Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

This is from the East London Observer from the 15:th of September 1888. I donīt know how it fares in the "The Most Detail Wins"-competition, but I think it is of interest nevertheless:

"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."

They really must have misunderstood the whole thing, eh?

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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The meaning is the exact same in both versions, though.

Is it? Then why all your frantic responses?

And both versions are adamant in pointing out that Phillips said that it was AT LEAST two hours. That detail scarce though it may seem, wins. The rest looses out.

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.

As a piece of advice, it is often good to take a look at how papers choose to condense matters. The purpose in doing so is to sift away unneccesary information.

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

The idea that "we must go by the principle the most detail wins" is a dangerous one at times since long and garbled sentences often have more detail than. short, succinct ones. And when it comes to deciding the matter, we must only go by the principle "at least" means "at least.

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.

Hereīs a quickie for you: The Star reported on the 13:th on the matter, writing:

"Considerable doubt is being thrown on the evidence of John Richardson, who stated that he was almost on the exact spot where the body was found at a quarter to five on Saturday morning, and no signs of the murder were then apparent. It is now beginning to be believed that the woman was brought to the backyard in Hanbury-street some time earlier."

Now, why would the police be of the opinion that Chapman was brought to the murder spot some time earlier than 4.45? Clearly, that time was only 15 minutes shy of the time Phillips said was the minimum, and if the doctor had generously opened up for being wrong on the point (as per you and a few others), then why donīt the police simply believe Richardson? Which is the reason? Had they aquired a copy of Bramble & Winterbottomīs Time Table for Whitechapel Murders? Had somebody stepped forward and said that he or she saw Chapman enter the yard at 4.00? Or something such?
Which could be the reason, NBFN?

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.

[harry]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[Fisherman]

Itīs strange how quiet this formerly so lively thread has gone after the quotation from the East London Observer...? Surely it must be interesting that we can see that the papers were able to report from the inquest proceedings that Phillipsī verdict was not one that allowed for gnawing away at the two hour borderline he stipulated, that he apparently spoke for a TOD at around 3 - 4 AM, and that there was a sentiment that it "discounted the groundless stories" served up by our witnesses?

Unless it is all an invention from an enterprising journalist? That suggestion seems to crop up at times like these, but so far - nothing.

[Fisherman]

Let's not forget Coroner Baxter's germaine words to Dr Phillips (on another matter) which Phillips himself accepted;

"The Coroner - That is your opinion. I can quite imagine that it is correct, but after all it is only opinion, and it may be rebutted. In the opinions of other medical men we often see this"

That relates to Phillipsī reluctance to share all the evidence with the audience in the inquest room. Iīm not sure how that impacts the discussion we are having, so you are going to have to help me out on it. As for Phillips "accepting" what Baxter said, he really had no choice but to give the evidence Baxter requested, did he? Iīd say far from "accepting" it, he reluctantly followed orders, but not before parts of the public had been ushered out of the room.

[Joshua Rogan]

Let's not forget Coroner Baxter's germaine words to Dr Phillips (on another matter) which Phillips himself accepted;

"The Coroner - That is your opinion. I can quite imagine that it is correct, but after all it is only opinion, and it may be rebutted. In the opinions of other medical men we often see this"

[Fisherman]

This is from the East London Observer from the 15:th of September 1888. I donīt know how it fares in the "The Most Detail Wins"-competition, but I think it is of interest nevertheless:

"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."

They really must have misunderstood the whole thing, eh?

[Fisherman]

That is part quote, part paraphrase.

We must go by the principle; the most detail, wins - especially given the information-poor nature of this subject.
Consequently, the winner is this:

I should say at least two hours, and probably more, but it is right in connection with that opinion to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.

Therefore we are well within our rights to shift Phillips' minimum time since death, substantially downward, and thus provide some validation for the testimonies of Richardson and Cadosch.

The meaning is the exact same in both versions, though. And both versions are adamant in pointing out that Phillips said that it was AT LEAST two hours. That detail scarce though it may seem, wins. The rest looses out.

