Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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"

Every single photograph shows a fence of around that height.

Wrong century. Wrong fence.

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.

The police would have said “but you would have seen anybody if they’d been there.” But they didn’t.

Would Chandler have said that? He didn't even notice the basement padlock was obscured by the building, when standing on the house steps.

Because a person of average height couldn’t see another person of average height if they were both standing at ground level.

How tall was Richardson? He could see over it, no problem.
Have you locked yourself in to supposing he was much taller than average, without evidence?

Your simplistic faith in witnesses is not winning the argument, and the point TM made about the lone daytime murder, was a pertinent one.
It might be time to take a metaphorical journey into that basement...

[Herlock Sholmes]

A short man would have eyes level with the top of a 5' fence. An average height or tall man could comfortably see over it.
When John Richardson returned and viewed the body from the adjoining yard, he could comfortably see over it.
The fence was not a particularly tall one, so why did Cadosch the Carpenter say it was 5―-6' tall?
He must have had a reason for exaggerating the height of the fence.
The reason presumably had something to do with what did see, but could not admit to.

Davis also said 5’6”. He lived there. So that was the approximate height. Every single photograph shows a fence of around that height. 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. The police would have said “but you would have seen anybody if they’d been there.” But they didn’t. Because a person of average height couldn’t see another person of average height if they were both standing at ground level.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I’ve just checked the Sourcebook for Swanson’s report. In it he says:

5.25am. 8th Sept. Albert Cadosch of 27 Hanbury Street, (next door) had occasion to go into the yard at the rear of number 27, separated only by a wooden fence about 5 feet high, and he heard words pass between some persons apparently at No. 29 Hanbury Street, but the only word he could catch was “No.” [Here there is a marginal note - “Was the voice of the man that of a foreigner?”]

5.28am. 8th Sept. On Cadosch going back into the yard again he heard a noise as of something falling against the fence on the side next to No. 29 Hanbury Street, but he did not take any notice.

....

Am I missing something Fish? I looked at Swanson’s report and there are two entries on Cadosch. Written over a month after the Inquest perhaps you can point out where he dismisses Cadosch on the basis of any earlier statements to his own officers or to the Press?

A short man would have eyes level with the top of a 5' fence. An average height or tall man could comfortably see over it.
When John Richardson returned and viewed the body from the adjoining yard, he could comfortably see over it.
The fence was not a particularly tall one, so why did Cadosch the Carpenter say it was 5―-6' tall?
He must have had a reason for exaggerating the height of the fence.
The reason presumably had something to do with what did see, but could not admit to.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

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.

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

Sounds reasonable to me Al

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

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.

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.

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

You found the report - good!

And Cadosch is mentioned in it, not once but twice - correct!

Have you also noticed that he is mentioned under the heading "The results of the enquires were as follows:" ?

You see, what Swanson does there is not to discuss the quality of the witnesses. He only names them and what they claimed. He lists it as it went down. In some report, Violenia will have been mentioned, and it will have had nothing to do with how the police trusted him.

So this was not the part I spoke of. I spoke of the part where Swanson writes about his reflections on these witnesses and their respective actions and claims. And there, he writes about Phillips. "He was called and saw the body at 6.20 a. m. and he then gives it as his opinion that death occurred about two hours earlier, viz: 4.20 a.m. hence the evidence of Mrs Long which appeared to be so important to the Coroner, must be looked upon with some amount of doubt, which is to be regretted."

This is where I am asking for your input. Why does not Swanson say that the Coroner was impressed with BOTH Cadosch and Long? Why does he not mention our little carpenter at all? Why does he lament that Longs evidence must be doubted, while not saying that it goes for Cadosch too?

THAT is what I am asking you.

My own take is that Swanson did not mention what he didnīt need to mention: Cadosch. To me, a very reasonable suggestion is that this was because Cadosch was discarded at this stage. If he was not, he would have been in (some sort of) corroboration with Long, but Swanson does not mention him at all in this context. I would even go so far as to say that there is a genuine likelihood that Cadosch had retracted his testimony at this stage - or he was at least regarded as someone who needed to do so.

