Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[Fisherman]

From this thread, it seems that the majority of opinion favors believing either Cadosch was embellishing the truth to sound more important than he was or just outright lying to mislead the inquiry.

But WHY would he choose to do either of those?

Was he himself considered or even proven to be an unreliable character?

Just because his account doesn't necessarily fit in a conventional sense, is that enough to disregard him?

If his authenticity and credibility as a witness are to be challenged, then surely there must be a more considerable reason to do so than simply because his account doesn't tie in with Richardson and Co.


Is there a danger by doing so, that potential key witnesses are being missed simply because their respective accounts don't fit?


I can understand challenging a so called witness like Hutchinson, who either had a photographic memory, was embellishing the truth and exaggerating when he described the man he saw with MJK or was the ripper himself, but as for Cadosch... surely if he was embellishing the truth then he would have made more of an outlandish claim than just hearing the word "no"

The truth is more likely to come from examining the finer smaller seemingly insignificant details, as opposed to extreme detail.

If Cadosch was lying or exaggerating then i would have expected more of a detailed account, like...
"yes i saw the man, he was tall, had a big knife and looked foreign, i tried to apprehend him but he ran away like a coward"

But no... he just said he thought he heard someone say "no"


More of a truth than the Hutchinson story anyway.


TRD

I completely disagree. Whereas Cadoschīs testimony is all over the place, Hutchinsons ditto was remarkably similar throughout and it was noted that he could not be shaken.

Cadosch was shaken, stirred and poured out all over the floor.

You ask about Cadosch: "Just because his account doesn't necessarily fit in a conventional sense, is that enough to disregard him? "

No, it is not any reason at all to disregard him. Then again, the reason I disregard him is that he gave totally differing versions of what he had supposedly overheard, not that his testimony is in any way unconventional.

If the unconventional addition is that he served up differing versions of his testimony, then Iīd say yes, that is reason enough to disregard him. Once again, not because it cannot hold a core of truth, but because we should not put our conception of the case at risk of being taken to the cleaners.

You need to keep these things apart.

[The Rookie Detective]

From this thread, it seems that the majority of opinion favors believing either Cadosch was embellishing the truth to sound more important than he was or just outright lying to mislead the inquiry.

But WHY would he choose to do either of those?

Was he himself considered or even proven to be an unreliable character?

Just because his account doesn't necessarily fit in a conventional sense, is that enough to disregard him?

If his authenticity and credibility as a witness are to be challenged, then surely there must be a more considerable reason to do so than simply because his account doesn't tie in with Richardson and Co.


Is there a danger by doing so, that potential key witnesses are being missed simply because their respective accounts don't fit?


I can understand challenging a so called witness like Hutchinson, who either had a photographic memory, was embellishing the truth and exaggerating when he described the man he saw with MJK or was the ripper himself, but as for Cadosch... surely if he was embellishing the truth then he would have made more of an outlandish claim than just hearing the word "no"

The truth is more likely to come from examining the finer smaller seemingly insignificant details, as opposed to extreme detail.

If Cadosch was lying or exaggerating then i would have expected more of a detailed account, like...
"yes i saw the man, he was tall, had a big knife and looked foreign, i tried to apprehend him but he ran away like a coward"

But no... he just said he thought he heard someone say "no"


More of a truth than the Hutchinson story anyway.


TRD

[Fisherman]

I think it’s very strange. This case is discussed in terms of ‘what ifs’ and ‘maybe’s’ because there’s so much that we don’t know for certain. How can we possibly discuss the case if we have to dismiss every witness when a discrepancy arises? Has it been proven that Cadosch lied? It’s nowhere near that black and white of course. As we’ve said before, he might have toned down his statement after hearing about the Dr’s TOD. He might have felt pressured by the police. The Press might have exaggerated what he’d actually said. These are possibilities. You are and Trevor are at liberty to completely dismiss him. I don’t. I’ve even accepted the 1000-1 chance that Richardson might not have realised that a door can conceal a body. Given the choice between Richardson missing a mutilated corpse and Cadosch hearing what he said that he did, Cadosch wins by a country mile but I still don’t absolutely dismiss the former. This is because I think that we should assess all reasonable possibilities.