As a piece of advice, it is often good to take a look at how papers choose to condense matters. The purpose in doing so is to sift away unneccesary information. The idea that "we must go by the principle the most detail wins" is a dangerous one at times since long and garbled sentences often have more detail than. short, succinct ones. And when it comes to deciding the matter, we must only go by the principle "at least" means "at least.

Hereīs a quickie for you: The Star reported on the 13:th on the matter, writing:

"Considerable doubt is being thrown on the evidence of John Richardson, who stated that he was almost on the exact spot where the body was found at a quarter to five on Saturday morning, and no signs of the murder were then apparent. It is now beginning to be believed that the woman was brought to the backyard in Hanbury-street some time earlier."

Now, why would the police be of the opinion that Chapman was brought to the murder spot some time earlier than 4.45? Clearly, that time was only 15 minutes shy of the time Phillips said was the minimum, and if the doctor had generously opened up for being wrong on the point (as per you and a few others), then why donīt the police simply believe Richardson? Which is the reason? Had they aquired a copy of Bramble & Winterbottomīs Time Table for Whitechapel Murders? Had somebody stepped forward and said that he or she saw Chapman enter the yard at 4.00? Or something such?
Which could be the reason, NBFN?

[Fisherman]

Well, Fisherman, I do think you’re clearly wrong here.
”at least two hours and probably more” is a single entity, modified and partly negated by the following “but”-clause.

Nope. I am not wrong, I am right, regardless of what you may or may not think. The fact of the matter is that the only negation there is, is Phillips saying "at least". THAT is a negation, an absolute borderline. After that, the two hour limit is not up for grabs, but the 3-4 hour span is.

I can easily see how you are trying to put the grammar to use, itīs not that - itīs that it canīt be done. If Phillips had said "My personal opinion is that she had been dead between two and three, perhaps three and a half hours, but is it fair rto say that the morning was cold..." etc, THEN you would have had a case, and a very good case too. As it stands, all you have is overreaching into grammar in order to reach a goal that remains illusive to you.

”End of.” as you so fondly write whenever you express an opinion.

It works much better for me, actually.

Since you’re unlikely to change your opinion, and since your posts contain the usual penchant for haughty replies, I’ll leave you to it for the time being.

Iīd say that there are other posters out there that would have a better point about the "haughty replies". You are kind of stiff collared yourself, although you may not be able to see it. Me, Iīm happy about my language. And grammar.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Morning Advertiser: "At least two hours, probably more, but the morning was fairly cold, and the body would have become cold sooner in consequence."

That is part quote, part paraphrase.

We must go by the principle; the most detail, wins - especially given the information-poor nature of this subject.
Consequently, the winner is this:

I should say at least two hours, and probably more, but it is right in connection with that opinion to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.

Therefore we are well within our rights to shift Phillips' minimum time since death, substantially downward, and thus provide some validation for the testimonies of Richardson and Cadosch.

[Kattrup]

Well, Fisherman, I do think you’re clearly wrong here.
”at least two hours and probably more” is a single entity, modified and partly negated by the following “but”-clause.

”End of.” as you so fondly write whenever you express an opinion.

Since you’re unlikely to change your opinion, and since your posts contain the usual penchant for haughty replies, I’ll leave you to it for the time being.

[Fisherman]

Morning Advertiser: "At least two hours, probably more, but the morning was fairly cold, and the body would have become cold sooner in consequence."

How this reads:

I think that Annie Chapman had been dead for at least two hours. That is the extreme I allow for. I actually think that she had been dead for significantly longer, three or four hours, but the morning was fairly cold, and so she would perhaps have grown cold somewhat quicker than that.

How it does not read:

I think that Annie Chapman could not possibly have been dead any less than two hours. That is the absolute minimum of time since her death. Actually, two hours is almost certainly too short a time span, because what I genuinely believe is that she will probably have been dead for three, perhaps four hours. But to be fair, it could have been much less than two hours. It was cold, see. I forgot to weigh that in when I said that she could not have been dead for less than two hours. Please forget about my mentioning of an even longer time span. Silly me.