No Trophies

[Errata]

Hello Chava. Thanks.

A pony will not step on something human.

Cheers.
LC

Actually they step on something human all the time, as the dent in my femur can attest to. They will shy once they do it, because we are bad footing. But I don't want anyone to think they are safe just sacking out in front of a horse or some such. Bad Idea.

But they are prey animals, and have terrible eyesight (which is why they step on our feet and such). They rely on smell. And they absolutely will not approach something that smells of blood and fear. They would have been used to it to a certain extent, butchers being scattered through the area etc. But a fresh kill, that triggers it's prey instincts, and really I'm astonished the horse simply shied from the body instead of moving heaven and earth and risking serious injury in an effort to get rid of the cart and escape. In the wild it would have screamed a warning and run like a bat out of hell (anyone else confused by this particular simile?). But this is a city pony, so he may have settled for simply not getting any closer to the body.

But that why killing someone in a carriage wouldn't work. There would be no controlling even the most placid pony if it had violent death strapped to it's butt.

[Fisherman]

Perhaps my experience is atypical but in my experience police officers think in five minute intervals, especially when compiling retrospective records, which was probably the case here. If they had no watches the time would, of necessity, be estimated, perhaps even by waiting for a clock to strike and approximating from that. Where they say "3.45" I hazard a guess that the meaning is "closer to 3.45 than to 3.40 or 3.50". Between 3.43 and 3.47am would be my approximation of the time-span for the involvement of the various officers.

I agree on the whole, Colin. My own take would be that Paul was correct on the time, when he said that it was "exactly" 3.45 as he passed down Bucks Row - reasonably, he heard the clock strike the quarter as he was there. The PC:s in the area would also have noted that strike - and it would be the last strike heard on their account before things started to happen. Just my own guess, but there you are.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

I dont recall reading that it shut automatically Jon, and in any photos that exist or even a sketch from the period that back door seems to be open.

Hi Michael.

There is a thread here where the type of hinge was discussed, the question was asked if 'self-closing' hinges were available in the 19th century.
So the issue has been thoroughly discussed

John Richardson said the backyard door closed by itself.

"I did not close the back door. It closed itself."

That was all I was referring to.

In the pics you show we know the fence is not original so the door may also not be original, or it may have been remounted for some reason.

.

[Bridewell]

Approximation in Timed Entries

Of course, we cannot have Neil arriving at 3.45 (and there was more; both Thain and Mizen ALSO state that they were drawn into the drama at 3.45).

Perhaps my experience is atypical but in my experience police officers think in five minute intervals, especially when compiling retrospective records, which was probably the case here. If they had no watches the time would, of necessity, be estimated, perhaps even by waiting for a clock to strike and approximating from that. Where they say "3.45" I hazard a guess that the meaning is "closer to 3.45 than to 3.40 or 3.50". Between 3.43 and 3.47am would be my approximation of the time-span for the involvement of the various officers.

[Bridewell]

Hi Michael.

We are told the backyard door swung closed automatically. Are you suggesting the killer held it open by some means intentionally?

.

I would have thought holding it closed suited his purpose a great deal better.

[Phil H]

I do think we have to challenge every witness in this case - but that is what historians do anyway, isn't it?

We look at the possible bias of witnesses, the sources of their information, whether they were in a position to know, their background etc etc. That's true whether we are discussing George Washington or Hannibal, let alone JtR.

But several specific points arise with Cadosche:

a) he had lied in relation to officialdom;

b) we have nothing to corroborate his testimony;

c) he could not relate what he allegedly heard to anything visual;

d) had his later behaviour been known and the case had come to court, I believe his evidence would have been discredited;

e) we KNOW that he is unreliable in a way that is NOT TRUE of (say) Mrs Long/Darrell or Lawende.

The fact that we have such sparse information to go on in this case, should not, IMHO, deter us from dismissing or treating with great care, any testimony that comes from an unreliable source. My position is thus, that while I NOTE what Cadosche said, I no longer regard it, in itself, as a determinant of events.

phil

[lynn cates]

human

Hello Chava. Thanks.

A pony will not step on something human.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

long shot

Hello Barbara. Thanks.

I agree, but was responding to the Mrs. Long business only.

Cheers.
LC

[Chava]

Thanks for those pics Michael! The contemporary drawing appears not to be too accurate. So I think we have to take it with some amount of salt. The area beside the door where the body was found is extremely narrow according to the photos. I can't believe the body was found that far into it given the posing and the way she was spread-eagled on the ground.

