Long v Cadosch. Seeing vs Hearing.

[FISHY1118]

More than once you’ve misunderstood simply English. Like when you said that because Halse said

that he didn’t notice the graffito first time around you said that that Proved that it wasn’t there.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

OUT THE DOOR YOU GO TOO...... ''No one is taking Long or Cadosch as gospel''.... EXCEPT THAT YOU DID. ''But Cadosch’s 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 .

I mean this honestly Fishy.....is English your first language?

More than once you’ve misunderstood simply English. Like when you said that because Halse said that he didn’t notice the graffito first time around you said that that Proved that it wasn’t there.

Saying that Cadosch’s testimony carries significant weight doesn’t mean that I’ve said that it’s gospel. It means that there are good reasons to believe that he might have been correct or telling the truth. And if true it carries weight.

Its itritating having to explain these these things to you all the time Fishy. Either you’re misunderstanding or your deliberately trying to misinform. Knowing your history the latter seems likeliest.

[FISHY1118]

OUT THE DOOR YOU GO TOO...... ''No one is taking Long or Cadosch as gospel''.... EXCEPT THAT YOU DID. ''But Cadosch’s 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 .

[Herlock Sholmes]

What it teaches us is we cant take long and codosch statements as gospel like most people seem to think . And it changes a whole lot more than you think if we do move it a few hours earlier . first its now totally dark , 2nd most of the if not all the people in 29 handbury st are sleeping , 3rd no ones in the street , except maybe a horse and carriage .
ill start any thread i like and promote any theory i like .... so it looks like your out of here, on your way .

Typical Fishy shoehorning here Dave.

No one is taking Long or Cadosch as gospel. But Cadosch’s testimony carries significant weight. The fact that he wasn’t certain about where the no came from smacks of honesty to me as he could easily have lied and said that it definitely came from number 29. But it appears ok for you to take Phillip’s as gospel simply because it makes it nice a dark for your imaginary coach and horses.

Richardson blows that out of the water I’m afraid. We have a perfectly reasonable, logical explanation for why he might have changed his story but there’s one fact that he was absolutely rock solid on and that’s that at 4.45 he sat on the step and could see the whole yard and Annie wasn’t there. She simply wasn’t there.

Of course you’re trying to manipulate the circumstances to allow for Knight’s joke.

What are the chances of a posh coach and horses driving round the East End in the wee small hours but never being noticed near to a crime scene?

What are the chances that a highly intelligent man like Gull would have been party to such an insanely risky plan which involved two men carrying a mutilated corpse on the pavement?

Take Mitre Square for example. An ideal echo chamber. Did anyone, like George Morris sweeping up near an open doorway, hear a coach and horses trundle in then out again? Or, if it’s suggested that the coach was parked in Mitre Street, we then have the ludicrous suggestion of two men carrying a mutilated corpse yards into the corner of Mitre Square without leaving a single drip of blood too. It’s like something from The Goon Show.

You just can’t help laughing when you think about it. And there’s a poster on here (yes a real person) that actually believes this drivel.

[FISHY1118]

What it teaches us is we cant take long and codosch statements as gospel like most people seem to think . And it changes a whole lot more than you think if we do move it a few hours earlier . first its now totally dark , 2nd most of the if not all the people in 29 handbury st are sleeping , 3rd no ones in the street , except maybe a horse and carriage .
ill start any thread i like and promote any theory i like .... so it looks like your out of here, on your way .

[Cogidubnus]

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...

[FISHY1118]

I doubt it Cogidubnus , you probably need to read the Wolf Vanderlinden Considerable Doubt and the Death of Annie Chapman im sure packers and i will be here waiting .

[Cogidubnus]

There is only one reason that we know of Cadosche at all, and its because his statement has bearing on what happened that night in the backyard at #27. There is no reason at all to even mention him if his claim concerned #25. Another silly thread premise.

Well Fishy seems to have started it and Packers followed up...they've both disappeared...was it something I said?

[Michael W Richards]

There is only one reason that we know of Cadosche at all, and its because his statement has bearing on what happened that night in the backyard at #27. There is no reason at all to even mention him if his claim concerned #25. Another silly thread premise.

