Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was Albert Cadosch A Reliable Witness?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Was Albert Cadosch A Reliable Witness?

    The reliability of various witnesses often comes into question and not just in the Ripper murders so I wanted to put down my assessment of Albert Cadosch and then hear from other posters on where they agree or disagree. I want to keep my assessment within the bounds of reason and logic; making no leaps of faith so feel free to point out where you think I might have gone wrong.

    I don’t need to go into Cadosch’s story in depth as everyone is familiar with his evidence but basically he went into the yard to visit the outside loo when he heard the word ‘no’ from number 29. A very few minutes later he heard the sound of something either falling against or brushing against the fence of number 29 as he returned from a second visit to the outside loo. It has to be mentioned of course that he expressed considerable caution about the ‘no.’ He was quite prepared to admit that the word might have come from elsewhere. He expressed no such doubt about hearing the noise though. He was certain that it came from number 29.

    Could Cadosch Have Lied?

    Yes, all witness can potentially have lied but I’d suggest that the manner of his testimony speaks against this suggestion. His caution about the word ‘no’ doesn’t lead to suggestions of dishonesty. There was no one else around to challenge his words and so someone perhaps seeking his 15 minutes of fame would surely be less inclined to caution? He could have said that he’d definitely heard the word from number 29 without fear of contradiction. And so I conclude that we have no reason to doubt Cadosch’s honesty on this matter.

    Does The Fact The He Was Cautious About The No Mean That His Testimony Overall Is Unreliable?

    Posters might feel that this is a strange question (and I agree) but this has previously been suggested. I don’t think that we need to dwell on this. A witness shouldn’t lose merit because of caution. Put simply - if I claim to have seen Fred in town but he was a distance away and it might possibly have been someone that resembled him then later on I saw Bill who was only 10 feet away and so I was sure that it was him would we call my sighting of Bill unreliable. The logical answer is no and so Cadosch’s caution about the ‘no’ cannot lessen the validity his testimony of hearing the noise.

    Hearing The ‘No.’

    Could Cadosch have been mistaken about hearing the word? He said so himself so we have to accept the possibility. I’d make a suggestion about likelihood though in that we can usually determine the difference between a voice heard from around six feet away and a voice from potentially 20 or 30 yards away. No definites here but, for me, a likelihood. We also have to balance the fact that a murder took place in the next yard. The police would have questioned neighbours and as far as we know there was no one in the nearby backyards that might have said the word. And so of course we have to accept a level of doubt whilst remembering that Cadosch did actually feel that it came from number 29.

    Hearing The Noise.

    Unlike the ‘no’ Cadosch was certain about hearing the noise of either something falling against or brushing against the fence of number 29. He would have been around six feet away so I’d suggest that we have no reason to doubt him on this.

    Could The Noise Have Been Unconnected To The Murder?

    I genuinely cant see how it could have been. If Phillips was correct (and of course everyone knows that I don’t think that he was) then when Cadosch heard that noise Annie’s mutilated corpse was lying in that yard of number 29. So we can discount a person going about his normal business. So what else could it have been? I’m at a loss to come up with anything apart from a dog or a cat but is it at all likely ? I’d suggest not and increasing unlikely in a yard with a corpse and conveniently not long after the word ‘no’ had been heard. I therefore conclude that this noise was connected to Annie’s murder.

    Does The Time Gap Between The ‘No’ And The Noise Make It Unlikely That They Were Connected To The Murder?

    This suggestion has been made and if the ‘no’ was definitely the starting point for the killers attack and the noise was definitely Annie’s body falling against the fence then this would be a very valid point as the time gap would be inexplicable but is this the case? I’d strongly suggest no. We cannot know the context for the word ‘no.’ There’s no reason to assume that Annie and her killer didn’t speak. The word might simply have been part of a conversation. It might have been in response to the killer asking if they were likely to be disturbed. How often have we heard a single word spoken slightly louder than the rest of the conversation for emphasis. This word cannot be assigned as the starting point for the attack.

    Id also suggest that we cannot say that the noise was Annie’s body falling against the fence. It might simply have been the killer brushing a shoulder against the fence (possibly as he changed positions to get better access?) Maybe he moved Annie’s left arm away and it fell against the fence?

    So we cannot simply call the ‘no’ the starting point of the attack and the noise Annie’s body falling against the fence simply to give us a reason to dismiss Cadosch. Other very reasonable explanations are plausible alternatives.

    Should Cadosch Have Seen Annie And Her Killer?

    I don’t think that this suggestion should detain us unduly. For me it’s unlikely that Annie and her killer were standing near to the steps. It’s difficult, if not impossible, to see how Annie could have fallen or been lowered to the ground with her head near to the steps if that’s where they were standing. Surely it’s more likely that they were standing near to where Annie’s feet were eventually and she fell or was lowered with her head near to the steps? The fence was between 5 ft 6 inches and six feet high and Cadosch stated that he didn’t turn around when he heard the ‘no’ or the noise so why would he have seen them?

    Conclusion.

    Ive attempted to look at all aspects of Cadosh’s evidence in a reasoned, logical and unbiased way. We have to exercise caution with all witnesses of course but, for me, Cadosch appears to have been one of the most plausible witnesses in the case. Attention-seekers don’t usually employ caution (especially when there is no one to contradict them) and so i can’t see how Cadosch can be called an unreliable (and certainly not a dishonest) witness? Everything for me points to the suggestion that Cadosch probably heard a ‘no’ from number 29 and certainly heard something brush against the fence. Other explanations lack credibility therefore I have to conclude that it was overwhelmingly likely imo that Cadosch heard Annie and her killer at sometime around 5.25.

