Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. If Cadosch could have seen a person over the fence without making a special effort the police would have noticed and mentioned this blindingly obvious fact. And it’s nothing to do with bodies on the ground. If Annie and her killer had been there then they’d have been standing at some point.

That blindingly obvious fact was nulled by Cadosch - he was thinking about work - otherwise he would have been curious.

Or, as he said, he assumed that the neighbour were in their yard. If you hear something from the other side of a fence is your first thought “that’s probably a woman being murdered?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Every single photograph shows a fence of around that height.
Wrong century. Wrong fence.

So you know the date of all of the photographs? And just after the murders these dirt poor people decided that they needed more privacy from the actions of serial killers that they had a new, higher fence put in? Perhaps they contacted Alan Titchmarsh’s grandfather?

[Fisherman]

The following from the Evening Standard, Oct 12, although similar appeared in other papers.

A woman named Durrell, who minds carts on market morning in Spitalfields market, stated yesterday that, about half past five o'clock on Saturday morning, she was passing the front door of No. 29 Hanbury street, when she saw a man and a woman standing on the pavement. She heard the man say, "Will you?" and the woman replied, "Yes." They then disappeared. Mrs. Durrell does not think she could identify the couple.

How can Long's mortuary identification be taken seriously?

She also said that she generally did not take much notice of couples in doorways, or something to that effect.

Long has been taken seriously mainly because it has been suggested that Cadosch corroborated her. If there had been no Cadosch, she would have been somebody who said she couldnīt identify the couple she saw and who was in total conflict with the medical evidence. What would happen to her testimony in such a situation is easy to understand.
It is only on account of Cadosch that she was - for a while - regarded as interesting.

[Fisherman]

"Establishing the identity of" and saying "that's her" at the mortuary are somewhat different.

Indeed. What is established is true. Simply saying "thatīs her" is an effort to establish an identity that can be anything from terrible to correct.

[Fisherman]

Here is Dr Biggs professional opinion on rigor mortis

How long rigor mortis takes to develop varies greatly from person to person, and perhaps, more importantly, the assessment of how stiff someone is also varies from person to person! Very often we will be told that “paramedics found the body to be in a state of rigor mortis, therefore death must have been several hours ago”. In reality, people not used to examining for signs of rigor may find a dead body heavy and difficult to lift interpret it as being “stiff” and draw all sorts of incorrect conclusions. A big, heavy muscular person will exhibit more pronounced stiffness than a skinny person, and so on. The process occurs gradually over many hours so there isn’t really a “time of onset”. Subtle early onset signs may be missed (meaning that rigor has started, but has been recorded as being absent). Similarly, a body that has fully established rigor mortis (or in which stiffness may already be passing away due to early decomposition) may have been dead for many hours or even some days, yet be interpreted as “freshly dead” due to “rigor mortis” being diagnosed at the time of body discovery. For all these reasons, a description of a body being found in a state of rigor mortis has to be interpreted with caution.

With all that in mind, there are circumstances in which rigor mortis can be observed sooner after death. If somebody has an illness or fever, this can speed up the rate of onset by exhausting the cellular supply of energy more quickly than usual, for example. Specifically within the context of “trauma”, if there has been a period of extreme exertion immediately before death (e.g. running/fighting for your life) then you can see how cellular energy stores may have been depleted before death, resulting in a more rapid onset of rigor mortis. This is the theory behind the phenomenon of so-called “cadaveric spasm”, which is usually included in forensic texts but is thought by most of us these days likely to be an artefact. The most quoted examples are usually dead soldiers found clutching their rifles on the battlefield, or drowned men “clutching straws” in their hands. A lock of hair (victim’s or assailant’s) may even be found “grasped” in the stiff hand of a dead person. This likely represents “standard” development of rigor mortis (with the fingers gradually stiffening around an object that just happens to lie within the hand over the course of several hours) rather than a sudden, “instant rigor mortis”. However, such a phenomenon can’t scientifically be excluded, so it remains in the literature.

