Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[harry]

Just to clarify this supposed clash between the evidence of Cadosch and Long.The evidence of Cadosch does not prove a killing took place at a time before he left for work.The sounds that he heard could have been made by a person or persons who departed the yard just after Cadosch departed his,and just before the couple that Long saw,and then Long herself arrived.This is not only my surmise,it has been stated by other posters in the past,and is certainly possible.So no conflict.

[harry]

I see now that what Cadosch is supposed to have heard was a scuffle,a heavy fall against the fence and an exclamation of 'No'.Taken that the 'No" came first,there is then a period where nothing is known to have happened,then a scuffle,then a fall.Without her screaming or saying anythig?It started off many moons ago,that the killer took her by surprise,and she was unable to do anything,or cry out.Now she is scuffling with the killer.Very soon we will have the killer acting in self defence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Richardson could well have sat in a position that meant that he could not say if he should have seen her or not, and simply felt embarrased by the idea that he had missed a corpse. It isnīt any more difficult than that. And although it makes him quite human it does not make him stupid.

Where you smiling when you typed that Fish?

I don’t buy it for a second. If it was possible for the body to have been concealed he’d have known it.

[Fisherman]

The point is that Richardson would have been aware that had he sat in a certain way, facing a certain way with the door at a certain angle the door could possibly have concealed a body. He understood that but dismissed it because he knew that those circumstances hadn’t occurred. That due to either how far that he initially opened the door and/or the position that he’d sat in combined with the position of the door that he’d have seen the body.

If he hadn’t seen the body later and had just been told that she’d been found in the yard then it’s possible that he might have ignored the possibility of the door thinking that she’d have been somewhere in front of him. But as we know, that wasn’t the case.

This is why I say that he’d have had to have been stupid to a remarkable degree to not have known that the body ‘might’ have been hidden by the door if that was the case.

Richardson could well have sat in a position that meant that he could not say if he should have seen her or not, and simply felt embarrased by the idea that he had missed a corpse. It isnīt any more difficult than that. And although it makes him quite human it does not make him stupid.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But many out here have claimed that Chapman could not have been obscured by the door - are they all mentally incapable ...?

The point is that Richardson would have been aware that had he sat in a certain way, facing a certain way with the door at a certain angle the door could possibly have concealed a body. He understood that but dismissed it because he knew that those circumstances hadn’t occurred. That due to either how far that he initially opened the door and/or the position that he’d sat in combined with the position of the door that he’d have seen the body.

If he hadn’t seen the body later and had just been told that she’d been found in the yard then it’s possible that he might have ignored the possibility of the door thinking that she’d have been somewhere in front of him. But as we know, that wasn’t the case.

This is why I say that he’d have had to have been stupid to a remarkable degree to not have known that the body ‘might’ have been hidden by the door if that was the case.

[Fisherman]

But many out here have claimed that Chapman could not have been obscured by the door - are they all mentally incapable ...?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Iīll try again: Learning difficulties has nothing to do with noticing dead bodies or not. Itīs about attention, not intelligence. An idiot can do it and a genius can fail to do it. You need to take note of that.

You are correct that blind people can miss out on things, though. And boy, do I know it!

No Fish it’s not about not noticing something at the time it’s about the fact that when it’s pointed out to him about the door (or that he realised that it might be suspected that the body was concealed by the door) Richardson apparently couldn’t comprehend this possibility. There was no: “well I suppose that it’s possible that she might have been concealed behind the door.”

He was adamant that this could not have occurred. Was he aware that a door can potentially block a view? (he was) Did he know the exact location of the body? (he did) Did he know how much floor space that the body took up? (he did) Did he say that he could see the whole yard? ( he did) Was there any reason why he’d want to put himself at the scene with a knife if he wasn’t actually there? (there wasn’t)

[Fisherman]

No mention of him being blind or with learning difficulties though Fish?

Iīll try again: Learning difficulties has nothing to do with noticing dead bodies or not. Itīs about attention, not intelligence. An idiot can do it and a genius can fail to do it. You need to take note of that.

You are correct that blind people can miss out on things, though. And boy, do I know it!

[Fisherman]

And there’s no chance of Press error or exaggeration of course Fish? Perhaps they’d mistakenly spoken to a delusional Mr Cadosen who wasn’t aware of the script?

Itīs another source telling us about the scuffle and the heavy fall and the woman going "No", so I think we can safely discard any suggestions of the press being to blame. It was not the press who exaggerated, it was Albie who diluted.

[Fisherman]

Cadosch didn't appear at the inquest until the 19th, so the 15th is still before his evidence.

Right you are - my bad! I mixed the dates up with Richardsons appearance.

Itīs nevertheless further evidence, a third source, of his more flamboyant story.

[Joshua Rogan]

Albert is at it again, it would seem, and this time AFTER his bleak appearance at the inquest!

Cadosch didn't appear at the inquest until the 19th, so the 15th is still before his evidence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hang in there Herlock.

Not sure about those Freemasons, but I can tell you a bit about the brothel...

John Richardson was the bouncer.

The Madam charged basement prices.

After September 8, 29 Hanbury St became known locally as Madam Richardson's House of Horrors.

So Annie Chapman who, like the other poor women at the time charged a pittance to sell themselves, rather than finding some doorway that they could have used for free, goes to use Mrs Richardson’s luxury bordello- basement and gave up a part of her fee as commission? Maybe Mary Kelly was Lapdancing there at the time? Maybe number 29 was known as The Pink Pussycat by locals but no one mentioned it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hereīs the Morning Advertiser of the 15:th:

"On the question of the hour at which the crime was committed, about which there was a difference between the evidence of the man Richardson and the opinion of Dr. Phillips, Mr. Cadoche, who lives in the next house to No. 29, Hanbury-street, has repeated a statement which he made last Saturday, and which appears to have an important bearing on the matter. He says that he went to the back of his premises at half-past five a.m., and 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."

Albert is at it again, it would seem, and this time AFTER his bleak appearance at the inquest! Once more, we return to the scuffle, a doubled "No, no!" and a heavy fall against the fence.

Heīs quite the star witness, Albert. Itīs a pity he had such a lacklustre performance at the inquest.

And there’s no chance of Press error or exaggeration of course Fish? Perhaps they’d mistakenly spoken to a delusional Mr Cadosen who wasn’t aware of the script?

[Herlock Sholmes]

"He was another motionless witness, giving his evidence quietly - as quietly, at all events, as was consistent with a severe cold and a very hoarse voice."

There it is!! I was asked a couple of weeks ago about whether there was really any evidence of Richardson having a cold, and I knew I had seen it somewhere but just couldnīt find it. I believe it may have been Joshua Rogan who asked about it, so if you're out there, Joshua: Found it!

No mention of him being blind or with learning difficulties though Fish?

[Fisherman]

Hereīs the Morning Advertiser of the 15:th:

"On the question of the hour at which the crime was committed, about which there was a difference between the evidence of the man Richardson and the opinion of Dr. Phillips, Mr. Cadoche, who lives in the next house to No. 29, Hanbury-street, has repeated a statement which he made last Saturday, and which appears to have an important bearing on the matter. He says that he went to the back of his premises at half-past five a.m., and 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."

Albert is at it again, it would seem, and this time AFTER his bleak appearance at the inquest! Once more, we return to the scuffle, a doubled "No, no!" and a heavy fall against the fence.

Heīs quite the star witness, Albert. Itīs a pity he had such a lacklustre performance at the inquest.