Was Albert Cadosch A Reliable Witness?

[JeffHamm]

That’s how I see it Jeff. I’ll be doing a thread on Richardson next followed by Long.

Perhaps one of the things that causes a problem for many when looking to reconcile Cadosch and Long is the thought of either one of them being as much as 15 minutes out in their timing? We all know that timings can be out due to the lack of watches and clocks. Watches and clocks can also be slightly fast or slightly slow and people, when looking back, can be wrong. It’s not at all impossible for a 14 or 15 minute error but we don’t really need that much here as we only need both Cadosch and Long to have been 7 or 8 minutes out and they match up. Long sees Annie at around 5.26. Cadosch heard the ‘no’ at around 5.27 then he hears the noise around 5.31 then leaves for work at around 5.32. It’s hardly a leap of faith imo. Of course Annie could have been mistaken and seen another couple but I think it likelier that she did.

Hi Herlock Sholmes,

Sure, I can see that too, and agree that 7-8 minutes would be enough. I tend to think the larger 15 minutes because Long reports hearing the chimes about the time she passed #29, and 7-8 minutes out would mean she heard the chimes quite some distance away from there (it's only a 2-3 minute walk from #29 to the market,where she was going). So, either her memory of where she heard the chimes is wrong (7-8 minutes) or her memory of which chimes she heard is wrong (the quarter rather than half hour). The latter seems more plausible to me, but not so much that I would insist upon it. The important point is, though, in both cases it's a single error of detail, not of substance, which then slots all the rest of her testimony in with the other witnesses.

Anyway, this is for the Long thread when that starts.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

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.

I got up at about quarter past five

It was about twenty past five when he went into the yard.

Returned 3 or 4 mins later [ allowing 2 mins to use the w,c] 5.26

It was about two minutes after half-past five as I passed Spitalfields Church

Im anyone so i guess i can give my thoughts

These are the only times Albert Codosch mentions in his under oath inquest testimony.

To try and change what is already known about Codoschs times and the Chapman murder BY SUGGESTING SOME OTHER TIMES BASED ON what ifs and faulty clocks and policeman waking up witnesses is a pointless exercise ... in my opinion

Best to stick to the inquest evidence and not use what ifs to create a different narrative than whats already known

Hi Fishy1118,

His times, though, are rough estimates ("about quater past five", "about twenty past five", etc). The about means some play in those values must be considered, and we don't know what he's based those on either. Other than the clock (for about 5:32), we don't know how much precision to give those values (and the 2 minutes for the WC isn't stated by him, that's your estimate). Anyway, it's a short walk to the Spitalfields Church (I think it's about a 2-3 minute walk away), and so that would suggest Cadosch left his house at 5:30. He could have done so immediately after leaving the yard the 2nd time, so for simplicity lets say that means his 2nd visit ended at 5:29 (hearing the bump then), we'll use your 2 minutes for an estmate of the WC visit, 5:27 - 3-4 minutes inside means he left the yard the first time around 5:23-5:24, hearing the no, and give that first visit another 2 minute wc visit, and you've got him entering the yard at 5:21-5:22, which more than qualifies as "about 5:20".

But if our 2 minutes wc visits are incorrect estimates, and he was just in for a quick pee of 30 seconds, things shift (we squeeze events closer by 3 minutes), and if he was longer (3 minutes, for example), we shift things apart (by 2 minutes). And yet, none of those shifts will really make his "about x time" statements invalid. When he testifies "about x o'clock"), we're dealing with ranges after all.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

It still boggles my mind that people refuse to accept the fact that by virtue of Cadosches testimony, when placed against the "yard vigil" start/finish line of Richardson and Davis, means that someone was in the yard at 5:15 ish. 2 minutes here and there is not a point to belabor, its proof positive that someone was on the spot where Annies is found murdered at near 6am, at 5:15-5:30am. Which means, that Mrs Long was wrong, and Phillips TOD was wrong, and he himself said the cooling process couldn't be accurately gauged due to the severity of the wounds and the morning air.

Cadosche gives us confirmation what time they were there, and what time physical interaction took place, which gives us a TOD within 30-45 minutes of discovery. Period. All the rest of this is just page wasting bs.

[JeffHamm]

It still boggles my mind that people refuse to accept the fact that by virtue of Cadosches testimony, when placed against the "yard vigil" start/finish line of Richardson and Davis, means that someone was in the yard at 5:15 ish. 2 minutes here and there is not a point to belabor, its proof positive that someone was on the spot where Annies is found murdered at near 6am, at 5:15-5:30am. Which means, that Mrs Long was wrong, and Phillips TOD was wrong, and he himself said the cooling process couldn't be accurately gauged due to the severity of the wounds and the morning air.

Cadosche gives us confirmation what time they were there, and what time physical interaction took place, which gives us a TOD within 30-45 minutes of discovery. Period. All the rest of this is just page wasting bs.

I generally agree, and would just like to suggest that with respect to Long it is unclear just how much of what she says is wrong. If her time and place is correct, then her identification of Annie is wrong, but if her identification of Annie is correct, her time appears to be wrong. That last bit is my inference based upon Cadosh's verification of the time as 1:32 by the Spitalfield's Clock seems to indicate he left for work at the time she testifies seeing the couple outside of #29, which no matter how one looks at it, means after Cadosch heard what he reports having heard.

There is, of course, the possibility that the Brewer's clock and Spitalfield's clock are out of sync with each other, but as there is no way for us to confirm or refute that, it is just one of those unverifiable hypotheses that will always exist. That's the problem with dealing with historic data and not a current crime. If this had just happened, one of the bits of information that modern police would do ,or at least should and often do, is check the time pieces by which times are reported and account for differences in their readings. Even if they only differ by a minute or two, being able to syncronize times across testimonies is important as it removes one source of variablity in those reported times. The other is just the fact people are not great at it. Probably worse today, as people tend to report time in 5 minute chuncks, while it appears the Victorians were much more keyed into exact times (Cadosch noting it was around 1:32 is something I would expect a person today to report as "around 1:30", probably swithing to say "around 1:35" if it were, in fact, 1:34). Cadosh's specificity is not unique to him, though, and this seems to be the pattern over many different witnesses. Perhaps it reflects the tendency of them to check the time on large clocks on buildings coupled with the fact they didn't have personal watches. But I'm digressing now.

- Jeff

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

As I've said before, no one is more acutely aware of the time than when they're late for work. Cadosches noting of the specific time of 5:32 suggests he had reason to note this time. As for how long he was in the outhouse, anyone's guess. But he should be reliably seen to be on his way at 5:32. After hearing someone(s) in the yard of number 29.

[JeffHamm]

As I've said before, no one is more acutely aware of the time than when they're late for work. Cadosches noting of the specific time of 5:32 suggests he had reason to note this time. As for how long he was in the outhouse, anyone's guess. But he should be reliably seen to be on his way at 5:32. After hearing someone(s) in the yard of number 29.

Yes, those are my thoughts as well.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

As I've said before, no one is more acutely aware of the time than when they're late for work.

True. Like Robert Paul, for instance...

[Michael W Richards]

True. Like Robert Paul, for instance...

Dead horse abuse Fisherman.