You will not achieve a situation where the murder of Annie Chapman is discussed and that witnesses are completely dismissed I'm
afraid. No matter how many times that you keep stating it.

Herlock, no case should be regarded as black and white only. But I think you are even more economic when ruling out the color black for witness application.

What I recommend is that we look upon the case in all itīs shades. I object against the idea that all witnesses should be looked upon as kosher once we have it in - yes! - black and white that they have given totally different versions of their stories. Instead, those witnesses should be regarded with a lot of scepticism, for that exact reason.

I know that you are quite aware that this is how things must be done. It has nothing to do with any certainty that the witness in question must have lied, but it accepts that no reliability can be ascribed to the witness once he or she has compromised him- or herself. It is common procedure and common sense.

Wheter Cadosch "may have toned down" his testimony, whether he was misunderstood or misinterpreted by the press is neither here nor there in the overall issue. He-is-neverthless-compromised. For good or for bad, we will never be able to prove either way.

There are realities you must face. We all must. And it does not help when you try to quantify the possibility that Richardson can have had the door hiding Annie Chapman to 1000-1. We cannot say. And jestering about it changes nothing.

Cadosch goofed up. That significantly worsens the case for the witness believers. In a corresponding degree, it helps the cause of those who side with Phillips. How hard can that be to understand...?

[Trevor Marriott]

You

I think it’s very strange. This case is discussed in terms of ‘what ifs’ and ‘maybe’s’ because there’s so much that we don’t know for certain. How can we possibly discuss the case if we have to dismiss every witness when a discrepancy arises? Has it been proven that Cadosch lied? It’s nowhere near that black and white of course. As we’ve said before, he might have toned down his statement after hearing about the Dr’s TOD. He might have felt pressured by the police. The Press might have exaggerated what he’d actually said. These are possibilities. You are and Trevor are at liberty to completely dismiss him. I don’t. I’ve even accepted the 1000-1 chance that Richardson might not have realised that a door can conceal a body. Given the choice between Richardson missing a mutilated corpse and Cadosch hearing what he said that he did, Cadosch wins by a country mile but I still don’t absolutely dismiss the former. This is because I think that we should assess all reasonable possibilities.

You will not achieve a situation where the murder of Annie Chapman is discussed and that witnesses are completely dismissed I'm
afraid. No matter how many times that you keep stating it.

You just dont comprehend do you

It is being pointed out to you the flaws in his statement, flaws which make what he says unsafe to totally rely on.

Unsafe is a million miles away from dismissing outright

Why do you not want to accept that his testimony is unsafe?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

My "attitude" is one where witnesses who deliver totally different versions of what they have seen or heard are ruled out as reliable witnesses. There is nothing at all strange about it

I think it’s very strange. This case is discussed in terms of ‘what ifs’ and ‘maybe’s’ because there’s so much that we don’t know for certain. How can we possibly discuss the case if we have to dismiss every witness when a discrepancy arises? Has it been proven that Cadosch lied? It’s nowhere near that black and white of course. As we’ve said before, he might have toned down his statement after hearing about the Dr’s TOD. He might have felt pressured by the police. The Press might have exaggerated what he’d actually said. These are possibilities. You are and Trevor are at liberty to completely dismiss him. I don’t. I’ve even accepted the 1000-1 chance that Richardson might not have realised that a door can conceal a body. Given the choice between Richardson missing a mutilated corpse and Cadosch hearing what he said that he did, Cadosch wins by a country mile but I still don’t absolutely dismiss the former. This is because I think that we should assess all reasonable possibilities.

You will not achieve a situation where the murder of Annie Chapman is discussed and that witnesses are completely dismissed I'm
afraid. No matter how many times that you keep stating it.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Had Cadosch remained outside throughout; fom the time he heard the word "no," then Chapman may have been spared, or Cadosch would have 'heard' the entire assault on Chapman being committed.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about Cadosch, is not what he heard or didn't hear, but that he was the only person to hear anything.
This is a snippet from the dissertation I linked to in #213:

In spite of Mr. Waker's close proximity to the murder scene (an estimated five to six feet from where Annie was killed and mutilated) with an open window, even he was unaware of what had happened till the discovery of the body. Ostensibly, there was no struggle, and Mrs Richardson adds to this sentiment, "They [tenants] mostly work at the fish market or in the Spitalfields Market. Some of the carmen leave home as early as one a.m., while others go out at four and five, so that the place is open all night, and any one can get in...if there had been any struggle it must have been heard..." It can be safely concluded that Annie did not, at least, scream out, else Mr. Waker, the Copsey sisters, and possibly Cadoche would have heard it. But was Annie subdued as quickly as all of this indicates? Cadoche's testimony seems to describe something a little different.

