johnny on the spot
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Jul 2006
- Messages
- 24,748
Oh-kun, cheers for the PMs. Sorry if I was a bit hostile. Cheers for the info.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Serial Killer at large in Manchester?
- Thread starter brand blue heavies
- Start date
JoeMercer'sWay
Well-Known Member
Blue Smarties said: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?
maybe they were but with the online age now you didn't hear about it as much or maybe it wasn't as widely reported back then. I find out things on here that happen across the rest of Manchester that I'd have no idea about if I didn't come on here and talk to people from other parts of the city.
Hamann Pineapple
Well-Known Member
Who was that Superhero we had from Salford ? Perhaps we could get him to patrol the canal paths after midnight issuing drunken young men with water wings and other flotation devices. We could call him "Armband Man".
dazdon
Well-Known Member
Hamann Pineapple said:Who was that Superhero we had from Salford ? Perhaps we could get him to patrol the canal paths after midnight issuing drunken young men with water wings and other flotation devices. We could call him "Armband Man".
You could be our new canal Zsár?
acquiesce said: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.
So everyone is guilty until they are proven innocent?
dazdon
Well-Known Member
This drowning made the national news though.
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23587175" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23587175</a>
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23587175" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23587175</a>
johnmc
Well-Known Member
JoeMercer'sWay said:that any help?
johnmc said:Uncle Wally One Ball said: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?
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:49 pm
johnmc
Post subject: Re: Serial Killer at large in Manchester?
Uncle Wally One Ball wrote:
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.
Uncle Wally One Ball said: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.
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:36 pm
Ha - yes and no. Unexplained isnt even on there - so I guess it an open verdict that they have been recorded as.
Could easily use accident, misadventure or alcohol related though. It would be a reasonable assumption.
rickmcfc
Well-Known Member
Someone answer me this, if they had simply fallen into the canal and been conscious, couldn't get out and then drowned, then their lungs would have been filled with water, as they took there last breaths and inhaled water hence the cause of death would state "drowned". However, in the cases listed in this thread, the cause of death is "unknown", which indicates they were dead, or unconscious before entering the water. If it was simply a drunk person falling into the canal then why would the cause of death not just say "drowned"?
johnmc
Well-Known Member
rickmcfc said:Someone answer me this, if they had simply fallen into the canal and been conscious, couldn't get out and then drowned, then their lungs would have been filled with water, as they took there last breaths and inhaled water hence the cause of death would state "drowned". However, in the cases listed in this thread, the cause of death is "unknown", which indicates they were dead, or unconscious before entering the water. If it was simply a drunk person falling into the canal then why would the cause of death not just say "drowned"?
Previous page mate - drowned isnt an option for a coroner