Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[The Rookie Detective]

This is arguably one of the most fascinating threads i have read.


As an aside i'd just like to add that when considering the authenticity and accuracy of so called 'witness' statements, they have to be taken into context with personal motivation, intent and consistency of said witnesses.

Considering that there always seems to be contrasting witness statement sin all of the murders, speaks volumes as to why this was a common occurrence.

In modern day witness accounts of crimes of similar ilk, it is often the case that statements will clash in some way. However, one is usually able to form a relatively accurate picture of sequence of events when combining all the relevant elements of respective statements.

The difference with the ripper case is that the contradictory nature of witness statements in virtually all of the known murders is rather alarming and therefore must account for other reasons more than just common misinterpretation of events.

In other words, there are more forces at play here.


The only innocent reason why there are such contradictory witness statements in this murder and other ripper murders, is that individuals were simply mistaken by what they saw or mistaken with timings.

It is unlikely for a common witness to have had ulterior motive.

Yes i can see that there's an argument for a witness wanting to sound important than they are by sounding more outlandish or important (Hutchinson for example) but i believe there's also a hidden element which is almost unspoken due to it's implications on the case as a whole.


If you were to say, exclude the Kelly case, then the other forces at work angle doesn't hold much water.

However, because MJK was undoubtedly a ripper victim and because we know that Chapman was also a victim, then the theory which suggest that witness statements are unreliable because of them being manipulated by officials, automatically adds more credence to explaining why such contradictions occurred.

In other words, i would be reluctant to accept any statements; police official or witness, which have an air of orchestration about them.


My favorite quote and old adage springs to mind...

"Accept Nothing
Believe Nobody
Challenge Everything"


ergo, If the ripper was in fact a high ranking official, policeman, politician, mason, medical professional, then i would take "official" statements with a pinch of salt.


Let's hope that the ripper was a regular man, a loner, a nobody. (my personal belief)


Because if he was a prominent high ranking member of society, then most "official" sources aren't worth the paper their printed on and it makes the case that much harder to solve.


I have never been one for conspiracy theories, but because they are still a potential factor; albeit minimal, then nothing can be considered as completely reliable.

That's why contradictory witness and police statements may be due to more than just an individual being mistaken about what they saw or heard.


The Kelly case for example...

Wait 2 hours for sniffer dogs to arrive to demonstrate a commitment to the case...
Or use the 2 hours to doctor the scene and remove incriminating evidence because the owner was a prominent member of society who on one hand donated money to hospitals and charity, while on the other hand, obtained said monies through illegal boxing fights, solicited prostitution for high brow clients whilst allowing his assets to live rent free, and was associated with other criminals and high ranking police officials.

In that context, scrutinizing a man who thought he heard a woman say "no" is arguably more accurate than any police statement.


I mean, this case is just one self-perpetuating frustration.


The case continues



TRD

[Fisherman]

We need more assessment and less dismissal.

Assess away, Herlock. But keep an eye on the quality of what you assess.

A more nuanced view rather than assumption of dishonesty.

And yet again you put your foot in it. When will it end? Havenīt I said a thousand times that it cannot be proven either way? Havent I said all along that there may be a core of truth in what Cadosch said? Why am I speaking to totally deaf ears? Why must you point me out as having said something I havenīt said? Because it makes it easier for you to portray yourself as the logical and honest poster? It is deeply dishonest if that is the case.

Try again. And forever, if thatīs what it takes: We donīt know if Cadosch was dishonest. BUT THE FACT THAT HIS INITIAL STATEMENTS DIFFER HUGELY FROM WHAT HE SAID AT THE INQUEST MEANS THAT HE IS AND REMAINS AN UNRELIABLE SOURCE. HE CAN THEREFORE NOT BE USED TO VERIFY A LATE T.O.D!

Did you get it this time? Or will you go on peddling misrepresentations of what I am saying? Please let me know.

