Long v Cadosch. Seeing vs Hearing.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

An alternative reading of his evidence could be that the "no" did come from the yard of no.29, but he couldn't tell from which side of that yard it came from.

Yes , but the these words ''he couldnt say which side it came from '' you know what a even a cheap attorney would do with such a comment ? , Just saying we dont have any proof where it come from do we?.

[Joshua Rogan]

His testimony doesn't prove anyone was in the backyard of 29 Hanbury st, only that he heard a no", from which side he couldn't say for sure, so there is "doubt" it may well have been or may not have come from 29 but its not proof

An alternative reading of his evidence could be that the "no" did come from the yard of no.29, but he couldn't tell from which side of that yard it came from.

[FISHY1118]

His testimony doesn't prove anyone was in the backyard of 29 Hanbury st, only that he heard a no", from which side he couldn't say for sure, so there is "doubt" it may well have been or may not have come from 29 but its not proof

As for the noise against the fence no proof it was a body.

[Bridewell]

OUT THE DOOR YOU GO TOO...... ''No one is taking Long or Cadosch as gospel''.... EXCEPT THAT YOU DID. ''But Cadoschs testimony carries significant weight. Cadoschs testimony doesn't prove the killer was in the yard of 29 Hanbury st between 5.15 . 5.30 period .

No, but it proves that somebody was. If that person wasn't the killer you have to wonder why they didn't notice a dead woman lying next to the steps.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I've read that dissertation before...it's a well thought out read, and expresses a perfectly valid alternative theory...not one I personally subscribe to, but perfectly valid.

So let's think this through; if you shift the estimated time of death forward a couple of hours, so what? Does it somehow place more emphasis on one suspect than another? No...does it teach us anything that we don't already know about the difficulties of evaluating witnesses and the vagaries of LVP timekeeping? No...

In fact the one thing it might teach us if true...that the killer was perfectly happy with killing efficiently in the absolute dark, (no streetlights in the back yard of No 29)...is something that you appear to be vehemently disputing in the Eddowes threads...

Do I hear the phantom coach making it's way undetected down the hallway of No 29 with phantom horses banging their phantom knees on the bannisters? If your object in starting this thread is yet another attempt at promoting Stephen Knight's fictional nonsense, then I'm out of here...goodbye...

Yes Dave. This is exactly why Fishy is proposing this. It’s not a reasoned, unbiased analysis of events in Hanbury Street it’s a shameless attempt at shoehorning Knight’s fantasy into the frame yet again. A very obvious agenda.

[Herlock Sholmes]

By Mr. Crawford: ''At twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found, but did not notice anything then.'' SIMPLE ENOUGH ENGLISH .

I DID NOT NOTICE ANYTHING ... the apron is something, there for he did not see it.

Pathetic.

As you well know Fishy you had previously stated that because Halse didn’t notice it that proved it wasn’t there. Don’t try and change things now to try and lessen how wrong you are. I know what you said.

[FISHY1118]

I've read that dissertation before...it's a well thought out read, and expresses a perfectly valid alternative theory...not one I personally subscribe to, but perfectly valid.

a perfectly alternative valid theory.......