Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[Kattrup]

Can we stop suggesting that Phillips said that Chapman had been dead AT LEAST (meaning absolutely no less than) two hours and probably more - and that he by saying that actually meant that he could be totally wrong about it, and one hour only could be just as realistic?

Could you point out where people have said this, it doesn’t really ring a bell.

What people have said is that it’s possible that Philips was mistaken, and that he, in his own testimony, allows for that possibility.

[Fisherman]

Can we stop suggesting that Phillips said that Chapman had been dead AT LEAST (meaning absolutely no less than) two hours and probably more - and that he by saying that actually meant that he could be totally wrong about it, and one hour only could be just as realistic?

It is well documented that no body grows all cold in an hour only. It cannot happen.

It is well documented that rigor is totally unlikely to set in after an hour only, and that this becomes even unlikelier in cold conditions.

It is also well documented that blood dries up over time, not like a gunshot.

The warmth of a human body is typically discernible for a period of four hours after death. When we reach those four hours, the last remaining heat tapers off and disappears. Not surprisingly, the body starts out being completely warm, and then the temperature gradually falls. Itīs not rocket science. What IS rocket science is that we now know that the temperature fall does not start until after half an hour or an hour. Before that, it stays on itīs original plateau and can even RISE somewhat.

After two hours only, Chapmans body should have been reasonably warm in many places. But since Phillips allowed for the possibility that the temperature fall could increase the speed at which the body lost itīs warmth, he accepted that possibly, the small warmth that he could feel and that would normally point to a TOD three hours of more away, could perhaps have come about earlier in Chapmans body.

Taken together with the rigor and the clotting of the blood, he was certain that two hours was an absolute minimum. He did not per se believe that it WAS as little as two hours, he thought it was significantly more than so, but in order to establish a minimum of time, he laid down that this absolute minimum was two hours.
Now, when we say "at least" two hours, we donīt mean to say "probably one hour only". We actually mean to say "two hours OR MORE".

Phillips said that he expected more than two hours, but added that it was fair to say that it was a cold morning and that the damage done was so large that this could perhaps - but only perhaps - have quickened the cooling off process to a degree that allowed for two hours only.

He never thought that is was in any way likely, but he admitted that it was perhaps possible. Perhaps.

To infer from this that he ALSO thought that one hour was possible is beyond ignorance. Meaning that coroner Baxter was a man who showcased this exact attitude at the inquest. He tried his darnedest to put together a sscenario in which the three witnesses were correct, and in doing so, he did history a huge disservice, because he invited people with as little contact with reality as he himself had to join him on his crusade.

And 132 years on, they are still marching, sword in hand, brain at a standstill and a blindfold over the eyes.

[Fisherman]

Most of what we are hearing about Cabosch is hearsay.What other persons said of him. What is important is that from the little he imparts,only one person can be placed in the yard of 29 at the time he(Cabosch) was in the adjoining yard.Accept those two pieces of information,then the truthfulness of Richardson,Long and Cadosch is more easily understood.

Yes, that is correct. One person only can be safely placed in the backyard of no 29 at the time Cadosch claimed to be doing the toilet rounds. And that person is Annie Chapman. And she was dead.

To make Cadoschīs story true, TWO persons, not one, must be placed in the backyard of no 29.

As for the level of truthfulness we may ascribe to Cadosch, Iīve already commented extensively on that point.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I think what I take away from Phillips comments is this, he could not be certain when the death occurred. He believed that based on what his experience told him the body was in a state that was consistent with the death being about 2 hours prior to his arrival, however he acknowledges that because the body was almost drained of blood, and was cut wide open with internal organs removed, and because it was a "cool morning" ...he felt "it is right 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."

Lets be clear about this, Phillips had no experience quite like this to draw from. The body was in such a state that its inconceivable he would have had to make a similar TOD "estimate" in his entire career. He did add the line I highlighted though, which to me translates to...by the state of the remains I would presume a death a few hours prior to my examination of it, but that estimate may be incorrect due to this unusual state and the environmental conditions.

He is saying it could have been sooner than 2 hours if he didnt factor the conditions of this cold and the bloodless body correctly...which is perfectly understandable under those circumstances, and it shows him to be a man of honest appraisal, rather than speaking from ego.

The relevancy of Phillips' estimate not only relates to John, Albert & Elizabeth, but to Amelia also...