PS. I have assessed as per the East London Observer that witnesses saying that Chapman was alive at 5 AM were regarded as having made groundless claims. Does that contribute to your wish for more assessments...?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

We need more assessment and less dismissal. A more nuanced view rather than assumption of dishonesty.

Richardson can only be budged by conspiracy theorist blather about knives and rabbits.

I love it!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Time to pack it up and go home, Herlock. Once again, it matters not if Albert himself was the origin of the discrepancies (and he in all probability was), they are nevertheless there, and so we cannot shpa a version we like and go by that. We must instead accept - and itīs high time! - that his testimony is unreliable. Wheter itīs "Damn Cadosch!" or "Damn those journalists who ascribed the same wrong things to old Albert!" is neither here nor there.

I agree that it’s very frustrating to be confronted with such rigid thinking.

Im not a writer or historian but we are all aware that a historian, when confronted by a source writing about what someone had said, will take into account the circumstances in which the piece was written and context (did they have access to the info; did the writer have an axe to grind; was he/she known to have been dishonest; did they have reason to exaggerate or elaborate; and yes, are there differing versions to be assessed?)

In the case of what was said in the newspapers by Cadosch then the answer to all of the above is yes and so of course caution is required but to completely dismiss on the off chance that Cadosch might have been lying is bizarre. How many witnesses in this case (including police) would also be dismissed?

We need more assessment and less dismissal. A more nuanced view rather than assumption of dishonesty. The fact remains that Cadosch said that he heard a ‘no’ which his first impression told him came from number 29 and a noise that he was certain came from number 29. No matter how much foot-stamping goes on this cannot and will not be dismissed apart from by individual posters who are of course free to do just that.

[Fisherman]

Reasoned? Why then do you think that the E L O wrote that the 5 AM observations (Richardson was 4.45) were written off? Because they were unreasoned? Come on, Herlock, find yourself a white flag, the war is over.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, if we amend things in retrospect and claim that just abut everything was misheard, we get a very different picture, thatīs true. It can take us anywhere we want to go.

No Fish it’s called taking a reasoned view. The chances that Richardson lied is significantly reduced because of the situation that he’d have been needlessly putting himself in. And the chances of him being mistaken and missing a mutilated corpse are incredibly remote anyway. This favours him being correct.

[Fisherman]

Once again, stories of Chapman's sighting at 5am - groundless or not - have no impact on our understanding of Phillip's ToD estimate.

As for the most detail, wins principle, that applies to differences in quotes across newspapers. Edward Spooner example:

[DT] I did not meet any one as I was hastening through Berner-street.

[DN] I did not meet any one as I was hastening to Berner-street except Mr. Harris, who was coming out of his house in Tiger Bay, having heard the police whistle.

The Daily News reporter did not hallucinate Spooner mentioning Mr Harris, and similar detail appears in the MA and Times.

The witnesses were thrown out, as per the E L O. Phillips never budged, we know that now.

Whether he was correct or not about the TOD is another matter. But the weighing together of four parameters tells us that he with near certainty was correct. And we can be absolutely sure that he could not have failed so monumentally as to allow for a TOD at 5.20 - 5.30.

Then again, I have said so for years, so itīs nothing new, is it?

[Fisherman]

How is it interesting? There's no mention of the police. As you know, journalists frequently make exaggerated claims and simplistic analyses. So The Star claiming that someone (who?) is beginning to doubt Richardson is hardly interesting.

Taken together with the report from the inquest in the East London Observer, Iīd say we can change "interesting" for "decisive". But I recommend you donīt go down that path, because it makes mincemeat of your stance.

The three witnesses were very clearly ALWAYS looked upon as having produced groundless stories. Letīs revisit the old material, now that we know what kind of light has been shedded on the story. We begin with Swanson:

" ...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."