Dr Phillips estimated the ToD at 4:30, probably earlier. Keep that in mind.
This is Amelia Richardson in the MA, Sep 13:

Mr. Thomson, his wife, and an adopted little girl occupy the second-floor front. Mr. Thomson is a carpenter. On Saturday morning I called Mr. Thomson at ten minutes or a quarter to four o'clock. I heard him come down, and I said "Good morning, Thomson," as he passed my room about four o'clock. I heard him leave the house, and he did not go into the back yard.

She is very much awake by 4am. Surely she heard Annie and Jack going through?
This is part of what she says to the coroner about it...

You still adhere to your statement that on Saturday morning no one did go through to the yard?

-Yes ; if they did go through, they must have gone very quietly.

Purposely so? -Yes.

Or you would have heard them? -Yes.

So Annie and Jack tip-toed in their boots through the house so quietly, that Amelia did not hear them?
I find that difficult to believe.

[Fisherman]

Differences that might be down to Press exaggeration.

Im glad that you’re a journalist rather than a Doctor Fish.

Patient: I have a swelling on my leg.

Dr Fish: We’d better be cautious.

Patient: You mean take a sample for analysis?

Dr Fish: No we must chop of the leg immediately.

Patient: But what if it might be benign?

Dr Fish: No matter, we must chop it off.

Dr Trevor: Yes and chop off your wife’s leg too as it can’t be relied on!

****

How do we discuss the case with the attitude shown here? Ignore Mizen, ignore the Mitre Square 3, no middle ground, no acceptance of that a witness might or might not have been correct. No acceptance that that errors might come from the person writing rather than speaking.

You are welcome to your conveniently black and white worlds. It’s not the real world though. We are not in a courtroom. We aren’t at risk of wrongly sending someone to the gallows. We can explore angles and interpretations. We have no need for such inflexibility yet this is what we get.

So you are trying your hand at comedy now? I can play that game too, but I wonīt - to begin with.

My "attitude" is one where witnesses who deliver totally different versions of what they have seen or heard are ruled out as reliable witnesses. There is nothing at all strange about it.

What is strange is instead when somebody has it revealed that a witness they have described as "the best witness of the entire case", is in fact a witness who has delivered two or more extensively varying descriptions of that they have experienced - and still go on to claim that the witness is kosher and trustworthy.

This was never so. Any witness who delivers two differing versions of an experience immediately disqualifies him- or herself from being looked upon as a reliable witness.

Now that we have cleared that up, itīs showtime!

Mr X: I am a nice guy. Really, I am. And trustworthy.

Herlock: Of course you are. Everybody is!

Mr X: Nah, I was just kidding. In fact, I kill and rape my way through life. And rob.

Herlock: Surely not! I recognize a good citizen when I see him!

Mr X: Shut up, you clown! Hereīs what I think about you (whips out a gun and shoots poor Herlock in the gut).

Herlock: Oooh, that hurt! Cough! Could you please help me here?

Mr X: Help you? I just shot you!!

Herlock: Surely not! I recognize a good citizen when I see him!

Mr X: Good people donīt shoot you in the gut, though, do they? Jerk!

Herlock: Maybe you got it wrong? Maybe you didnīt shoot me? Surely, you just pinched me in the tummy? To cheer me up, yīa know?

Mr X: What the fu ...?

Herlock: Look, thereīs that friend of yours who was here before, Mr Y I believe? Ho-hooo! Mr Y, come over and join us! Cough, cough!

Mr Y: Did you get him, Mr X?

Mr X: Yeah, I got him good.

Mr Y: Letīs get his wallet and hit the road!

Herlock: Itīs in my left back pocket. Good luck and donīt forget to give a little something to people in need!

Mr X: Ha-haa! Yeah, we will do that ...