On Saturday morning I called Mr. Thomson at ten minutes or a quarter to four o'clock.

Amelia is very awake, no later than 3:45, and probably 3:30.
Do you really suppose that Annie, in her state, managed to tip-toe into the backyard without being heard?
I think it likely that Amelia knew full well the two were there.
Why do you suppose she raised the leather apron subject? What was the relevancy?

[harry]

Most of what we are hearing about Cabosch is hearsay.What other persons said of him. What is important is that from the little he imparts,only one person can be placed in the yard of 29 at the time he(Cabosch) was in the adjoining yard.Accept those two pieces of information,then the truthfulness of Richardson,Long and Cadosch is more easily understood.

[Michael W Richards]

This is true, Michael.

However, if we assume "at least two hours, and probably more", to be 2― hours, the time of contact with fence sound to be the time of death - 5:25, and time of examination to be 6:30, then Phillips is estimating the murder to have occurred 150 minutes ago, whereas is was only 65.

65/150 = ~43%

So really Phillips must have been way off the mark, or what Cadosch heard was not what we think it was, and either Richardson did not tell the whole truth, or was incredibly unobservant.
If the former, makes you wonder about Caroline Maxwell...

I think what I take away from Phillips comments is this, he could not be certain when the death occurred. He believed that based on what his experience told him the body was in a state that was consistent with the death being about 2 hours prior to his arrival, however he acknowledges that because the body was almost drained of blood, and was cut wide open with internal organs removed, and because it was a "cool morning" ...he felt "it is right 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."

Lets be clear about this, Phillips had no experience quite like this to draw from. The body was in such a state that its inconceivable he would have had to make a similar TOD "estimate" in his entire career. He did add the line I highlighted though, which to me translates to...by the state of the remains I would presume a death a few hours prior to my examination of it, but that estimate may be incorrect due to this unusual state and the environmental conditions.

He is saying it could have been sooner than 2 hours if he didnt factor the conditions of this cold and the bloodless body correctly...which is perfectly understandable under those circumstances, and it shows him to be a man of honest appraisal, rather than speaking from ego.

[Fisherman]

But as we can be certain of very little the possibility also exists that by dismissing witnesses we could arrive at an incorrect TOD.

You may have noticed that the first sentence of my post stated that we cannot say whether we loose out on the productive paths of investigation you spoke of? None of us can be a hundred per cent certain if any of the witnesses - or all of them - gave evidence that was truthful to a smaller or lesser degree. Certainly, the evidence Albert Cadosch gave at the inquest was of so vague a character that it allowed for the voice he claimed to have heard to have come from another back yard than that of no 29. And consequently, it could have been uttered by somebody else than Chapman. Likewise, the sound of something briefly touching the fence must not have been the sound of the killer or Chapman touching it. It could have been a cat, as hs been suggested.
There was nothing in what Cadosch said at the inquest that must have represented him overhearing the murder, and therefore both options are left open:
1. He overheard the. order, or
2. He overheard something else than the murder.

In stark contrast to this, what he claimed to have heard in his original interview could not have been anything else but the murder, could it? The discussion, coming from the part of the yard where the murder took place, the ensuing scuffle, the woman saying "No!" and the ominous heavy fall, first against the fence and then down to the ground with a thump. At the exact spot where Chapman was found.
That cannot be interpreted as anything else but Cadosch saying that he overheard the murder in great detail.

Once we are asked to put trust in Albert Cadosch after this, it is the impossible that is being asked of us.

Letīs assume that Phillips had arrived at the conclusion that Chapman was very recently dead when he examined her. If this was so, then more confidence could be put in what Cadosch claimed. It would have made sense that he could have overheard the murder if he was in his back yard at 5.15 - 5.20.
The problematic thing would be that he didnīt own up to what he had formerly said when he took the stand at the inquest, and it would have caused me to loose much trust in him. I would also say, then as now, that the difference was so great inbetween his versions of the story that we would have to rule his testimony out. But I would do so with more of a feeling of a possible loss than I do now, when I know that Phillipsī verdict rules out that Cadosch could have overheard the murder at 5.15 - 5.20. The logical sequence that offers itself up by Richardsons dismissal as per the Star and Cadoschs knowledge that the medical evidence ruled his story out, lends itself quite well to making the asumption that this was why Albert backpedalled dramatically at the inquest, diluting away all links between what he said and a proven link to the murder. And therefore also absolving him of any potential accusations of perjury.