First point: What happened to Cadosch? Why does Swanson not say that Longs testimony cannot be taken lightly since it was backed up by what poor old Albert said? Because, of course, he no longer played any part in the drama at the stage when Swanson wrote his report (19:th of October). I donīt think that he as such played any vital role at any stage.

And what does Swanson say about how he feels about the testimony offered by Long? Does he say that it seemed important to him? No, he says that it seemed important to the coroner! It "appeared to be so important to the Coroner".

Appearances, appearances. Swanson flushes it down the drain, thatīs what he does. And VERY wisely so.

Time to let go of the old ideas about how everybody were confused by the difference between the witnesses and Phillips. The E L O very clearly tells us that Phillips gave NO learoom beyond the two hour line, and that the witnesses were from the ouytset exposed as having told groundless stories:

"One other important fact was the surgeon able to glean, which discounted the groundless storiesof the murdered woman having been seen at five o'clock that morning, and that was that death had taken place fully two hours before the first discovery of the body - probably between three and four o'clock on the Saturday morning."

There was no initial confusion. It is a latter day invention, amplified into an absolute absurdity by ripperological busy-bodies with no basic understanding of this part of the case. Sorry, but it must be said.

I am very happy about how we first found out about the versatility of Mr Cadosch and how we now have had it shown to us what the true sentiments were at the inquest. It is perfectly in line with what I have said throughout. The unfortunate wording Phillips was quoted on has been used against him for the longest, but that cannot be done any longer. When he said "at least" he MEANT at least, and he never budged a millimeter on it, as we may now see.

[Fisherman]

Is it? Then why all your frantic responses?

Yes, it is.

At least two hours MINUS cooling due to blood loss and cold weather.
Other interpretations lose out, because they ignore Phillips suggesting it would be right to modify his estimate by taking these variables into account.

Nope. Read the East London Observer. And trust me, not least!

On this occasion, it clearly was not unnecessary information. As evidence to that, witness your own response to it - panic!

Panic? I have no reson to panic. I just read the East London Observer.

Dangerous for you maybe, not me, and Phillips' sentence in the ES is not garbled - its meaning is quite clear.
It is quite revealing that you seem to be advocating throwing away information, presumably when that information does not suit your agenda.

Yes, the meaning is quite clear. What I throw away is not correct information, it is your misinterpretation of the information. Once again, read the East London Observer.

While that question is interesting in its own right, our interpretation of Phillips' words regarding his ToD estimate, is not contingent on any doubts the police may have had regarding John Richardson, at the time that edition of the Star went to press.

So no answer, eh? Again, read the E L O; "One other important fact was the surgeon able to glean, which discounted the groundless stories of the murdered woman having been seen at five o'clock that morning, and that was that death had taken place fully two hours before the first discovery of the body - probably between three and four o'clock on the Saturday morning."

[Fisherman]

There was no conversation,Fisherman,and no brawl,so you have corrected nothing.A single word is what has been reported to have been heard,and a noise against the fence.There is nothing in Cadosch's reported information that puts two persons in the yard of 29 Hanbury street.It wasn't a dead person that was there at that time,but a live one who who made that one exclamation.A murder could of course have been in progress,but I tend to believe that came a short time later,under different circumstances.

Ah, but you are forgetting what Cadosch INITIALLY was recorded to have said, Harry.

[Fisherman]

I’d also add that if we consider the circumstances of a statement for context then we should consider Inspector Chandler saying that Richardson didn’t mention sitting on the step.

This was from an ‘interview’ that took place in the passageway of number 29 probably before 6.30am? (I’ll stand correcting of course but wasn’t it before Phillips arrived?) A busy crime scene of a sensational murder with Chandler in charge of his biggest case. He had the Doctor due to arrive at any minute and no doubt much on his mind. This was certainly no in depth interview. Do we know if he even wrote anything down?

What did he want to know from Richardson? I’d say whether he was a suspect or not and whether Annie there at 4.45 when Richardson was there?

Are these two options anything like impossible or implausible?