So in summary, rigor mortis could possibly be detected by a trained observer within an hour (or even less) after death, but would not usually be expected to become apparent for a (small) number of hours. In extreme cases (e.g. severe physical exertion before death) this might be even quicker. Ignoring the likely artefact of so-called “cadaveric spasm”, if a body is genuinely stiff at the time of discovery, then it hasn’t died immediately before discovery. The exact time since death cannot be estimated with any degree of accuracy or certainty. (As an aside, if the victim is a malnourished, slight, alcoholic female then rigor mortis may be less pronounced than might be expected, and so detection of rigor mortis in such an individual may indicate a longer time has elapsed since death.)”

The last part specifically applies to Chapman and is an accurate description of how she was described by Dr Phillips when he carried out the original post mortem

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

This is the one sentence I will select:

"So in summary, rigor mortis could possibly be detected by a trained observer within an hour (or even less) after death, but would not usually be expected to become apparent for a (small) number of hours. "

To begin with, regardless of how well trained you are, if there is no rigor, you cannor detect it. And as Biggs points out in the same sentence, it typically does not become apparent until a small number of hours have passed. What Phillips noted was an onsetting rigor of the limbs, and the limbs are not the first place where rigor can be noted. The first signs of rigor appear in the facial structures, and that is therefore where a trained observer will look first. If he or she unexpectedly are dealing with a person who has started developing rigor in an hour only, then more time will pass until it reaches the limbs.

There is more to be said about rigor, but for now, I will leave it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Davis also said 5’6”. He lived there. So that was the approximate height.
I'll build you a bedside table if you say 5'6"

So we have Cadosch living at one side of the fence and Davis living on the other at the time. Both say that the fence was 5’6”. But you, in 2020, are telling them that they were wrong. Ok

[Trevor Marriott]

And thatīs BEFORE we mention that our witness needs to detract two thirds of the TOD offered by Phillips and find an explanation for how rigor had already set into the limbs and another explanation for how the blood had dried up before she becomes credible.

Oh! I forgot to answer your question: I think they choose other shows.

Here is Dr Biggs professional opinion on rigor mortis

How long rigor mortis takes to develop varies greatly from person to person, and perhaps, more importantly, the assessment of how stiff someone is also varies from person to person! Very often we will be told that “paramedics found the body to be in a state of rigor mortis, therefore death must have been several hours ago”. In reality, people not used to examining for signs of rigor may find a dead body heavy and difficult to lift interpret it as being “stiff” and draw all sorts of incorrect conclusions. A big, heavy muscular person will exhibit more pronounced stiffness than a skinny person, and so on. The process occurs gradually over many hours so there isn’t really a “time of onset”. Subtle early onset signs may be missed (meaning that rigor has started, but has been recorded as being absent). Similarly, a body that has fully established rigor mortis (or in which stiffness may already be passing away due to early decomposition) may have been dead for many hours or even some days, yet be interpreted as “freshly dead” due to “rigor mortis” being diagnosed at the time of body discovery. For all these reasons, a description of a body being found in a state of rigor mortis has to be interpreted with caution.

With all that in mind, there are circumstances in which rigor mortis can be observed sooner after death. If somebody has an illness or fever, this can speed up the rate of onset by exhausting the cellular supply of energy more quickly than usual, for example. Specifically within the context of “trauma”, if there has been a period of extreme exertion immediately before death (e.g. running/fighting for your life) then you can see how cellular energy stores may have been depleted before death, resulting in a more rapid onset of rigor mortis. This is the theory behind the phenomenon of so-called “cadaveric spasm”, which is usually included in forensic texts but is thought by most of us these days likely to be an artefact. The most quoted examples are usually dead soldiers found clutching their rifles on the battlefield, or drowned men “clutching straws” in their hands. A lock of hair (victim’s or assailant’s) may even be found “grasped” in the stiff hand of a dead person. This likely represents “standard” development of rigor mortis (with the fingers gradually stiffening around an object that just happens to lie within the hand over the course of several hours) rather than a sudden, “instant rigor mortis”. However, such a phenomenon can’t scientifically be excluded, so it remains in the literature.

So in summary, rigor mortis could possibly be detected by a trained observer within an hour (or even less) after death, but would not usually be expected to become apparent for a (small) number of hours. In extreme cases (e.g. severe physical exertion before death) this might be even quicker. Ignoring the likely artefact of so-called “cadaveric spasm”, if a body is genuinely stiff at the time of discovery, then it hasn’t died immediately before discovery. The exact time since death cannot be estimated with any degree of accuracy or certainty. (As an aside, if the victim is a malnourished, slight, alcoholic female then rigor mortis may be less pronounced than might be expected, and so detection of rigor mortis in such an individual may indicate a longer time has elapsed since death.)”

