AC and TOD

[Sam Flynn]

Why did no-one see Annie wandering the streets from the time she left the lodgings till the time she was murdered?

Hi M&P,

A few factors to bear in mind:

a) People were only just getting up for work when her body was discovered, and an overwhelming majority of potential witnesses would have been in bed during the hours of Annie's wanderings;

b) Of the few who were still out and about, not many - if any - would have known her personally, or even vaguely, even if they'd seen her. It was that kind of neighbourhood;

c) Of those who might have been in a position to see her, she may as well have been yet another vagrant kicked out for not having her doss - and not particularly memorable for that very reason;

d) It's possible that some might have seen her but did not come forward; or did come forward, only for their testimony not to be recorded for posterity or otherwise lost.

[KatBradshaw]

Yes I think so.
But also, if she couldn't pay for her bed then what could she pay for. She is describbed as not being well fed so maybe it was merely desperation for a client and some food that kept her out so long.
As well as this didn't some of the lodging houses shut their doors after a certain point?

[lynn cates]

sleepy

Hello Kat. So then, far from giving up, she merely changed her reason for soliciting?

I suppose that, by the putative 5:30, she was barely awake.

The best.
LC

[KatBradshaw]

The issue of giving up.

You have discussed what would Annie be doing and if she would be bothering to carry on looking for business by this time (5.30). If Annie did not have the money for her bed, then she can't have had money for much else either. Where was she to go? How was she to try to feed herself. Most places, eating establishments, pubs, lodging houses, expected you to spend whilst there. I am guessing she was hoping for someone for her to make some money out of. Poor Annie, didn't find someone to give her the money.

[lynn cates]

forgery

Hello Mitch. In that case, I would dismiss forgery. To my puny mind, forgery becomes a motive ONLY in cases of financial gain (or something of that sort). I do not see any financial gain involved here.

But I do get a niggling sense of someone mutilating a human body and wondering, "Now, how did that go again? Am I to cut this part out? Oops, I believe there were facial mutilations in the last case. Mustn't forget those. Now, which organs am I to take?"

Of course, nothing approaching a well person could do that. That is why I have wondered (sometimes aloud) whether the chap responsible for MJK's death could be suffering from something like a temporal lobe disorder.

But perhaps we can do no better than advert to Sir MM's thesis about mental deterioration and increased violence.

The best.
LC

[Mitch Rowe]

Report Forged?

If thats the Case then its much more likely Bonds report is forged than there is a copy-cat killer.

[lynn cates]

copy

Hello Mitch. There are many similarities in the 2 cases.

Do you never feel like someone is self-consciously trying to effect something in the case of Kelly? To copy details, I mean.

The best.
LC

[Mitch Rowe]

I dont wish to open up this can of worms again but my reasoning is that if Bonds report on MJK is factual then I believe at least three exceedingly rare things were done to both ACs and MJKs bodies that make it pretty much impossible for them not to be connected. Not to mention a whole slew of other things wich are common to both murders. What we have is a guy who cuts the skin away from the belly presumably to gain access to internal organs. That in itself is something Ive never heard of. We have two notches in the neck vertibrea of both victims also. And the neck wounds were described as being cut "All round". Stuff like that just dont happen every day. If ever again. So in my opinion I can safely say Im sure they were connected.

[lynn cates]

epistemic state

Hello Mitch.

"The only thing I[']m sure of is one person killed AC and MJK and I assume I will call this person the Ripper."

Good. That is a VERY common view.

But just to satisfy my curiosity, what, particularly, inspires your confidence?

LC

[Chris]

perrymason

Just to be clear, what I am saying is that if you're going to start following me around the boards making off-topic personal attacks, I'll alert the moderator to the situation.

Now, I think there's been enough disruption of the discussion by this personal stuff.

[Mitch Rowe]

Hello Mitch. A sensible response, that.

Do you think it advisable, then, to forego discussions that include, "Well, we know the ripper X, because Mrs. Long and Cadosch . . . "?

The best.
LC

We dont know diddly about the Ripper except what we assume were his victims and what was done to them. The only thing Im sure of is one person killed AC and MJK and I assume I will call this person the Ripper.

[Mitch Rowe]

Well, let's hypothetically say that none of the witnesses existed, going by what very little evidence there is, would Annie's death make an iota of sense to still have taken place at dawn? Is there a shred of proof or a clue to indicate that that was the case? Because the only reason to believe that she was murdered during daylight is on the grounds of three pretty shaky witness testimonies.



Really? Said in good nature!

AC dies from the time it takes her living body by whatever means she travelled to get to the backyard to shortly before her body is discovered. I can think of a thousand scenarios where any time could be possible.

I have stated my opinion here, just as I stated my opinion about the Lusk letter (and that topic has its own thread, which is the appropriate place to discuss it). I have also made it perfectly clear that I think other people have a right to different opinions.

What I don't do is bear grudges against people, indulge in personal attacks and threaten other posters. You've made it abundantly clear that you have a personal problem with me - and don't imagine for a moment that I've forgotten anything you've done, or threatened to do, in the past. But please don't start following me around the boards trying to pick arguments. The site actually has an effective policy to prevent that.

Seems to me that your first sentence in bold is then countered by your second one, and it is you who have been rude to me on threads like the one I mentioned.

And as for "following you around". ......you happen to post your nonsense on threads that I read and participate in sometimes, and thats the only time I would ever come across something you wrote or make a comment about your post, if its inane.

Stick to your research instead of posting argumentative nonsense and you have nothing to worry about.

Regards

[lynn cates]

sense

Hello M & P. You ask:

"would Annie's death make an iota of sense to still have taken place at dawn?"

Well, that would depend. If everyone were abed, and Jack knew it, and had no worries about its being a market day . . . hmmm, come to think of it, it makes NO sense whatsoever.

"the only reason to believe that she was murdered during daylight is on the grounds of three pretty shaky witness testimonies."

And to see to what extent they are shaky, recall Cadosch was not sure where the "No" came from. And Mrs. Long? Try 5:15. One can hear a clock strike--say, Big Ben--and unless perfectly attentive, not recall whether it is the quarter, half, or 3/4 hour.

This would tally MUCH BETTER with her stated departure time from her location.

The best.
LC

[lynn cates]

discussions

Hello Mitch. A sensible response, that.

Do you think it advisable, then, to forego discussions that include, "Well, we know the ripper X, because Mrs. Long and Cadosch . . . "?

The best.
LC