Given these matters, Albert Cadoscheīs testimony cannot be used to help establish a TOD for Chapman at around 5.20 - 5.30. It is inadmissible evidence, and it must be so. Any further claim to establish a TOD around 5.20 - 5.30 must rest on Elizabeth Long only. And it will remain in total conflict with the medical evidence, where the span between Longīs suggestion and Phillipsī estimation is way too dramatic to allow me to put any trust at all in Long. She even pushes the TOD a quarter of an hour FURTHER down the chronological line, telling us that Chapman would have died at around 5.35 at the earliest - less than an hour before Phillips examined a woman with onsetting rigor, with all her bodily warmth gone save a little remaining one under the intestines and with well clotted and dried up blood surrounding her.

At the very best, Long saw another couple outside no 29. I really hope this was so. But I am certain that she did not see Chapman speaking to somebody at that spot and time.

Does this mean that we must accept that Phillips was probably correct? Yes, it does, if we are comparing the exact timing of 5.35 to the much looser estimation of 4.30 or an hour or so before that. There is no learoom for Long to have been correct, the stretch is way too dramatic. Which is why it has been suggested that Phillips allowed for anything, more or less - it is the only way that his absolute NO can be turned into a POSSIBLY.
But Phillips never gave his okay to that kind of thinking. To begin with, even if we were to allow ourselves to start gnawing away on those two hours he said was the absolute minimum - NOT expected but only possibly allowed for - we must first gnaw away five minutes, making it 1.55. After that, we must gnaw away twelve (12) more five minute chunks of time to get to 1.35.
And all the while, what Phillips said was that the time actually probably needed to be altered - but in the OTHER direction!

We should not lament how this puts an end to any suggestions based on the idea that Chapman died at 5.35, because more or less ALL suggestions up until today have been suggestions working from that very idea. It is not due but instead very much overdue that we accept that Annie Chapmanīs death was in line with the other Whitechapel deaths, all occuring in darkness in the early morning hours. And that we now explore what that means, just as we have explored the options linked to a late TOD for so many years.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The point is that we canīt say. Maybe they are less than the amount of potentially disastrous avenues we would open up if we accept the witnesses, no questions asked? If, as I believe, the witnesses were all wrong and/or lying, then we would face the risk of getting the TOD for Chapman wildly wrong and start to think that she was killed at around 5.20 - 5.30. And if this really was not the case, if she instead died around 3-4 AM, we would be considering the wrong people for her murder, those who were there much later than when she died.

Does that answer your question?

But as we can be certain of very little the possibility also exists that by dismissing witnesses we could arrive at an incorrect TOD.

[Herlock Sholmes]

well, what are you relying on to prop up your misguided beliefs in the evidence of Cadosch, Richardson and Mrs Long? You either accept all three or reject all three but you cannot from an evidential point of view accept all three because they conflict with each other, and that conflict makes them all unsafe because we have nothing to show which of them is 100% accurate to rely on, so we have an evidential impasse and this topic can be discussed from now until the cows come home but nothing is going to change that.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But we’re not talking in terms of 100% because we can’t. About anything in this case. We are talking about likelihood’s and possibilities.

[Trevor Marriott]

No matter how many times I say that I’m not relying on any witness statement you still keep repeating it. I give up.

well, what are you relying on to prop up your misguided beliefs in the evidence of Cadosch, Richardson and Mrs Long? You either accept all three or reject all three but you cannot from an evidential point of view accept all three because they conflict with each other, and that conflict makes them all unsafe because we have nothing to show which of them is 100% accurate to rely on, so we have an evidential impasse and this topic can be discussed from now until the cows come home but nothing is going to change that.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Fish keeps talking about Cadosch and the different ‘versions.’ Does this mean that we should dismiss him?

Truth be told, we are not the ones dismissing him. He took care of that himself.

[Fisherman]

How many potentially profitable avenues
of investigation might be lost if we took the conveniently blinkered attitude that’s being espoused here.

