Long v Cadosch. Seeing vs Hearing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There seems to be a continued and determined effort to discredit Cadosch for some reason. His initial thought was that the ‘no’ came from number 29 but he reflected that he couldn’t be absolutely certain about it. To me, that indicates an honest witness who wasn’t just determined to make a point at all costs. Because he heard the ‘no’ which he believed came from number 29 that meant that he was alerted to at least the possibility of someone being in the are of number 29 so hearing the noise, when he was a very few feet from the fence, is strong evidence that he did indeed hear something against the fence of number 29. No one else came forward as being in that yard and as according to Phillips there was a mutilated corpse there we can’t assume that someone would have failed to see it. So we are in the realm of accusing animals. A dog can be eliminated as it wouldn’t have got out of the yard and cats are very light and not known for their clumsiness.

No witness is perfect but to dismiss Cadosch is just silly. He’s a strong witness that there was a live human being in the yard of number 29 when he said that there was.All that we have against this are the old points/fallacies , a) if he was uncertain about one thing he must have been uncertain about everything, or b) he lied because he wanted his 15 minutes of fame. It’s weak stuff. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that some people just don’t want Cadosch to have been right because they want/need an earlier TOD.

[FISHY1118]

Ill say it again .He couldnt be sure which side the ''NO'' came from , conclusion..... .'' Doubt'' So we cannot prove there was anyone the yard of 29 handbury st based on one Albert cadoschs testimony.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And I’ll say it again, he was absolutely certain that the noise came from number 29. You do realise that it’s possible to hear one thing with certainty but not another? Simple stuff really.

So “no doubt.”

[FISHY1118]

And I’ll say it again, he was absolutely certain that the noise came from number 29. You do realise that it’s possible to hear one thing with certainty but not another? Simple stuff really.

So “no doubt.”

Oh did i miss the bit where he said he was ''certain'' it came from 29 ?


Still Doubt

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh did i miss the bit where he said he was ''certain'' it came from 29 ?


Still Doubt

Nitpicking, as you well know Fishy:

“While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.”

It’s irrelevant that he didn’t use the word ‘certain.’ The point is, as everyone understands, he didn’t express any doubt. If he expressed doubt about the ‘no’ then equally he’s have expressed doubt about the noise if that were the case. But it wasn’t. So clearly he had…..

no doubt.

[FISHY1118]

Nitpicking, as you well know Fishy:

“While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.”

It’s irrelevant that he didn’t use the word ‘certain.’ The point is, as everyone understands, he didn’t express any doubt. If he expressed doubt about the ‘no’ then equally he’s have expressed doubt about the noise if that were the case. But it wasn’t. So clearly he had…..

no doubt.

Geez louise, I wasn't talking about the noise against the fence herlock, the "no" he was unsure about the voice he couldn't be certain at number 29 what side of the yard it came from . Do you do this on purpose to rev me up?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Geez louise, I wasn't talking about the noise against the fence herlock, the "no" he was unsure about the voice he couldn't be certain at number 29 what side of the yard it came from . Do you do this on purpose to rev me up?

And do you do this on purpose Fishy? You make a point, then try to deny it and I have to go back through the thread quoting what you’ve said. I know that you were initially only talking about the ‘No,’ but I mentioned the noise and you responded to that point.

#47 you made the point about Cadosch’s uncertainty about the word ‘no.’

#48 I made the point about him having no doubt about where the noise came from.

#49 you made a nitpicking comment about my use of the word ‘certain,’ even though I clearly wasn’t quoting Cadosch’s own words.

So you were very obviously responding to my comment about the noise and not the ‘no.’ It’s in black and white Fishy and can’t possibly be misunderstood or interpreted differently by anyone so please don’t waste time trying to dispute this.

[FISHY1118]

And do you do this on purpose Fishy? You make a point, then try to deny it and I have to go back through the thread quoting what you’ve said. I know that you were initially only talking about the ‘No,’ but I mentioned the noise and you responded to that point.

#47 you made the point about Cadosch’s uncertainty about the word ‘no.’

#48 I made the point about him having no doubt about where the noise came from.

#49 you made a nitpicking comment about my use of the word ‘certain,’ even though I clearly wasn’t quoting Cadosch’s own words.

So you were very obviously responding to my comment about the noise and not the ‘no.’ It’s in black and white Fishy and can’t possibly be misunderstood or interpreted differently by anyone so please don’t waste time trying to dispute this.