Otherwise, why not mention him? Can you help me out on that one, Herlock?

PS. Phillips did of course never suggest that Chapman died at 4.20, that was his minimum of time. In fact, as per the East London Advertiser, Phillips thought it happened between 3 and 4 AM.

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?

[Fisherman]

I’ve just checked the Sourcebook for Swanson’s report. In it he says:

5.25am. 8th Sept. Albert Cadosch of 27 Hanbury Street, (next door) had occasion to go into the yard at the rear of number 27, separated only by a wooden fence about 5 feet high, and he heard words pass between some persons apparently at No. 29 Hanbury Street, but the only word he could catch was “No.” [Here there is a marginal note - “Was the voice of the man that of a foreigner?”]

5.28am. 8th Sept. On Cadosch going back into the yard again he heard a noise as of something falling against the fence on the side next to No. 29 Hanbury Street, but he did not take any notice.

....

Am I missing something Fish? I looked at Swanson’s report and there are two entries on Cadosch. Written over a month after the Inquest perhaps you can point out where he dismisses Cadosch on the basis of any earlier statements to his own officers or to the Press?

You found the report - good!

And Cadosch is mentioned in it, not once but twice - correct!

Have you also noticed that he is mentioned under the heading "The results of the enquires were as follows:" ?

You see, what Swanson does there is not to discuss the quality of the witnesses. He only names them and what they claimed. He lists it as it went down. In some report, Violenia will have been mentioned, and it will have had nothing to do with how the police trusted him.

So this was not the part I spoke of. I spoke of the part where Swanson writes about his reflections on these witnesses and their respective actions and claims. And there, he writes about Phillips. "He was called and saw the body at 6.20 a. m. and he then gives it as his opinion that death occurred about two hours earlier, viz: 4.20 a.m. hence the evidence of Mrs Long which appeared to be so important to the Coroner, must be looked upon with some amount of doubt, which is to be regretted."

This is where I am asking for your input. Why does not Swanson say that the Coroner was impressed with BOTH Cadosch and Long? Why does he not mention our little carpenter at all? Why does he lament that Longs evidence must be doubted, while not saying that it goes for Cadosch too?

THAT is what I am asking you.

My own take is that Swanson did not mention what he didnīt need to mention: Cadosch. To me, a very reasonable suggestion is that this was because Cadosch was discarded at this stage. If he was not, he would have been in (some sort of) corroboration with Long, but Swanson does not mention him at all in this context. I would even go so far as to say that there is a genuine likelihood that Cadosch had retracted his testimony at this stage - or he was at least regarded as someone who needed to do so.

Otherwise, why not mention him? Can you help me out on that one, Herlock?

PS. Phillips did of course never suggest that Chapman died at 4.20, that was his minimum of time. In fact, as per the East London Advertiser, Phillips thought it happened between 3 and 4 AM.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let me ask you this, Herlock: Why is it, do you think, that Swanson does not mention Cadosch with a single word in his report, where he speaks of how Longs testimony "that seemed so very important" to the coroner seemingly has to be disbelieved as a result of Phillipsī verdict? Why does he not tell us how Cadoschīs testimony corroborated Longs?

Donīt just go "I donīt know" now, tell me what possible reasons Swanson could have had for leaving Cadosch out of his reasoning about the late TOD witnesses! Surely his testimony must be of equal value as Longs?

I’ve just checked the Sourcebook for Swanson’s report. In it he says:

5.25am. 8th Sept. Albert Cadosch of 27 Hanbury Street, (next door) had occasion to go into the yard at the rear of number 27, separated only by a wooden fence about 5 feet high, and he heard words pass between some persons apparently at No. 29 Hanbury Street, but the only word he could catch was “No.” [Here there is a marginal note - “Was the voice of the man that of a foreigner?”]

