Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[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.

[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!

[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...?

[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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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...?

It is you that isn’t understanding Fish. You are wrong!

If there’s a real possibility that Cadosch could have been telling the truth (and there most certainly is - in fact I’d say that it’s far more likely that he was) then we absolutely should not under any circumstances dismiss him. No way.

And this constant and inaccurate suggestion that Cadosch’s statements changed is simplistic and potentially misleading. These were not Cadosch’s words. They were a journalists representation of what Cadosch had said. Interviews probably on doorsteps or in the street with a journalist making notes to be written up later.

As any discrepancies cannot be definitely be accredited specifically to Cadosch.

Cadosch cannot and will not be dismissed except by individuals but not as an accepted rule.

[Fisherman]

It is you that isn’t understanding Fish. You are wrong!

Where did you get that from? Me wrong? Surely not - donīt be absurd.

If there’s a real possibility that Cadosch could have been telling the truth (and there most certainly is - in fact I’d say that it’s far more likely that he was) then we absolutely should not under any circumstances dismiss him. No way.

Then which of his testimonies do you suggest we treat as being true? The detailed "I heard it all" version or the "Me hearing the murder? No, Sir!" version? Or should we pick and choose a few bits and bobs from all the versions and make a new one?

And this constant and inaccurate suggestion that Cadosch’s statements changed is simplistic and potentially misleading. These were not Cadosch’s words.

No? And you know that how, exactly?

They were a journalists representation of what Cadosch had said. Interviews probably on doorsteps or in the street with a journalist making notes to be written up later.

Iīve done many an interview with many varying people over the years. I still do them. And I canīt remember a single time when I twisted what the interview object said. Instead, I try to be as true as possible to the wording, and it is only when it is unclear that I ponder changing it.
Why would we think that the Victorian journalists exaggerated and twisted and lied? If we are to believe as much as we can of what Cadosch said, then why should we not believe that the journalists did a proper job? Not least since we have TWO sources saying the more or less same things? It is called source corroboration in my line of work.

As any discrepancies cannot be definitely be accredited specifically to Cadosch.

Once again that does not matter. He could hav e been a blue-blooded royalist, and had the bad luck of having the jurnalist claiming that he was pondering killing Queen Victoria, and it would not help him a iot that he had said no such thing until it could be proven that he didnīt. Up until that time, we would nevertheless have to treat him as a potential royal murderer BECAUSE THAT WAS WHAT THE SOURCE MATERIAL CLAIMED!
Once again Albert Cadosch may have been the nicest, most honest and friendliest man on Earth - but since the sources say that he gave a version that difffered wildly from the one he gave at the inquest, we are forced to accept that his testimony is tainted and unreliable, whether by his own doing or by a team of concurring journalists who just happened to stumble over the same wordings, is something we cannot say for sure. The very clear indication is that he DID give the versions that were ascribed to him, but there is a fraction of a fraction of a chance that he didnīt, or that the journalists exagerrated to some extent. The outcome is the same regardless - heīs out. And he MUST be out, unless we want to use sources that are proven unreliable when concluding. You lament how this shuts paths of investigation closed, but it actually opens other paths of investigation, so the sum is the same with the one exception that you personally dislike these paths.
Others dont, though.

Cadosch cannot and will not be dismissed except by individuals but not as an accepted rule.

I recommend it as a rule, and I will - as a rule - dismiss any theory that builds on how Cadosch suggests a late TOD. You must do as you wish yourself.

[Fisherman]

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

TRD

Try a carman, and you may just strike gold.

[Fisherman]

So Phillips suggested a TOD between 3 and 4 AM...?

Now, who do we know of who had a reason to visit Hanbury Street at these early hours of the morning? Anybody? Yes...? *

(Cue the posters who get a kick out of claiming that I twist the material in to fitting you-know-who. The one problem is that is seems that I am not doing the fitting here. Instead, the people who suggest that Phillips had no problems with Long and Cadosch having seen and heard Chapman alive at 5.20 - 5.30 seem to have taken part of that particular business.)

*Itīs Charles Lechmere.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. And this constant and inaccurate suggestion that Cadosch’s statements changed is simplistic and potentially misleading. These were not Cadosch’s words.

No? And you know that how, exactly

Firstly they’re not even direct quotes. They’re a journalists truncated version of what he believed that Cadosch had told him. The final version might have contained error or elaboration on the journalists part.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Why would we think that the Victorian journalists exaggerated and twisted and lied?

The more sensational the more sales. After all it’s widely believed that a journalist invented the name JTR. It’s also been suggested that journalists wrote some of the JTR letters. If they would stoop that far Fish I don’t think that they’d baulk at a bit of elaboration.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. And he MUST be out, unless we want to use sources that are proven unreliable when concluding.

Not unless you can prove that he lied and you can’t......so he isn’t.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Iīve done many an interview with many varying people over the years. I still do them. And I canīt remember a single time when I twisted what the interview object said.

And I’m not questioning your journalistic integrity Fish. I’m sure that you’re scrupulously fair. But Victorian journalists didn’t come under the same level of scrutiny as their modern day counterparts do. And in any field not everyone is squeamish about a bit of distortion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. - but since the sources say that he gave a version that difffered wildly

This is an exaggeration Fish. Hearing someone shout “no I’m not going to let you live” in high pitched Portuguese followed by the sound of someone throwing a bucket of custard at the fence would be a wildly different version. The other version has the ‘no’ and the noise. Just with a couple of added details.

[Fisherman]

Well, I’ ll say one thing for you, Herlock: your faith in Albert Cadosch is deeply and heartwarmingly touching. And who knows - if only you repeat many enough times that there was no real difference between his testimonies, maybe one day it becomes true...? I mean, wouldnīt that be great?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, I’ ll say one thing for you, Herlock: your faith in Albert Cadosch is deeply and heartwarmingly touching. And who knows - if only you repeat many enough times that there was no real difference between his testimonies, maybe one day it becomes true...? I mean, wouldnīt that be great?

I’m not saying that there’s no difference Fish I’m saying that the differences aren’t huge. The ‘no’ and the sound appear in all. The time of the morning. The two journeys to the loo. It’s no massive leap or unbelievable twist that a conversation might have been...

Journalist: So you heard the word ‘no?’

Cadosch: Yes.

Journalist: Like someone was answering a question?

Cadosch: Yes, but I only heard the ‘no’ part.

And the Journalist, back at his desk writing this up, writes that Cadosch heard a muttered conversation but could only pick out the ‘no.’

Likewise the sound...

Journalist: So you heard something brush against the fence.

Cadosch: Yes.

Journalist: So this could have been the sound of the woman being attacked?

Cadosch: It could have been, yes.

Back at his desk the Journalist has Cadosch saying that he heard a scuffle. Sensationalism sold newspapers and here was a man who might very well have heard Annie and her killer. It’s hardly unbelievable that a Journalist might have succumbed to the temptations of a bit of elaboration.

The basics of what Cadosch said remain though. A ‘no’ and a sound against the fence. The only way that Cadosch could be categorically eliminated would be if we knew 100% that Phillips could not have been wrong. I’m guessing that you would go at least pretty close to that but others disagree.

We both know that the line is drawn. You think that Cadosch should be dismissed. I think that he shouldn’t. Others will form their own opinions.

....

Id ask you Fish the same question that I’ve asked Trevor (numerous times) He hasn’t replied but I’m confident that you will. Knowing that witness discrepancies exist and that wording in various statements can vary. Are there any witnesses in this case that we cannot find a reason for dismissing? Discounting Doctors of course.