Ripperologist 132: June 2013

[Lechmere]

Monty and jenni
It could be said that two articles were published on the Cadosch topic in ripperologist before the matter had been fully researched.
However I would not criticise Colin for doing it - he opened up an interesting area that others are investigating further.
I was just pointing out that what was being taken as a conclusive or accurate account of the the chapman witness Albert Cadosch's life, is in fact conjecture and a personal interpretation of the records - which may be disproved. Or it may not. It is still up in the air. That was all I was pointing out.

[Monty]

That's fair enough Ruby,

It is your research after all. However I'm sure you can appreciate that its difficult to form a conclusion based on part information, and unless it is fully presented and confirms what has been presented so far , Colins 'interpretation' cannot be dismissed so readily at this stage.

As for forcing ones hand, that is the perils of the field. Its not Colins fault he has gotten his research out there first however I can understand your frustration. However to state Colin may be wrong without concluding research with proves it is a little premature, not that what you have found is to be dismissed....far from it.

Its a shame you were not in contact with Colin to exchange information, as the pair of you may have been able to figure this guy out between you.

I wish you well in your endeavours, I shall watch with interest. As I've said before, any new information is good information.

Monty

[Monty]

Point taken Ed,

Like I said to Ruby, research is good.

Good luck to all.

Monty

[AdamNeilWood]

I don't think so. He was an Australian researcher. Can't remember the first name, though.

Hi Scott,

I think you're referring to Terry Saxby. He attended the 1998 conference in Norwich and gave a short talk on how he believed the number 39 appeared throughout the case, and pointed the finger at Henry Tabram:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Bux3WvTdJ34C&pg=PT46&lpg=PT46&dq=terry+saxby+henry+tabram&source=bl&ots=-XTf-MZfTW&sig=6jqWUQWo-aw1vMqLUkwNbwfnwzI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sqTKUfjZKqrS0QX75ICoCw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA

Best wishes
Adam

[Bridewell]

and nor was he a carpenter.

In August 1889 Charles Albert Cadosch is recorded as "Journeyman Carpenter" on his daughter's birth certificate - and on her death certificate in December of the same year.

I wish you well in your endeavours, I shall watch with interest. As I've said before, any new information is good information.

The same goes for me.

[Bridewell]

Use Occam's knife in the meantime..the pointers are that the man in Newcastle and Charles Albert Cadosch are two different people, as part of the Cadosch family originally believed until Colin convinced them otherwise.

This is the document wherein one member of the Cadosch family who conducted research into the family assumes the existence of a second Albert. The same individual also records that Charles Albert Cadosch "Died before 1872". In fact he was very much alive in 1872; we know this because, five years later in 1877, he married Alice French. This document, posted above, is the sum total of the 'half-brother' story as related to (and published by) me.

If there was a second Albert Cadosch we would expect to see a birth record for the younger child. None has been found. We would also expect to see a death certificate for the elder child. None has been presented. We would also expect to see Albert Cadosch Junior on the 1871 census as an infant. We see only 11-year-old Albert Senior. We would expect to see a lad of around 11 on the 1881 census. He isn't there - just Albert Cadosch Senior living with his wife and family. We would also expect to see a young man of around 21 in the 1891 census. He isn't there - just Albert Cadosch Senior living with his wife and family in Colchester.

nor was he (the Colchester Albert Cadosch) a carpenter

The Albert Cadosch who testified at the Chapman inquest was a carpenter. The Albert Cadosch whom we find in Essex in 1889 was also a carpenter.

So we have two possibilities:

There was one Albert Cadosch, for whose existence there is ample evidence, who disappears from the historical record in Colchester in 1891 and then re-appears in Newcastle in 1893 when he enters into a bigamous marriage.

There were two men named Albert Cadosch, sons of the same father, both carpenters, the first being someone whose existence is well-documented up to and including 1891 but not thereafter, the second being someone whose existence is not recorded prior to 1893 and who died in 1896, there being no identified death record for his older half-brother.

It is now over a year since doubts were cast upon the validity of my Cadosch research with reference being made to there being evidence of the existence of a younger half-brother to Charles Albert Cadosch. That is long enough, in my view, for this evidence to have been put into the public domain and made available for peer review. If anyone has genuine evidence for the existence of the half-brother can they please either publish it or stop making dark references to its existence without actually doing so.
Please feel free to use Occam's Razor in the interim as RubyRetro suggested some time ago. Many thanks.

[lynn cates]

good

Hello Colin. Well done.

Ironic that often those who cast aspersions on one's research do little themselves.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Colin

Does not the "Died before 1872" refer to Marie Adeline rather than her son?

It is significant surely that the second marriage takes place in 1872, hence perhaps the assumption within the family that the first wife died before then...

All the best

Dave