The last part specifically applies to Chapman and is an accurate description of how she was described by Dr Phillips when he carried out the original post mortem

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

"Establishing the identity of" and saying "that's her" at the mortuary are somewhat different.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Long was adamant about the time. She left no room for doubt: "I knew the time, because I heard the brewer's clock strike half-past five just before I got to the street". And she would have arrived at the market very shortly afterwards, where she would have been able to hear the following chiming of the time too, and so if she had been mistaken, she would have been corrected. The inference is that what happened after her observation was in line with the timing, meaning that she was correct.

This all works from the assumption that Long DID see a couple outside 29 Hanbury Street (a couple that was decidedly not Chapman and the killer, but nevertheless...), and that she was honestly mistaken about the identification. Personally, I believe that there is a very great risk that she was making things up.

We have the same thing with Cadosch, he too is dead certain about the timing, and he too would have had his time observation either confirmed or dismissed as he arrived at his work. And he too made things up if you ask me.

I always thought the observations of what was uttered has that silent movie quality, where everything has to be explaines in as short messages as possible. First we have Longs "Will you? Yes!" observation that is perfect in itīs ability to say everything in three words, the followed up by Cadoscheīs "No!", hitting on the one short word that would describe the murder in as undeniable and quick a manner as possible. Itīs all too good to be true - and it isnīt true.

The following from the Evening Standard, Oct 12, although similar appeared in other papers.

A woman named Durrell, who minds carts on market morning in Spitalfields market, stated yesterday that, about half past five o'clock on Saturday morning, she was passing the front door of No. 29 Hanbury street, when she saw a man and a woman standing on the pavement. She heard the man say, "Will you?" and the woman replied, "Yes." They then disappeared. Mrs. Durrell does not think she could identify the couple.

How can Long's mortuary identification be taken seriously?

[Fisherman]

Have those who have faith in Long's eyewitness testimony, watched videos like these?...

https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...ss+reliability

And thatīs BEFORE we mention that our witness needs to detract two thirds of the TOD offered by Phillips and find an explanation for how rigor had already set into the limbs and another explanation for how the blood had dried up before she becomes credible.

Oh! I forgot to answer your question: I think they choose other shows.

[Fisherman]

Cadosch hears a voice,and a little while later a sound of something contacting the fence.He(Cadosch) does not claim it was a murder in progress,so yes,his statement is truthful but lacks evidence of murder.Some time later Long sees a couple outside no 29,and claims,after viewing a body,it was the woman she saw outside no 29.The body was that of Annie Chapman.She was telling the truth.Where is the contradiction between Cadosche and long?

Cadosch says he heard what he heard at 5.15-5.20, whereas Long said she saw what she saw at 5.30. There is the contradiction. It makes for a scenario where it was the ghost of Chapman Long saw.

I am fascinated by how you accept, no questions asked, that witnesses who say that they recognize a dead body as someone they have seen must automatically be telling the truth about it. It is kind of a narrow approach to witness psychology in my book, but okay - itīs good to know where you are coming from.

[Fisherman]

With regards to Swanson's report, I'd suggest that he mentions long specifically because she claimed to have seen Annie alive and well at a time so at odds with Phillips' TOD, whereas Cadosch's statement is mentioned more in due course as he never claimed to see anyone, let alone Chapman.

That in itself may have played a role. At the inquest - but NOT before - Cadosch backpedals all he can and makes it a point to erase any surefire connection between his testimony and having overheard the murder. So it may be that it was decided by Swanson that since Cadosch is worthless as a safe pointer to having heard the murder, he must be taken out of the equation.
But overall, this is only another way of saying that Cadosch was not awarded any importance as a witness, another way of telling us that Long stood alone at the time of the report.

For Swanson and the coroner, Long would be a different type of witness, her statement purely on face value would have merited that particular attention.

