AC and TOD

[lynn cates]

one for 5:30

Hello Observer. Thanks for coming back to the point. So you're for 5:30? Very well, that is the majority report.

(I agree that this is a poor thread for logic. But I think you can sense the irony I felt when you declared my logic skills deficient.)

The best.
LC

This section from a Timeline on Annie Chapmans death including witnesses and times, courtesy of Casebook Productions...through Annies Victims folder, may lend some additional light.....

"SAT, SEP 8, 1888

1:00am-Simmons saw Annie leave Crossingham's (#35 Dorset St), believing she went to the Brittannia pub, (located on the north-west corner of Dorset St and Commercial St).

1:30-1:45am-Annie returned to the lodging-house and was eating a baked potato in the kitchen. Donovan sent the night watchman, John Evans, for her doss money. Annie went to Donovan and said, "I haven't sufficient money for a bed, but don't let it. I shall not be long before I am in." "You can find money for your beer, and you can't find money for you bed," replied Donovan. "Never mind, Tim. I shall soon be back. Don't let the bed," Annie responded. (Donovan thought Annie was drunk.)

c.1:50am-Evans escorted Annie outside. Annie then said, "I won't be long, Brummy. See that Tim keeps the bed for me.' Annie then walked up Little Paternoster Row, into Brushfield St, and turned towards the Spitalfields Church. (Evans thought Annie was the worse for drink.)

2:30am-Emily Walter was in the backyard of 29 Hanbury St with a man. He was 37; Dark beard and moustache; foreign accent; dark vest and pants; black scarf and felt hat; short dark jacket.

Hanbury St curves south-east from Commercial St to the junction of Baker's Row and Old Montague St. #29 was on the North side of the street, between Wilkes St & Brick Ln. 27 Hanbury St was next door on the West side of #29.

29 Hanbury St, a 3-story building with residents living on each of the three floors and in the attic with a small business on the ground floor and one working out of the cellar. On the left-hand side of the buildings' front was two doors: the door on the right led to the shop. The door on the left opened to a passageway containing stairs to the residences and another door leading to the backyard.

#29 was owned by Mrs Amelia Richardson, who ran a packing case business out of the cellar and was assisted by Francis Tyler and her son, John Richardson. A cat's meat shop was in the ground floor front room and was used by Mrs Harriet Hardyman and her 16 year old son. The ground floor back room was a kitchen. Mrs Richardson and her 14 year old grandson slept in the first floor front room. The first floor back room was occupied by Mr Waker and his adult, retarded son. Mr Thompson, his wife, and their adopted daughter slept in the second floor front room. Two unmarried sisters, Misses Copsey, lived in the second floor back room. Living in the front room of the attic was John Davis with his wife and three sons, and occupying the attic's back room was Mrs Sarah Cox. The passageway was sometimes occupied by unknown people at unusual hours, and the backyard was frequented by prostitutes. The door to the street was a latch-type, and the door to the yard was self-closing or swing-door. Typically, neither door was locked as a courtesy to the residents.

Three small stone steps led to the yard, which was about 14' x 12'. The yard was part dirt and part paving stone. About 3' to 3'-6", left of the doorway, was a 5'-6" high fence made of wooden pailings, separating the yards of #27 & #29. To the right of the doorway, were cellar doors, which led to a workshop. Two feet away, on the right, was a water pump. At the yard's far left corner was a storage shed, and at the far right corner was a privy.


3:00am-Davis woke up.40

c.3:50am-Thompson left for work without going into the back yard. Mrs Richardson, dozing fitfully, heard him pass her room and called out, "Good morning."

4:45am-John Richardson stopped by to check the cellar door padlock, which he often did since it had been broken into some months earlier. He was not actually in the yard, since he could see the padlock from the top of the steps.

Richardson sat on the steps, trying to trim a piece of leather from his boots with a table knife that he brought from home.

4:50am-Richardson left.

4:51am-Dawn broke.

5:00am-Davis fell back asleep.

(A case of mistaken identity had incorrectly placed Annie at the Ten Bells pub.)

Mrs Elizabeth Long left her house at 32 Church Row for the Spitalfields Market.

Spitalfields Market opened.

c.5:15am-Albert Cadoche of 27 Hanbury St woke up.

5:20am-Cadoche went into the backyard of #27. Upon his return to the house, he heard voices quite close to him. Of which, he could only make out the word "No."

5:25am-Sun rose.

c.5:25am-Cadoche re-entered his backyard and heard a fall against the fence. Cadoche returned to the house and prepared to leave for work.

5:30am-Davis woke back up.

Walking South down Brick Ln, Long neared Hanbury St, noting the time from the clock of the Black Eagle Brewery, Brick Ln. She then turned westerly onto Hanbury St.

c.5:32am-Cadoche passed by the Spitalfields Church.

