Tweet
negligible
Hello Dave. In looking at the distance between the steps and fence, it was negligible.
Cheers.
LC
Hello Dave. In looking at the distance between the steps and fence, it was negligible.
Cheers.
LC
-
-
Hi LynnHello Dave. In looking at the distance between the steps and fence, it was negligible.
Enough room for Diddles to leap into, banging the fence?
DaveComment
-
Hi Dave.Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post
Her body was said to be between the steps and the fence, but ahead of the steps of course.
From the many photo's we have we can see that there isn't more than 2 feet between the steps and the fence.
And, blood from her throat was said to have hit the fence, so the body must have been pretty much laid along the bottom of the fence.
Either her or the killer could have bumped the fence as the assault began.
Regards, Jon S.Regards, Jon S.Comment
-
This is what I was referring to...
(ignore the red circles)
Regards, Jon S.Comment
-
not much room
Hello Dave. Thanks.
Well, how about half of Diddles? Clearly, not much room.
Cheers.
LCComment
-
things that go bump
Hello Jon.
"the body must have been pretty much laid along the bottom of the fence.
Either her or the killer could have bumped the fence as the assault began."
I'm with you. Cadosch's "bump" was Annie falling.
Cheers.
LCComment
-
Hello Dave ,
I know these don't really mention exactly how close she was to the fence , but ..However, when the body is discovered it isn't lodged against the fencing at all...it is parallel to the fencing...does anyone know for sure how far from the fencing it actually is? If there's any significant distance, then surely Cadosche's testimony is at least somewhat devalued?
James Kent ..
Chandler..I saw a woman lying in the yard between the steps and the partition between the yard and the next. Her head was near the house, but no part of the body was against the wall. The feet were lying towards the back of Bayley's premises. (Witness indicated the precise position upon a plan produced by the police-officers).
And once again how do we align ..I saw the body of a woman lying on the ground on her back. Her head was towards the back wall of the house, nearly two feet from the wall, at the bottom of the steps, but six or nine inches away from them. The face was turned to the right side, and the left arm was resting on the left breast. The right hand was lying down the right side. Deceased's legs were drawn up, and the clothing was above the knees.
with..The face and hands were besmeared with blood, as if she had struggled. She appeared to have been on her back and fought with her hands to free herself. The hands were turned toward her throat. The legs were wide apart, and there were marks of blood upon them.
Firstly , he does not hear a violent struggle , and secondly he is not even sure it was from the yard of 29 .. i know Cadosh and Long are the closest we have to a viable witness .. but Really !!As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from.
Is it not just as plausible, that Cadosh was hearing the same couple that long may have witnessed ( Not Annie & killer) soon after they left one of the other yards ( Not 29 ) Is it really such a big leap to take ???
moonbegger .Comment
-
I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.Comment
-
Location
Why does a swift and efficient killing have to involve a violent struggle?Firstly , he does not hear a violent struggle
How so?, and secondly he is not even sure it was from the yard of 29 .
"He heard (first visit) a voice say, quite close to him, No'".
"He then heard (second visit) a sort of a fall against the fence, which divided his house from No.29".
The voice was "quite close to him" and the fall was "against the fence which divided his yard from No.29". If the voice was not in his own yard, yet was "quite close to him", where else could it have been?I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.Comment
-
I merely posed a question...(and to be fair Lynn, Jon and Chris attempted answers)... is there any more information anywhere please? How far was she actually from the fence when discovered...and from the steps...
Looking at the photos, clearly the body couldn't really have literally been both "between the steps and the partition between the yard and the next. Her head was near the house, but no part of the body was against the wall", and at the same time "Her head was towards the back wall of the house, nearly two feet from the wall, at the bottom of the steps, but six or nine inches away from them"...something's not quite right there
Speculatively, "Nearly two foot from the wall", (thanks Chris!), if actually a reference to the fence, could be suggestive...
Still puzzled
DaveComment
-
gap
Hello MB. There was about a three minute gap between "No" and the fall. Albert was making a second trip to the water closet.
Cheers.
LCComment
-
simple
Hello Colin. Thanks. Surely, this is the simplest view.
Cheers.
LCComment
-
sketch
Hello Dave. I saw one sketch that looked like 3-6 inches from the fence. She was well nigh adjacent. (Of course, a sketch may not capture reality.)
Cheers.
LCComment
-
Hello Lynn
Just to say I appreciated the "half of Diddles" comment as well as this latest!
(Is there a source for the sketch, or the data, please?)
All the best
DaveComment
-
Ultimate
Hello Dave. Thanks.
It was in "The Illustrated Police News." I think "The Ultimate" has a reproduction.
Cheers.
LCComment
Comment