The point is that we canīt say. Maybe they are less than the amount of potentially disastrous avenues we would open up if we accept the witnesses, no questions asked? If, as I believe, the witnesses were all wrong and/or lying, then we would face the risk of getting the TOD for Chapman wildly wrong and start to think that she was killed at around 5.20 - 5.30. And if this really was not the case, if she instead died around 3-4 AM, we would be considering the wrong people for her murder, those who were there much later than when she died.

Does that answer your question?

[Herlock Sholmes]

But you cant prove your case simply because the supporting witness testimony you seek to rely on is unsafe


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No matter how many times I say that I’m not relying on any witness statement you still keep repeating it. I give up.

[Trevor Marriott]

How many potentially profitable avenues
of investigation might be lost if we took the conveniently blinkered attitude that’s being espoused here. Do we weigh up likelihood’s and probabilities - nope. We dismiss. And yes Trevor this is exactly what Fish is saying. That Cadosch should be dismissed. Not that we even consider the possibility that he was being truthful. No. It’s a case of finding an error or a discrepancy and then jumping up and down gleefully at being able to ‘dismiss ‘ an inconvenient witness.

Trevor you keep repeating ‘unsafe,’ ‘unsafe,’ but this is par for the course in a case where we can be certain of so little. For the millionth time I’m not saying that any witness is cast in stone. I’m saying that we can weigh them up based on our own particular judgment to form opinions. Why is this such a bad thing and why isn’t it preferable to just binning witnesses and evidence when there are discrepancies? We are not in court here. The same rules don’t apply.

Fish keeps talking about Cadosch and the different ‘versions.’ Does this mean that we should dismiss him? According to Fish Yes. Even though he might have been telling the inconvenient truth? Even though the discrepancy might have been down to others? No, we still bin him. Doubt = dismiss. Discrepancy = dismiss.

This argument is dead. If we keep dismissing imperfect witnesses then we need to move on to another interest.

And no matter how many times a variant of ‘Cadosch can be dismissed’ is repeated I can assure everyone that he will not be dismissed. By some yes but not all.

Its my opinion that Cadosch heard a ‘no’ and then a sound. And if he did I’d say that it was 95% certain that the ‘no’ came from number 29 and 99% certain that the sound came from number 29. It wasn’t a cat or a rat or a blind man. It was Annie and her killer. And until someone can prove that this wasn’t the case it’s the opinion I’ll keep.

But you cant prove your case simply because the supporting witness testimony you seek to rely on is unsafe

So it is best left for each individual to make up their own minds as to who they believe

My preferred choice is to believe Phillips simply because there is no other evidence to support any victim being murdered at that time of the morning, in a location which might have resulted in him being seen, discovered, or even apprehended. and the fact that the supporting witness testimony to point to a later time is unsafe.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

How many potentially profitable avenues
of investigation might be lost if we took the conveniently blinkered attitude that’s being espoused here. Do we weigh up likelihood’s and probabilities - nope. We dismiss. And yes Trevor this is exactly what Fish is saying. That Cadosch should be dismissed. Not that we even consider the possibility that he was being truthful. No. It’s a case of finding an error or a discrepancy and then jumping up and down gleefully at being able to ‘dismiss ‘ an inconvenient witness.

Trevor you keep repeating ‘unsafe,’ ‘unsafe,’ but this is par for the course in a case where we can be certain of so little. For the millionth time I’m not saying that any witness is cast in stone. I’m saying that we can weigh them up based on our own particular judgment to form opinions. Why is this such a bad thing and why isn’t it preferable to just binning witnesses and evidence when there are discrepancies? We are not in court here. The same rules don’t apply.

Fish keeps talking about Cadosch and the different ‘versions.’ Does this mean that we should dismiss him? According to Fish Yes. Even though he might have been telling the inconvenient truth? Even though the discrepancy might have been down to others? No, we still bin him. Doubt = dismiss. Discrepancy = dismiss.

This argument is dead. If we keep dismissing imperfect witnesses then we need to move on to another interest.

And no matter how many times a variant of ‘Cadosch can be dismissed’ is repeated I can assure everyone that he will not be dismissed. By some yes but not all.

Its my opinion that Cadosch heard a ‘no’ and then a sound. And if he did I’d say that it was 95% certain that the ‘no’ came from number 29 and 99% certain that the sound came from number 29. It wasn’t a cat or a rat or a blind man. It was Annie and her killer. And until someone can prove that this wasn’t the case it’s the opinion I’ll keep.