Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[Fisherman]

It’s easy to alter the course of a game if you remove pieces from the board using illegal moves.

And it is easy to damage your teeth if you open champagne bottles with them. But what has either of those topics got to do with our discussion...?

[Trevor Marriott]

Tevor,
As Chapman's death was early in the series,might it not be that the circumstances that morning were such that the killer,maybe through inexperience and/or an urge he couldn't control,took a chance,and later,on reflection,decided that darkness was a better proposistion.

I personally doubt that scenario, the earlier the murders in the series the more likely the killer would adopt an air of caution and in almost daylight in a confined area overlooked with the likelihood of being disturbed those actions would not amount to being cautious

Besides with all the women that would have been on the streets around 3-4am and his mindset to kill I am sure he would have had more potential victims to choose from than at 5 am

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s easy to alter the course of a game if you remove pieces from the board using illegal moves.

[Fisherman]

All of that said I agree that we’re getting nowhere and unlikely ever to.

Some years back, just about everybody was willing to stake their lives on how Phillips must have been mistaken. Today, it is a very different story. That is not a sign of us getting nowhere, it is a sign of us getting more sober.

[Fisherman]

I use the word ‘dismissed’ Trevor because this is exactly what Fish is saying. That Cadosch can be ‘dismissed,’ ‘discounted,’ ‘ignored.’ Whichever word you wish to use.

If you prefer, I can say that he cannot be used in any way to defend the idea of a late TOD. Itīs much the same to me. He is inadmissible as evidence, quite simply.

[Fisherman]

Perhaps it matters to Fish who is seeking to show that Lechmere could have been the killer by suggesting the earlier time.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I cannot change a single thing that happened, Trevor. Chapman was killed at 3-4 AM according to Phillips, not according to me. That is in line with when Lechmere walked to work, not according to me but according to what we know about the Nichols murder.

The facts are there. Surely I am not disallowed to point to them?

[Fisherman]

How can Long disprove Cadosch,and Cadosch disprove long,when neither was witness to the others testimony?.

But you know how, Harry: They got the timings backwards. And that may well be BECAUSE neither was witness to the others testimony.

Phillips was not eyewitness to any of the three other persons mentioned,so he is in no position to prove any of them wrong.

The medical evidence puts him in that exact position.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You keep using the term dismissed when referring to what is being said about the various witnesses and their testimony.

They are not being dismissed, but because of the conflicts there are between them all, their testimony is unsafe to totally rely on

Unsafe and dismissed are totally differnet ways to describe their testimony. We can argue over this testimony from now until forever but it is not going to change what we have to work with from 1888 and that is unsafe witness testimony.

We can all speculate about who we believe was correct but that is not going to change the witness testimony and each and every one is entitled to form their own opinion as to who they think was telling the truth.

But does it really matter as to what time Chapman was murdered the fact is she was, and as likley as not by the same killer who was responsible for the other murders. Perhaps it matters to Fish who is seeking to show that Lechmere could have been the killer by suggesting the earlier time.

Time to stop this sabre rattling between the two of you this thread has become repetetive with the same type of posts and arguments on a daily basis, it is becoming boring now, time to bring it to a close.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I use the word ‘dismissed’ Trevor because this is exactly what Fish is saying. That Cadosch can be ‘dismissed,’ ‘discounted,’ ‘ignored.’ Whichever word you wish to use.

....

And we have that phrase yet again ‘unsafe to rely on.’

In what way am I ‘relying’ on any witness Trevor? I couldn’t count how many times I’ve agreed that witnesses have to be treated with caution. That we have to accept the possibility of attention-seekers telling porkies or exaggerating. Or of them being mistaken. And that we have to weigh up conflicting evidence.

So all that I’m saying Trevor; all that I’ve ever said is that we weigh up what we have. Using our own differing judgment and opinions. So we can say - if x is correct then... or if y is correct then.....Or is b likelier than c?

If there is a possibility that something might be true I don’t think that it should be chucked out because of discrepancies. Especially ones that might not even have originated from the witness. Things should only be dismissed if they can be fully disproven.

.....

All of that said I agree that we’re getting nowhere and unlikely ever to.

[Trevor Marriott]

Nothing has changed. The witnesses should not and cannot be dismissed.

You keep using the term dismissed when referring to what is being said about the various witnesses and their testimony.

They are not being dismissed, but because of the conflicts there are between them all, their testimony is unsafe to totally rely on

Unsafe and dismissed are totally differnet ways to describe their testimony. We can argue over this testimony from now until forever but it is not going to change what we have to work with from 1888 and that is unsafe witness testimony.