    Any opinions are welcome. Agree or disagree. Point out if I’ve missed something or if you feel that my approach is at fault. Let’s do it calmly and without personal ill feeling though.
    15
    Cadosch appears reliable.
    93.33%
    14
    Cadosch appears unreliable.
    6.67%
    1
    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 10-09-2019, 11:03 AM.
    Regards

    Herlock






    "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

  • #2
    I think you have to take it at face value. Ultimately, we don't know what was heard, we never will. If Cadosh says he heard something hit the fence then there's no reason to disbelieve him. Personally, I doubt anyone else was in the yard other than Annie and her killer until being discovered.

    Comment


    • #3
      More pertinently, was Richardson a reliable witness. His boots should have been on Annie's head if Phillips TOD is right?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
        More pertinently, was Richardson a reliable witness. His boots should have been on Annie's head if Phillips TOD is right?
        Please register your vote Al so that we can get an idea of opinion. I’ll be looking at Richardson later.
        Regards

        Herlock






        "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          Please register your vote Al so that we can get an idea of opinion. I’ll be looking at Richardson later.
          I did. Reliable.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

            I did. Reliable.
            Sorry Al. I should have gone to Specsavers.
            Regards

            Herlock






            "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

            Comment


            • #7
              "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.
              [Coroner] Had you heard any noise while you were at the end of your yard? - No.
              [Coroner] Any rustling of clothes? - No. I then went into the house, and from there into the street to go to my work. It was about two minutes after half-past five as I passed Spitalfields Church.
              [Coroner] Do you ever hear people in these yards? - Now and then, but not often.
              By a Juryman: I informed the police the same night after I returned from my work.
              The Foreman: What height are the palings? - About 5 ft. 6 in. to 6 ft. high.
              [Coroner] And you had not the curiosity to look over? - No, I had not.
              [Coroner] It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? - They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings. I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over.
              The Foreman of the Jury: It's a pity you did not.
              By the Coroner. - I did not see any man and woman in the street when I went out."

              Going through the door would have meant his directional hearing from behind the house was impaired.
              Did not attempt to give a sex to the voice.

              Strongly suspect the bump was Jack changing sides,which is supported by the smearing of what were most likely blood spurts.
              My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

              Comment


              • #8
                The Evening News (also Morning Advertiser and Times) 15 Sept does relate that Cadosch heard a woman's voice;

                "a correspondent yesterday elicited that Mr. Cadoche, who lives in the next house to No. 29, Hanbury-street, where the murder was committed, went to the back of the premises at half-past five a.m. As he passed the wooden partition he heard a woman say. "No, no." On returning he heard a scuffle, and then some one fell heavily against the fence. He heard no cry for help, and so he went into his house."
                Last edited by Joshua Rogan; 10-09-2019, 12:29 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  It can be said that Cadosche is one of 3 critically important witnesses in the Chapman investigation, whether he is "reliable" or not is unknown, but can be weighed against what the other 2 stated to some extent, ...now, whether his statement isgermane to the reconstruction of that yard from 5:15 until 5:25ish....100%. His statement has to be a part of the investigation, and is vitally important.
                  Michael Richards

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                    The Evening News (also Morning Advertiser and Times) 15 Sept does relate that Cadosch heard a woman's voice;

                    "a correspondent yesterday elicited that Mr. Cadoche, who lives in the next house to No. 29, Hanbury-street, where the murder was committed, went to the back of the premises at half-past five a.m. As he passed the wooden partition he heard a woman say. "No, no." On returning he heard a scuffle, and then some one fell heavily against the fence. He heard no cry for help, and so he went into his house."
                    That is fascinating.

                    Do you give it credence?

                    Mary Kelly's inquest was a disgrace.

                    Anyone suspect witnesses were interfered with?
                    My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I want to say that a few years ago, somebody (in the Ripperologist?) looked into what happened to Cadosch after the ripper killings, and found something sketchy in his background, but I don't recall what. Something equivalent to Cross/Lechmere lying about his name.

                      But regardless of that, I don't see much of a reason to disbelieve Cadosch. He doesn't make extraordinary claims, for one. Compare what he claims he heard to what Schwartz or Hutchinson claimed to have seen.
                      Last edited by Damaso Marte; 10-09-2019, 02:56 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Damaso Marte View Post
                        I want to say that a few years ago, somebody (in the Ripperologist?) looked into what happened to Cadosch after the ripper killings, and found something sketchy in his background, but I don't recall what. Something equivalent to Cross/Lechmere lying about his name.
                        A bigamous marriage. He lied about his age.
                        My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          On the other thread a poster tried to use the fact of a possible bigamous marriage to discredit him as a witness. How this is relevant beats me.
                          Regards

                          Herlock






                          "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                            On the other thread a poster tried to use the fact of a possible bigamous marriage to discredit him as a witness. How this is relevant beats me.
                            Well - it could talk to character. Someone prepared to enter a bigamous marriage may also be willing to lie during a murder investigation. However, he doesn't appear to have a motive for lying about the murder, so I would say that he believed the information he gave to be true. On balance I am inclined to believe him - though it is only with Long and Richardson's evidence that I come to that determination.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Cadosch - The Other Side of the Fence by Gavin Bromley in Ripperologist 85 (November 2007)

                              Hanbury Street Revisited in Ripperologist 95 (September 2008)

                              Charles Albert Cadosch and His Family by Colin MacDonald in Ripperologist 132 (June 2013)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X