Yes, her testimony is one that entails an alleged sighting (face value - excuse the pun) of Chapman. But it must be said that the initial statements of Cadosch also pinpoints Chapman, because who else could it have been who at 5.20 had a discussion, a scuffle and a fall after having said "No!" - at the exact place where the body was subsequently found? And donīt tell me that it could have been something else, because I have people telling me that an overheard "No!" from ANY of the backyards and a sudden touching of the fence cannot possibly have been anything but Chapman being killed!

So if we had had Cadosch owning up to what he initially said, then certainly Swanson must have mentioned him alongside Long in the report. The fact that he doesnīt must be linked to how his testimony was not believed to award that position. In other words, it was not taken as seriously as Longs testimony was. In yet other words, once Swanson made his report, Cadosch had been thrown out beforehand as any sort of useful corroboration of Long.

Meaning that no matter how we look upon it, Cadosch is where I recommend we leave him: In No Mans Land.

I'm not saying Long, Phillips or anyone was right/wrong/mistaken etc, just my take on the wording of the report.

There must have been a reason for Cadosch not getting any co-starring role in the Swanson report. And unless Swanson had forgotten about him on the 19:th of October, that reason must lie in how the police looked on his testimony. Just as you, they may have abstained from calling him a liar, and the beatuy of that is that they didnīt have to call him a liar if they instead simply decided that his testimony was not of a quality that warranted using him to corroborate Long in even a minor way. The outcome would be the same: Away goes Albert Cadosch.

[Fisherman]

He also said: “If the evidence of Dr Phillips is correct.....it’s difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body...”

Which is another way of expressing doubt about Phillips.


and

”Again if the evidence of Mrs Long is correct that she saw the deceased at 5.30. then the evidence of Dr Phillips as to probable time of death is incorrect.”

Pretty self-evident.

and your quote

”.....must be looked upon with some amount of doubt,”

.....

So two quotes expressing the possibility of Phillips being wrong and one where, even though he’s talking about Phillips being correct he still only talks of looking on Long with doubt.

I don’t see where he assertively backs Phillips to completely dismiss Long and Richardson do you?

Why doesn’t he mention Cadosch? I don’t know. Maybe he felt that Richardson and Long were enough to sideline Phillips?

There we are, the answer I said I didnīt want - but expected: You donīt know.

The one thing that goes the longest way to suppost a witness is, as has been pointed out, corroboration from another witness. "I am sure I cannot be wrong, I really saw her" is not nearly as strong as it becomes when someone adds "Yeah, I saw her too!".

That is what Cadosch supposedly added. But he is left out, and Long is on her own, with no corroboration at all. Richardson is not mentioned in this context, he is alluded to before - with doubt.

The fact is that Swanson does not mention Cadosch but only says that if Phillips was correct, then Long must be doubted.

Why does he not say "If Phillips was correct, then Long and Cadosch must be doubted"?

For the same reason, Iīd say, that Mizen initially never mentioned Robert Paul when he told the inquest about how he was informed about the woman in Bucks Row - Paul was no part in it.

In the same manner, Cadosch was not mentioned because he was no longer part of the business. There can be no other viable reason for leaving him out, certainly not that Richardson took his place as you suggest. Richardson was there 45 minutes before Long and so he cannot corroborate her in any way - which you know.

This is all totally in line with the rest of the surfacing material.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Have those who have faith in Long's eyewitness testimony, watched videos like these?...

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=eyewitness+reliability

[harry]

Cadosch hears a voice,and a little while later a sound of something contacting the fence.He(Cadosch) does not claim it was a murder in progress,so yes,his statement is truthful but lacks evidence of murder.Some time later Long sees a couple outside no 29,and claims,after viewing a body,it was the woman she saw outside no 29.The body was that of Annie Chapman.She was telling the truth.Where is the contradiction between Cadosche and long?There isn't any.It is true Cadosch's statement adds little in the way of criminal evidence,but Long's evidence,added to that of Davies,establishes a short period of time in which the murder was committed.Now none of the above witnesses need expert credentials to back their claims,it is simple statements of one hearing something,one seeing something,and one finding something.
Phillips claims however require a deal of expert knowledge.He has not been shown to possess that knowledge,so his evidence of time of death is inferior to the evidence of Long,whose evidence place time of death as somewhere after 5.30 am.