[Scott Nelson]

How would Stewart know what is a reliable contemporary sketch and what isn't a reliable contemporary sketch

Good God.

When are you going to start using your real name when you post?

[Cogidubnus]

No , haven't got that one Dave
Can't see me buying it for the sake of the fence height tbh
I'm only saying the other sketches shouldn't be dismissed and we should be careful of taking witness statements literally regarding the fence .
Seem to remember one newspaper quote from Chandler mentioning the possibility of a killer escaping over 'or through' the fence

Might be worth your while for all the rest of the content Packers - there are copies on Amazon for less than a quid at present, and I noticed one that's only three and a half quid including post and packing...still, that's up to you of course!

I'll start us off shall I?

John Davis - evidence of inquest per Daily News 11th September:

The Coroner - Before we go any further will you describe the yard?

The witness - It is a biggish yard. Facing me on the opposite side of the yard, but to the left, was the shed in which Mrs. Richardson, who occupies part of the house, keeps her wood. On both sides are close wooden fences, about 5ft 6in high, separating the yard from others on each side.

Albert Cadosche - evidence of Inquest per Daily News 20th September

Albert Cadosch, carpenter, testified that he lived at 27 Hanbury street, next door to the house at the back of which the deceased was found. On that morning he got up about a quarter past five and went into the back yard. As he was returning into the house he heard a voice quite near. He could not be sure that it came from the yard of No. 29. Three or four minutes the witness was again in the yard of the house in which he lived, and heard "a sort of fall" against the fence. He did not look to see what it was.

The Coroner - Had you heard any previous noise? - No, sir.

Did you then leave the house? - Yes, sir, to go to work. It was about two minutes after half past five.

At that time in the morning do you often hear people in these yards? - Now and then. They make packing cases at 29, and I sometimes hear them.

The Foreman - Had you not the curiosity to look over the palings when you heard the fall?

The Witness - Well, now and then a packing case falls against the palings, and I did not think that there was anything wrong.

Memo of 19th October from Swanson to Home Office:

...at the rear of No 27, separated only by a wooden fence about five feet high

Hope that's a good scene-setter?

Dave

[packers stem]

There are witness statements and inquest evidence which back up the contemporary drawing I mentioned...and the photograph also backs up the sketch per the positioning of the back door of No 27.

I assume it was study of that evidence which led the authors to single out that particular sketch and describe it as "excellent"...have you got a copy of "Scotland Yard Investigates"?

Dave

No , haven't got that one Dave
Can't see me buying it for the sake of the fence height tbh
I'm only saying the other sketches shouldn't be dismissed and we should be careful of taking witness statements literally regarding the fence .
Seem to remember one newspaper quote from Chandler mentioning the possibility of a killer escaping over 'or through' the fence

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Dave
How would Stewart know what is a reliable contemporary sketch and what isn't a reliable contemporary sketch
There were no photos taken of the scene until the 60s I'm fairly sure

There are witness statements and inquest evidence which back up the contemporary drawing I mentioned...and the photograph also backs up the sketch per the positioning of the back door of No 27.

I assume it was study of that evidence which led the authors to single out that particular sketch and describe it as "excellent"...have you got a copy of "Scotland Yard Investigates"?

Dave

[packers stem]

On pages 68 and 69 of "Scotland Yard Investigates", there is a (per Stewart Evans) reliable contemporary sketch, (correctly showing the back door of No 27, and the 5ft to 5ft 6inch high close fence) together with a photograph of the back yard...

Cheers

Dave

Hi Dave
How would Stewart know what is a reliable contemporary sketch and what isn't a reliable contemporary sketch
There were no photos taken of the scene until the 60s I'm fairly sure

[Cogidubnus]

We should certainly give them credence as the door , steps and cellar are precisely as we know them to be , thus proving the sketch artist must have been in position , or at least one , others may have copied his sketch.
Unfortunately for us the wooden fence may have altered many times between 88 and our first photos of the scene so we can't know precisely how it was .
The sketches should be taken seriously

On pages 68 and 69 of "Scotland Yard Investigates", there is a (per Stewart Evans) reliable contemporary sketch, (correctly showing the back door of No 27, and the 5ft to 5ft 6inch high close fence) together with a photograph of the back yard...

Cheers

Dave