5.28am. 8th Sept. On Cadosch going back into the yard again he heard a noise as of something falling against the fence on the side next to No. 29 Hanbury Street, but he did not take any notice.

....

Am I missing something Fish? I looked at Swanson’s report and there are two entries on Cadosch. Written over a month after the Inquest perhaps you can point out where he dismisses Cadosch on the basis of any earlier statements to his own officers or to the Press?

[Fisherman]

At least Phillips acknowledged that his TOD estimate was an opinion

He was actually payed to have an opinion. All suggested times of death are opinions. Whether they are good or bad opinions is another matter. Surely, the fact that they are opinions does not mean that they are of inferior quality in any way.

and subject to variation due to the conditions - which is another way of admitting it was guesswork.

He didnīt acknowledge it was guesswork, though. It is YOU who claim that. It is a term that lends itself quite well to mock and belittle, and so we should not use it, at least not in the way some people out here do. Technically, when a doctor says that a mortally ill patient is going to die, it is also "guesswork" and an opinion.
Just as the case is today, the establishing of a TOD was work well grounded in empirical studies. And it is not as if there was a shortage of study material. Phillips will have checked hundreds or even thousands of people for body warmth and rigor, and to try and compare that process with throwing a dice is nothing but sheer ignorance in combination with a disrespect for the ones who mastered their medical duties as best as anybody could.

While it would have been qualified in 1888 as 'educated' guesswork, the term is relative.

Yes. "A good post" is too.

Increased knowledge and experience over the last 100+ years have shown that such guesswork would not be considered 'educated' to today's standards, given the same circumstances and conditions.

In British: We have better tools to measure temperature today and we know more about the processes involved. Also in British: But that does not mean that a doctor with huge experience could not tell a cold body from a warm one. That is the level of difficulty you seem to think was insurmountabe to Phillips...?

If anything, today's experts are likely to be more cautious and flexible than Phillips was, because they know just how many factors - known and unknown - can combine to make the most educated 21st century guesswork problematic, without the support of reliable witness testimony regarding last sightings alive and first sightings dead.

So now he was more rash and careless than todays doctors too? I see.

At least they are more aware today of what they don't know and shouldn't presume when it comes to estimating TOD.

Love,

Caz
X

Prove to me that Phillips was less aware about what he didnīt know than todays doctors are, please. My take on things are that we are not the crown of creation, we are passers-by who will be laughed at in a hundred years, for being so very ignorant. At that stage, people will say "They did not know that they did not know!" in the exact same way that you say it about Phillips.

Chapman should have been around 36-37 degrees Celsius when she was found if she was killed at 5.30. But she had taken on ambient temperature, but for the little remaining heat under her intestines.

Chapman should not have developed rigor when she was found, if she died at 5.30 - but rigor had reached to the limbs already, and it typically starts in the face.

Chapmans blood should not have dried up at 6.30 if she died at 5.30 - but it had done precisely that.

Itīs not as if these things were the other way around in 1888. Maybe you donīt realize that you donīt realize that, Cazzie?

[caz]

Phillips COULD have been wrong, but he could not have been THAT wrong, and so the witnesses remain out. It's very easy and very wrong to claim that Victorian doctors were all about guesswork.

At least Phillips acknowledged that his TOD estimate was an opinion, and subject to variation due to the conditions - which is another way of admitting it was guesswork. While it would have been qualified in 1888 as 'educated' guesswork, the term is relative. Increased knowledge and experience over the last 100+ years have shown that such guesswork would not be considered 'educated' to today's standards, given the same circumstances and conditions. If anything, today's experts are likely to be more cautious and flexible than Phillips was, because they know just how many factors - known and unknown - can combine to make the most educated 21st century guesswork problematic, without the support of reliable witness testimony regarding last sightings alive and first sightings dead. At least they are more aware today of what they don't know and shouldn't presume when it comes to estimating TOD.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Let me ask you this, Herlock: Why is it, do you think, that Swanson does not mention Cadosch with a single word in his report, where he speaks of how Longs testimony "that seemed so very important" to the coroner seemingly has to be disbelieved as a result of Phillipsī verdict? Why does he not tell us how Cadoschīs testimony corroborated Longs?