We can all speculate about who we believe was correct but that is not going to change the witness testimony and each and every one is entitled to form their own opinion as to who they think was telling the truth.

But does it really matter as to what time Chapman was murdered the fact is she was, and as likley as not by the same killer who was responsible for the other murders. Perhaps it matters to Fish who is seeking to show that Lechmere could have been the killer by suggesting the earlier time.

Time to stop this sabre rattling between the two of you this thread has become repetetive with the same type of posts and arguments on a daily basis, it is becoming boring now, time to bring it to a close.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Tevor,
As Chapman's death was early in the series,might it not be that the circumstances that morning were such that the killer,maybe through inexperience and/or an urge he couldn't control,took a chance,and later,on reflection,decided that darkness was a better proposistion.

[harry]

How can Long disprove Cadosch,and Cadosch disprove long,when neither was witness to the others testimony?.There may well be a discrepancy around the times given,but that is not insurmountable.Phillips was not eyewitness to any of the three other persons mentioned,so he is in no position to prove any of them wrong.
What we have in so far as medical opinion is given, is the manner of death,not contested,and time of death,which is debateable.If there is no evidence to prove Long,Cadosch and Richardson correct, as Fisherman states,what evidence is there to prove Phillips was.Of course the law does not demand that those three,Richardson,Long and Cadosch, prove their claims,and their evidence would stand,until evidence surfaced that proved them wrong.None did.In the case of Phillips,he expessed an opinion which has never been shown to be true,and would require other medical opinion,to prove it's value.None has been forthcoming.

[Fisherman]

If it’s of any consequence I am of the same opinion that Phillips was right simply because the fact that the killer never killed before at that time of the morning and the evidence to support a later time is unsafe

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

To me, the medical implications are much more important, actually. I am convinced that Phillips could not have been as wrong as he had to be to allow for the witnesses to be correct. But of course, I agree that a TOD around 3-4 AM, as suggested by Phillips, makes for a more logical sequence than a TOD at 5.30.

Looking at the overall picture, a TOD at 3-4 AM means that Phillips were correct in his estimations, based on four parameters, and that the killer kept to his chosen schedule as per the other three canonical Whitechapel murders. Everything is in line, and that cannot be a bad thing.

[Trevor Marriott]

That is a sound and measured approach to the matter, and one that has me feeling a little less as if I was visiting a parallel universe, Colin. When discussing these matters and being the only proponent for Phillips being absolutely correct, it feels very strange to be surrounded by people who all tell me that I am making a totally weird call. In my world, THEY are the ones who engage in wishful thinking and who try to stretch the medical boundaries way beyond breaking point.

If it’s of any consequence I am of the same opinion that Phillips was right simply because the fact that the killer never killed before at that time of the morning and the evidence to support a later time is unsafe

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

But was it the carpenter or the reporting of what he said,that causes the discrepencies.Leaving aside the timings as given,were there a set of circumstances that allows for both Long and Cadosch to have spoken the truth.There are three incidents that appear to have been accepted at that time.The first is Richardson's claim there was no body there when he visited the yard.The second is Cadosch's claim he heard an exclamation of 'No',and Long's reporting of seeing a man and woman outside 21 as she(Long) passed.There were no eye witness accounts that disprove those three witnesses,on those statements,and my opinion is that all three were correct.

Long disproves Cadosch and Cadosch disproves Long, so you are incorrect, Harry. As an aside, just as there are no further witnesses that disprove them, there are no further witnesses that prove them correct either. And they really cannot have been correct. The medical evidence does not allow for it, not even if we detract half of the time Phillips suggested. Thatīs how crazy the idea that Long and Cadosch were correct is.

[Fisherman]

We are, I believe, in full agreement here. The initial account given by Cadosch has him visiting the midden at 5.25am then again at 5.28am after passing a fence which was 5' high. By the date of the inquest the times had mysteriously gone back to 5.15am and 3-4 minutes thereafter and the fence had grown 6" taller. Quite how it is possible for a self-styled "Journeyman Carpenter" to be unable to accurately judge the height of the fence at his father's address I'm not sure. I don't doubt that he made two visits to the back yard because his unspecified urinary tract ailment is, I gather, one which has afflicted other family members before and since but I'm sceptical about the rest of his account. I also think that Mrs Long's identification of Annie Chapman was sincere but mistaken.

That is a sound and measured approach to the matter, and one that has me feeling a little less as if I was visiting a parallel universe, Colin. When discussing these matters and being the only proponent for Phillips being absolutely correct, it feels very strange to be surrounded by people who all tell me that I am making a totally weird call. In my world, THEY are the ones who engage in wishful thinking and who try to stretch the medical boundaries way beyond breaking point.