That Chandler might have misheard ‘sat on the step’ for ‘stood on the step?’ Or that, on the spot and realising that he might have been considered a suspect, he panicked and decided to leave out the part that included a knife? And so in answer to Chandler he said something to the effect of that from the steps he could see the whole of the yard and couldn’t have missed the body. Later when the possibility of the body being hidden by the door could have been mentioned to him he mentions sitting on the step.

Could he have lied for another reason? Well yes, the ‘fifteen minutes of fame’ argument applies to all witnesses. (I’m too lazy to keep typing that so I’ll call it the FOF argument.) But in Richardson’s case there’s more against than for FOF. We can reasonably ask why would he, when he didn’t need to, put himself at the scene of a viscous knife crime with a knife?

Again before Trevor starts about testimony being unsafe to totally rely on that’s not what I’m doing here. I’m considering the circumstances and the context to arrive at possible explanations. By being black and white on witness statements were are potentially depriving ourselves of options.

How can we simply dismiss things that might well be correct? No one will go to the gallows if we in 2020 follow 2, 3 or 4 lines of thought. We don’t need to be that rigid in our thinking. This doesn’t stop anyone doubting witnesses but when we’re reliant on press versions of what was said then caution should work both ways.

Yes, if we amend things in retrospect and claim that just abut everything was misheard, we get a very different picture, thatīs true. It can take us anywhere we want to go.

[Fisherman]

As for the ‘statements’ in The Daily News of September 10th and The Morning Advertiser and The Manchester Guardian it’s plain to see that these aren’t directly quoted words from Cadosch. They are the words of a journalist who no doubt spoke to Cadosch and then wrote up the article later on with all the possibilities of error and all of the temptations of embellishment. Therefore it’s the journalists accuracy that should be called into question.

And so so the reality is that Cadosch heard a ‘no’ which his very first impression told him came from the yard of number 29 ( and reason tells us that someone is far less likely to have mistaken a word from several yards away for one emanating from within 6 feet or so. The argument that the ‘no’ could have come from a distance away is feeble at best) He then heard the sound of something brushing against the fence of number 29 (not number 25 or number 31) Something that he had absolutely no doubt of.

He did hear something. Annie and her killer.

Time to pack it up and go home, Herlock. Once again, it matters not if Albert himself was the origin of the discrepancies (and he in all probability was), they are nevertheless there, and so we cannot shpa a version we like and go by that. We must instead accept - and itīs high time! - that his testimony is unreliable. Wheter itīs "Damn Cadosch!" or "Damn those journalists who ascribed the same wrong things to old Albert!" is neither here nor there.

[Fisherman]

As you dismiss Cadosch because of the existence of a more detailed statement then I’d suggest that we can now dismiss Phillips on the same grounds.

Yes, you would, wouldnīt you?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

How is it interesting? There's no mention of the police. As you know, journalists frequently make exaggerated claims and simplistic analyses. So The Star claiming that someone (who?) is beginning to doubt Richardson is hardly interesting.

My guess is that the 'considerable doubt' was due to the police being aware of Phillips' ToD estimate, prior to George testifying.
I think that more likely than the Star just being provocative, although the report does lack detail, including any mention of police, as you said.
Perhaps the police had another clue or lead that came to nothing?

Perhaps I should have said 'somewhat interesting', but I didn't want to just dismiss this out of hand.
My essential point is that nothing else in the investigation should be allowed to colour the meaning of what Phillips said about ToD, regardless of how accurate his estimate may have been.

[Kattrup]

While that question is interesting in its own right, our interpretation of Phillips' words regarding his ToD estimate, is not contingent on any doubts the police may have had regarding John Richardson, at the time that edition of the Star went to press.

How is it interesting? There's no mention of the police. As you know, journalists frequently make exaggerated claims and simplistic analyses. So The Star claiming that someone (who?) is beginning to doubt Richardson is hardly interesting.