Donīt just go "I donīt know" now, tell me what possible reasons Swanson could have had for leaving Cadosch out of his reasoning about the late TOD witnesses! Surely his testimony must be of equal value as Longs?

[Fisherman]

On the question of the different versions I don’t think that it’s reasonable to dismiss him just because of an answered questions. I think that the issues should be born in mind when assessments are made. For me the questions should be “could he have been telling the absolute truth and could the difference in statements have arisen due to a journalist for example ?” I think that the answer to this has to be “yes.” Therefore I firmly believe that Cadosch cannot and should not be dismissed.

The absolute proof cannot be worded in two very different ways. So if he told the absolute truth, he did so on one occasion only. Which means that we must ask ourselves WHICH occasion that was. And we canīt answer that one, can we? So we do not know whether he overheard the murder, scuffle, fall and all right where the body was found, or if he just hearda neighbor going "No" and a dog touching the fence.
Either of these versions happened if he told the absolute truth. But we cannot know which one.
Regardless what favours we try to do the man, the outcome is the same. We cannot trust him.

If a man is caught outside your front door right before you notice that your wallet has been stolen from your living room, and tells the police that he has entered your house, and then proceeds to say at the trial that he only paassed outside it and never went in - would you trust him? And WHICH VERSION would you trust? Surely we cannot dismiss him as unreliable? The basics of his story are the same, he was in the vicinity and admits it. Surely threeīs a core of truth in the manīs story?

Theres a huge and and important distinction between viewing a witness with caution (for whatever reason) and saying that simply because of a question or a doubt that he should be eliminated from consideration.

Yes, there is. And? There is a huge and important distinction between having a doctor tell us his professional view without any attention-seeker - who does not know what the doctor said - stepping in and serving up a story that is in total and utter conflict with the medical evidence, as opposed to having this exact thing happening. And if we take the attention-seekers word over the doctors, then we make ourselves guilty of having thwarted the ends of justice.

It is not as simple as "letīs accept what all witnesses say until we have reason not to". We DO have that reason now!!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Cadosch was possibly right - to an extent. But since he gave very differing versions, his testimony is rendered unreliable. Surely you can see that?

Can you explain to me why we would not question his veracity, given what we know? Or are you saying that you agree that his testimony makes him a dubious witness - that we must nevertheless believe in ...? There is nothing at all "illegal" about sorting away his testimony when one recognizes the risks it carries.

On the question of the different versions I don’t think that it’s reasonable to dismiss him just because of an answered questions. I think that the issues should be born in mind when assessments are made. For me the questions should be “could he have been telling the absolute truth and could the difference in statements have arisen due to a journalist for example ?” I think that the answer to this has to be “yes.” Therefore I firmly believe that Cadosch cannot and should not be dismissed.

Theres a huge and and important distinction between viewing a witness with caution (for whatever reason) and saying that simply because of a question or a doubt that he should be eliminated from consideration.

[Fisherman]

I’m saying that anything that cannot be categorically dismissed (proven lies or proven impossibilities) should remain on the table as possibles.

Cadosch was possibly right - to an extent. But since he gave very differing versions, his testimony is rendered unreliable. Surely you can see that?

Can you explain to me why we would not question his veracity, given what we know? Or are you saying that you agree that his testimony makes him a dubious witness - that we must nevertheless believe in ...? There is nothing at all "illegal" about sorting away his testimony when one recognizes the risks it carries.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m saying that anything that cannot be categorically dismissed (proven lies or proven impossibilities) should remain on the table as possibles.