[Michael W Richards]

My point was that Cadosche is an UNRELIABLE WITNESS.

As the FIRST POST in the linked thread states:

Albert Cadosch was a bigamist. He died in March 1896 in a Newcastle infirmary of what amounts to massive heart failure. He was 3 months short of his 36th birthday, but his age is recorded, in the death register, as 28.

He lied about his marital status; he lied about his age.

A defence counsel in a trial would have made mincemeat of him. I don't think his duplicity was known in 1888 - but it is known to us and IMHO needs to be taken into account in assessing his testimony. He lied not once, but twice for his own benefit.

Thus in saying what he heard he MIGHT have been seeking to gain fame or even money from a close association with a notorious crime. "I was the one who heard Jack strike!" or words to that effect.

Phil

Phil

Based on that Phil I would think we need to question the veracity of every witness who ever made a statement, because if you can produce for me one person who has never told a self serving lie we could market them as a Human Oddity. If the story is accurate then he lied about things people lie about everyday, that doesnt make them all unreliable, just human.

If you can accept that some decent law abiding people lie about their marital status or their age, then surely you can grant Cadosche some lenience with any judgements you might make in that regard.

This was a murder investigation..about someone gutted right next door to him. I believe he had self preservation in mind....not headlines, and that means he needs protection on his side. So he co-operates.

Cheers

[Chava]

Hello Chava. Thanks.

"Wasn't it the guy with the pony and trap coming into the yard?"

Dimshits didn't come into the yard until 1.00 or slightly after. Liz was most likely cut at least 5 minutes before.

"I've reread the inquest evidence and it's not clear, but Diemschutz's horse shied at something and I've always thought that what he shied at was a man getting up in a hell of a hurry from right underneath his hooves."

Actually, it was Liz's body.

Cheers.
LC

Actually we don't know that. The horse shied. The body was found after Diemschutz got down from his cart. But why would the horse shy at a prone object in its way? It would simply step on it or over it. It's not like the horses of the time were unused to getting over and past obstacles in the road. A horse would shy at something which startles it. An inanimate object won't do that, but a man getting up in a hurry right beside him definitely would. It's years and years since I rode, but I do remember being told over and over not to make sharp movements too near a horse because they don't like it and may react badly.

[Phil H]

My point was that Cadosche is an UNRELIABLE WITNESS.

As the FIRST POST in the linked thread states:

Albert Cadosch was a bigamist. He died in March 1896 in a Newcastle infirmary of what amounts to massive heart failure. He was 3 months short of his 36th birthday, but his age is recorded, in the death register, as 28.

He lied about his marital status; he lied about his age.

A defence counsel in a trial would have made mincemeat of him. I don't think his duplicity was known in 1888 - but it is known to us and IMHO needs to be taken into account in assessing his testimony. He lied not once, but twice for his own benefit.

Thus in saying what he heard he MIGHT have been seeking to gain fame or even money from a close association with a notorious crime. "I was the one who heard Jack strike!" or words to that effect.

Phil

Phil

[Michael W Richards]

You are aware, are you Michael, that the integrity of Cadosche as a witness has been called into question?

Phil

The link to the thread in question is here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...light=Cadosche

I checked the link Phil and I think the explanation for the conclusion is hard to read actually. And Id be inclined... much to my dismay ... to agree with T Wescott when he points out the relevance of his familial deceptions with his statement in a murder investigation.

There is nothing that Cadosche says that condemns anyone in particular, nor is there an absolute certainty he heard the victim cry softly...and it doesnt appear to me that his statement is re-considered by the authorities for its validity after its given. All in all its a pretty benign statement, it doesnt seem to serve him in any way nor does it make him an eye witness to a murder or murderer, which would serve the police.

But for investigatorial purposes its invaluable I think.

Cheers Phil

[Phil H]

You are aware, are you Michael, that the integrity of Cadosche as a witness has been called into question?

Phil

The link to the thread in question is here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6767&highlight=Cadosche

[Michael W Richards]

I am really pleased when people cite the statement of Mr Cadosche...its a vital ear witness account in the Chapman case. Because at the time he hears a soft "no" and a thud in the next yard Annie is either actively being killed, found dead by someone or about to be gutted. There is really no reason to suspect the soft cry was by anyone but Annie due to the time he heard it and the disposition of the corpse when examined shortly thereafter. It was her and her killer..almost certainly. Which of course means Mrs Long was wrong.

The proximity to the sounds and the fact that Cadosche was quite likely to have a better sense of the time, Im sure he checked it as he first woke...dont we all?

Cheers