Long saw a man and woman standing near 29 Hanbury St, talking. The man had a shabby, genteel, and foreign appearance. He had a dark complexion; wore a brown deerstalker and a dark coat; He seemed 40-ish; and, was slightly taller than the woman "Will you?" the man asked. "Yes," said the woman.

A Few Minutes After 5:30am-Long reached the Spitalfields Market.

5:45am-Davis and wife got out of bed as the Spitalfields Church clock struck the quarter hour. They had some tea.

c.5:55am-Davis went downstairs, noticing that the passageway door to the street stood wide open, which was not unusual. Davis then opened the other door to enter the backyard and saw the body.

Annie was lying on her back, parallel with the fence, which was to her left; Her head was about 2' from the back wall and 6"-9" left of the bottom step; Her legs were bent at the knees; Her feet were flat on the ground, pointing toward the shed; Her dress was pushed above her knees; Her left arm lay across her left breast; Her right arm at her side; The small intestines, still attached by a cord, and part of the abdomen lay above her right shoulder; 2 flaps of skin from the lower abdomen lay in a large quantity of blood above the left shoulder; Her throat was deeply cut in a jagged manner; A neckerchief was around her neck.

Davis immediately left the yard and ran out into the street."

That seems to me to be to be a very useful tool that Casebook gave us.

Cheers mates.

[Observer]

Hello Observer. Since you are tutoring logic (as per your dictum) perhaps you can explain what kinds of modal semantics are consistent with the axiom schemata of S4 and S5. In particular, what sorts of Kripkean models would support them?

Mediaeval logic differs little from contemporary logic. In fact, about the only major difference is Frege's revision of Aristotle's existential assumption made in the 1870's.

Looking forward to my next session. Perhaps you can help me pin down the first occurrence of De Morgan's theorem. 12 th c or 14 th c? There are reasons to accept either.

The best.
LC

Hi Lynn, in the main this is a light-hearted forum where we discuss the Whitechapel atrocities of 1888, it is not a vehicle to pin down the first occurrence of De Morgan's theorem, nor is it the place to contemplate what kinds of modal semantics are consistent with the axiom schemata of S4 and S5. let alone what sorts of Kripkean models would support them. No, lets leave that sort of worthless drivel to some ultra nerdy web site. You might want to wear an anorak but leave me out of it. When someone takes issue (in this case I) with one of your far fetched assumptions, there no need to pull rank and trot out a list of your academic achievements. There's no harm in scenario building, but in my mind there is a limit, which is why I found your assumption namely.

"I suppose one could claim Lawende did not see Kate, that she was already inside Mitre square at the time. On this scenario, perhaps Jack was hiding inside one of the empty houses."

Markedly strange. But as you say this is not the place for things Catherine Eddowes. Chapmans TOD 5:30, Richardson could not have failed to see her had she been there when he entered the Yard at 4:45 a.m.

All the best

Observer

PS Hope you can understand this post, they’re having a bad grammar witch hunt at the mo, all very tiring. What of people who have had strokes, who have problems stringing sentences together, and with large chunks of their former vocabulary missing due to brain damage?

[curious]

Actually, the alias she used was Mary Ann Kelly (and, remember, her companion's name was Kelly). But even if Mary Something Kelly was a fairly common name, you're right, it is a coincidence.

Thanks, Maurice.

You're right. Apparently my brain rolled the two into one.

Mary was a very common name in those days, as well as Kelly, I suspect, but the coincidence seems very peculiar to me.

Curious

Actually, the alias she used was Mary Ann Kelly (and, remember, her companion's name was Kelly). But even if Mary Something Kelly was a fairly common name, you're right, it is a coincidence.

I believe it was Mary Ann Kelly of Fashion St, or Flower and Dean....and for the boots she was Jane Kelly of #6 Dorset Street.

I realize both Dorset and Flower and Dean had lots of lodgers on them, so they would be easy places to come up with if you'd rather not leave your own name and address, but when you imagine that she does this twice in her last 24 hours and that both aliases together contain as much as roughly 90% of Mary Jane Kelly's known name and street address,.... it does raise my eyebrow anyway.

Particularly when the next alleged Ripper victim is in fact one Mary Jane Kelly of 26 Dorset Street.

Best regards Maurice

[The Grave Maurice]

...but it's very, very strange to me that she gave her name as Mary Jane Kelly at the jail and is very soon dead as a Ripper victim. Then, the very next "Ripper" victim IS Mary Jane Kelly. What is the logical likelihood of that?

Actually, the alias she used was Mary Ann Kelly (and, remember, her companion's name was Kelly). But even if Mary Something Kelly was a fairly common name, you're right, it is a coincidence.

[curious]

2 broken locks do not a theory make, I know ....but they do show us that there were spots here and there that he could have waited in....I would imagine with the abandoned and empty housing in Mitre Square, a spot might have been secured there possibly. In the case of Dorset Street, we do have the alcove with the large dust bin in it opposite Marys windows....could someone hide behind that? Maybe.