Albert Cadosch [Cadoche] deposed: I live at 27, Hanbury-street, and am a carpenter. 27 is next door to 29, Hanbury-street. On Saturday, Sept. 8, I got up about a quarter past five in the morning, and went into the yard. It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. 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''. I went indoors, but returned to the yard about three or four minutes afterwards. While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.
The Coroner: Did you look to see what it was? - No.

there we go everyone

''Think'' as not sure , ''cannot say'' as i dont know for sure .

Hope this clears this up josh , what the other post is all about is anyones guess.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Albert Cadosch [Cadoche] deposed: I live at 27, Hanbury-street, and am a carpenter. 27 is next door to 29, Hanbury-street. On Saturday, Sept. 8, I got up about a quarter past five in the morning, and went into the yard. It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. 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''. I went indoors, but returned to the yard about three or four minutes afterwards. While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.
The Coroner: Did you look to see what it was? - No.

there we go everyone

''Think'' as not sure , ''cannot say'' as i dont know for sure .

Hope this clears this up josh , what the other post is all about is anyones guess.

You’re a dishonest poster. Keep it to yourself I’m tired of you. Utterly pathetic.

[FISHY1118]

You’re a dishonest poster. Keep it to yourself I’m tired of you. Utterly pathetic.

you realized what youve just done dont you ,

[Herlock Sholmes]

you realized what youve just done dont you ,

I’m no longer willing to discuss this with you Fishy. You do this every time. You post as if all previous posts aren’t visible to anyone else.

You mentioned the ‘No.’ I never disputed that fact.

Then I brought up Cadosch’s hearing of the noise which I said that he was certain of. I never suggested that he actually used the word ‘certain’ though.

You responded by asking me to point out where he used the word ‘certain.’

I pointed out that, of course I wasn’t suggesting that he’d used the word ‘certain’ but that he’d expressed no doubt (as he had expressed doubt about the ‘No.’ ) Which meant that Cadosch had no doubt that he heard the noise coming from number 29. If someone has no doubt, it means that they are ‘certain,’ which means that you were pointlessly nitpicking about something I hadn’t claimed.

It clearly shows that you were responding to my point about the noise and clearly not the ‘no.’

Then, and THIS is the point……you falsely claimed not to have been responding to the point about the noise. It simply cannot be clearer.

End of discussion as far as I’m concerned although if we go with history you will continue to wriggle and try evermore weird ways to deny the obvious.

[FISHY1118]

I’m no longer willing to discuss this with you Fishy. You do this every time. You post as if all previous posts aren’t visible to anyone else.

You mentioned the ‘No.’ I never disputed that fact.

Then I brought up Cadosch’s hearing of the noise which I said that he was certain of. I never suggested that he actually used the word ‘certain’ though.

You responded by asking me to point out where he used the word ‘certain.’

I pointed out that, of course I wasn’t suggesting that he’d used the word ‘certain’ but that he’d expressed no doubt (as he had expressed doubt about the ‘No.’ ) Which meant that Cadosch had no doubt that he heard the noise coming from number 29. If someone has no doubt, it means that they are ‘certain,’ which means that you were pointlessly nitpicking about something I hadn’t claimed.

It clearly shows that you were responding to my point about the noise and clearly not the ‘no.’

Then, and THIS is the point……you falsely claimed not to have been responding to the point about the noise. It simply cannot be clearer.

End of discussion as far as I’m concerned although if we go with history you will continue to wriggle and try evermore weird ways to deny the obvious.

I see where you went wrong Herlock my post 49 is talking about the "No" not the noise. And if you follow the previous post you'll see that is the case right from my 1st reply to Josh.

So your "dishonest " opinion of me is unwarranted and you should apologize.

[FISHY1118]

To be fair my 49 reply was obviously continuing on from my 47 post , if I miss read your post or jump the gun to quick yes my fault..

[Herlock Sholmes]

I see where you went wrong Herlock my post 49 is talking about the "No" not the noise. And if you follow the previous post you'll see that is the case right from my 1st reply to Josh.

So your "dishonest " opinion of me is unwarranted and you should apologize.

I didn’t go wrong.

I said this in post 48:

And I’ll say it again, he was absolutely certain that the noise came from number 29. You do realise that it’s possible to hear one thing with certainty but not another? Simple stuff really.

Clearly about the noise and not the ‘no.’ Your response actually quoted this post so you were undoubtedly commenting about the noise. You can’t have been talking about the ‘no’ because the ‘no’ isn’t mentioned in the post that you quoted. This is about as clear as can be.

You said

So “no doubt.”
Oh did i miss the bit where he said he was ''certain'' it came from 29 ?

Will you actually admit that you are wrong on this. It really couldn’t be clearer.

[FISHY1118]

I'll admit I was responding to my post ,which by the way you never responded to, you went straight to the "noise claim" .so yes an error on my part, hardly dishonest tho .