there need to be a witness to a drowning?
Are there medical/scientific circumstances that make it very difficult to say with absolute certainty that someone was alive when hitting the water?
Is 'drowning' a common conclusion as a cause of death?

All these questions, that I have no idea of the answer to, would make me extremely reluctant to pass opinions on such a detailed and complicated issue. Without specialist knowledge that allows someone to address the above (and more) I don't see how anyone can genuinely question it with any seriousness.

Well I think it fair to question the situation given that experts cannot explain it. I take on board what you are saying about drowning but all it would take would be one person to say "drowning is not an actual cause of death" or "Drowning requires a witness" but no one has yet.

You seem to suggest that as experts can find no explantion that we are not able to discuss it and there are several people who find it all a little odd, as well as several people like yourself who think it just is what it is, people innocently falling in.

Its good to discuss in my opinion - if someone for example were to say the stats for manchester of young men falling in canals and rivers is comparable to other cities of a similar nature Id be less likely to believe anything underhand is in play, but no one has.

 

[jma]

Yes, 'unexplained' sounds weird for people drowning but I, like almost everyone else, have no knowledge of the procedure for determining a cause of death.

If they don't know how the person fell into the water can they say 'drowned'?
Is 'drowned' even an option open to the coroner?
Does the presence of any other sort of injury prevent them from saying for an absolute fact that 'drowning' is the cause of death?
Does there need to be a witness to a drowning?
Are there medical/scientific circumstances that make it very difficult to say with absolute certainty that someone was alive when hitting the water?
Is 'drowning' a common conclusion as a cause of death?

All these questions, that I have no idea of the answer to, would make me extremely reluctant to pass opinions on such a detailed and complicated issue. Without specialist knowledge that allows someone to address the above (and more) I don't see how anyone can genuinely question it with any seriousness.

Well I think it fair to question the situation given that experts cannot explain it. I take on board what you are saying about drowning but all it would take would be one person to say "drowning is not an actual cause of death" or "Drowning requires a witness" but no one has yet.

You seem to suggest that as experts can find no explantion that we are not able to discuss it and there are several people who find it all a little odd, as well as several people like yourself who think it just is what it is, people innocently falling in.

Its good to discuss in my opinion - if someone for example were to say the stats for manchester of young men falling in canals and rivers is comparable to other cities of a similar nature Id be less likely to believe anything underhand is in play, but no one has.

There's nothing wrong with discussing anything. But when people are serious in their belief that something mad is going on, with zero knowledge to back it up, then it can't really be taken seriously.

As far as I am aware, 'the experts' have explained what has happened in almost all of these cases, in that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they are being treated as a criminal act.

Anyway, the point being that discussions like the one in this thread can only be given any credence when someone with a) knowledge and b) expertise contributes and has something of worth to back up the theory of "everything is not right".

Without that it comes across as 27 pages of the equivalent of a load of old women believing or promoting what they want to believe. Not that I would ban that.

 

[acquiesce]

Suspect ^^^^

 

[johnmc]

There's nothing wrong with discussing anything. But when people are serious in their belief that something mad is going on, with zero knowledge to back it up, then it can't really be taken seriously.

As far as I am aware, 'the experts' have explained what has happened in almost all of these cases, in that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they are being treated as a criminal act.

Anyway, the point being that discussions like the one in this thread can only be given any credence when someone with a) knowledge and b) expertise contributes and has something of worth to back up the theory of "everything is not right".

Without that it comes across as 27 pages of the equivalent of a load of old women believing or promoting what they want to believe. Not that I would ban that.

Well you probably know more about than me - I thought most verdicts were unexplained and that wouldnt necessarily rule out foul play just as much as it wouldnt rule out a slip and drown theory. You say there is absolutely no evidence of a criminal act but in the same way there is no evidence that it is purely an accident.

In respect of credence there will be many threads on here regarding opinions and thought without high levels of either knowledge or expertise on the subject at hand.

Unless we are criminal investigators or coroners we should we not be able to discuss the matter? No we are free to throw mad theories, sensible theories etc etc until we are given explanations or otherwise to the contrary.

In your opinion the experts verdict of "unexplained" tells us there is no criminal activity, it could easily say that there actually is in my opinion. And thats what this is all about, opinions.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

If you are taking issue with people glibly accepting that people have fallen into canals and drowned without, in your opinion, enough evidence to back it up, where do you stand on people glibly encouraging bizarre conspiracy theories with far, far, far less evidence (or specialist knowledge) to back that up?

It's a bit rich to "not being able to believe" people believing the conclusions of the crime and medical professionals who have studied the cases, yet then go on to promote daft theories like a mad anesthetist going on a killing spree with his undetectable syringe, based on no knowledge whatsoever.

Yes fair point. But do you think the police arent considering or havent thought about this but wouldnt want it to go public? And these crime and medical professionals - have any of them said the victims have been drunk and drowned?? No they have all said "unexplained" - these experts cant explain it so they dont know themselves.

The anesthetic question was not speculating that someone was doing that, just a question how long it would stay in the system as I have no knowledge.

Unexplained is not suspicious. If things were suspicious, then it would be termed such. Unexplained and suspicious are two separate and specific terms

 

[johnmc]

Unexplained is not suspicious. If things were suspicious, then it would be termed such. Unexplained and suspicious are two separate and specific terms

I never said unexplained means suspicious though - unexplained means it cant be explained doesnt it so it could be any reason that they can not pinpoint.

You obviously know your stuff regarding this then. Is there a "drowning" verdict that could be used? Or do certain things have to be in place.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

Unexplained is not suspicious. If things were suspicious, then it would be termed such. Unexplained and suspicious are two separate and specific terms

I never said unexplained means suspicious though - unexplained means it cant be explained doesnt it so it could be any reason that they can not pinpoint.

You obviously know your stuff regarding this then. Is there a "drowning" verdict that could be used? Or do certain things have to be in place.

[bigimg]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1616/images/uksi_20131616_en_004[/bigimg]

that any help?

 

[Never Mind The Pollocks]

He's one lazy arsed serial killer.

Unless he's been banged up, there's really no excuse for this lack of activity.

Haha brilliant!

 

[acquiesce]

All I see is people asking questions and wondering if it could be a serial killer. I guess the easiest question is, "Is there proof that this wasn't/isn't a serial killer?"

Until I see proof that all these are accidental drownings, I think any theory is viable given a scenario is realistic. No harm in questioning things. It's a relatively free world, you don't like the topic, move along.

 

[Blue Smarties]

What I'd also like to know if it's simply down to drunken young men stumbling into water and being found floating, why the sudden increase? Why weren't bodies being pulled out every few months in the early 00's and late 90's?