It does seem there were spots for hiding (perhaps after the deed as well? then slipping away in the confusion), but would he more likely be laying in wait and it being just sheer luck if he found someone or not (plus, could he have an overview of other people who might be lurking?) OR more likely that he might discretely follow a prospect, taking care to remain hidden.

Then he would more likely know if other people were about or not, wouldn't he? Plus, if he were seen, he'd simply saunter off and there'd be no reason for someone to remember him.

curious

[curious]

[QUOTE=perrymason;107834]. But maybe she mentioned her "information" to the wrong people.


Perhaps she didnt want a lot of people knowing she was back from hopping.

Im just pointing out that since we do not know what drove her in that direction as yet, we cannot know whether she was with the ONLY man, or more to the point, the LAST man she might have met near Mitre Square when The Three Wise men saw her.

END QUOTE

Exactly, and someone didn't have to be waiting in Mitre Square for her.

She could have picked up a shadow at the jail (someone who was interested in "Mary Jane Kelly") or a shadow somewhere along the way. A shadow that was adept at remaining in the shadows.

I'm new to this, of course, so I'm still in the process of sifting and sorting, but it's very, very strange to me that she gave her name as Mary Jane Kelly at the jail and is very soon dead as a Ripper victim. Then, the very next "Ripper" victim IS Mary Jane Kelly. What is the logical likelihood of that?

curious

To answer a question you posed Observer, "why would Kate walk into Mitre Square alone"...its worth considering that some investigators of the case thought that Kate might have had a pre-arranged meeting with someone at or near Mitre Square. Perhaps something she arranged that afternoon, maybe she alluded she had information that was worth some money and someone set up a meeting for her. But maybe she mentioned her "information" to the wrong people.

Speculation of course.

But she does turn left out of the station, which is the opposite direction to where her man would be found, she does get loaded that afternoon without any money and the likelihood that she solicited during the afternoon hours is slim I think. We do have a "story" that supposedly she told her ex-landlady. And we do have her using aliases for the 2 documents that required having a name affixed to them within her last 24 hours.

Perhaps she didnt want a lot of people knowing she was back from hopping.

Im just pointing out that since we do not know what drove her in that direction as yet, we cannot know whether she was with the ONLY man, or more to the point, the LAST man she might have met near Mitre Square when The Three Wise men saw her.

Best regards

[lynn cates]

focus

Hello All. We seem to digress here. Perhaps the fault is mine.

Let's return to Annie Chapman and her time of death. Observations about Kate Eddowes would be appropriate on her threads. Questions about credentials are best resolved through the private message function.

So, was it 5:30 AM or 4:30 AM?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

session 1

Hello Observer. Since you are tutoring logic (as per your dictum) perhaps you can explain what kinds of modal semantics are consistent with the axiom schemata of S4 and S5. In particular, what sorts of Kripkean models would support them?

Mediaeval logic differs little from contemporary logic. In fact, about the only major difference is Frege's revision of Aristotle's existential assumption made in the 1870's.

Looking forward to my next session. Perhaps you can help me pin down the first occurrence of De Morgan's theorem. 12 th c or 14 th c? There are reasons to accept either.

The best.
LC

[Observer]

And now tis time for this Guy to fly the roost Lynn Catesby, I'm aboot Fawked. By the way if I look out of my bedroom window, I can see a real life English castle which was there throughout the late medieval period. How neat is that?

All ye bestest

Ye Observere

[Observer]

Hi Lynn

No problems, what do you want to know? Lets start with the man whom was seen with Catherine Eddowes on the morning of the 30th September 1888. Three witnesses saw those two individuals at 1:35 a.m. At 1:45 a.m. she is found mutilated, 40/50 yards away. Expert witness testifies that the mutilations took up to 5 minutes. Logical reasoning would indicate that the individual who was sighted with Eddowes was her killer. Do you see how it works? I'll let you into a little secret, her killer wasn't hiding in an unoccupied house in Mitre Square waiting to pounce on her as she walked by.

all the best

Observer

PS Methinks your logic smacks of things medieval, flat Earth, philosophers stone etc. A Damsell in distress if ever I saw one.

[lynn cates]

logic

Hello Observer. If my logic skills are sub par, perhaps you could tutor me?

http://catalog.lib.utexas.edu/search~S29?/Xconcurrent+modalities&searchscope=29&SORT=D/Xconcurrent+modalities&searchscope=29&SORT=D&SUBKEY=concurrent%20modalities/1%2C2%2C2%2CB/frameset&FF=Xconcurrent+modalities&searchscope=29&SORT=D&1%2C1%2C

The best.
LC

[Observer]

PS

Lay off those Hollywood Scripts, real life aint like that.

all the best

Observer