Mr Y: ... since we are so nice people!

Herlock: Told you so. I recognize a good citizen when I see him. Cough!

I can do this all day long, and why wouldnīt you encourage it? It may deflect some of the interest away from the core issue, and you need that rather badly.

Your turn now.

[Fisherman]

In my humble opinion, none of the so called "witnesses" had any intention to lie about what they believed they saw, unless there were any viable reasons for any of them to deceive the inquiry.


So on that basis, it would seem that they all told the truth.


TRD

What "reason" do you identify behind how high profile cases generate numerous attention-seekers?

Scores of people said they were the Ripper, and we may conclude that at least all but ione of them (and likely 100 per cent) lied abut it. What "viable reason" do you identify behind their claims?

It is all good and well to work from the idea that every witness is always honest and truthful, but since we all know that this is not so, maybe we should count that into our equations?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Caution? Is it "caution" to believe in witnesses that tell totally different stories? Nope. Caution is to remove the risk of getting conned

Differences that might be down to Press exaggeration.

Im glad that you’re a journalist rather than a Doctor Fish.

Patient: I have a swelling on my leg.

Dr Fish: We’d better be cautious.

Patient: You mean take a sample for analysis?

Dr Fish: No we must chop of the leg immediately.

Patient: But what if it might be benign?

Dr Fish: No matter, we must chop it off.

Dr Trevor: Yes and chop off your wife’s leg too as it can’t be relied on!

****

How do we discuss the case with the attitude shown here? Ignore Mizen, ignore the Mitre Square 3, no middle ground, no acceptance of that a witness might or might not have been correct. No acceptance that that errors might come from the person writing rather than speaking.

You are welcome to your conveniently black and white worlds. It’s not the real world though. We are not in a courtroom. We aren’t at risk of wrongly sending someone to the gallows. We can explore angles and interpretations. We have no need for such inflexibility yet this is what we get.

[The Rookie Detective]

Fascinating thread here. Could the truth lay somewhere between all of your respective theories?


There are some great minds working here to unravel the truth and while i am merely a 'rookie' at this juncture, i must say that from my initial perspective, there are elements of all your arguments which have grains of truth about them.

I think it is important to consider the difference between truth and reality.


In my humble opinion, none of the so called "witnesses" had any intention to lie about what they believed they saw, unless there were any viable reasons for any of them to deceive the inquiry.


So on that basis, it would seem that they all told the truth.

BUT...

Truth is not the same as reality.

In other words, while they may have told the truth about what they saw, the reality may have been very different.


It is therefore much more likely that the reason why there were contradictory statements from some of the witnesses, is because that's the reality of it. They were unintentionally mistaken and were essentially 'unsure' of what they actually saw, with regards to timings and visual/audio aspects at the time.


Looking first hand at Cadosch for example...

It seems to me that he heard Chapman say "no" as he went to step back inside form the yard and then for the short time he was inside covers the time that the ripper was murdering her.
As Cadosch stepped back outside, he then heard Chapman either fall against the fence OR heard her stomach/intestines hit the fence as she being disemboweled.

Had Cadosch remained outside throughout; fom the time he heard the word "no," then Chapman may have been spared, or Cadosch would have 'heard' the entire assault on Chapman being committed.

Another aspect to consider is that is also very likely that the ripper was aware of Cadosch's presence in the yard on the other side of the fence and timed his attack accordingly.
It could also be argued that the ripper may have wanted to spend longer on Chapman but was interrupted by Cadosch coming back into the yard.

I think that sometimes the easy option when looking at this case, is to try and dismiss and therefore invalidate all of the witnesses accounts from all the murders in order to try and maintain the status quo. If perhaps we consider that all of the witnesses accounts hold some element of reality based on them having no viable reason to not tell the truth, then there may be a better chance for the case to move progressively forward.

Unless a particular witness had an ulterior motive to lie or embellish the truth, then truth is always apparent in all of their respective accounts; albeit contradictory at times. It's whether the reality of what actually happened fits in with the truth is what counts.


The case contnues


TRD

[Herlock Sholmes]

B

But you are not applying caution you are digging your heels into the fact that Cadosch`s testimony is safe to rely on, when it is clearly unsafe to rely on because he cannot be certain where the noises he refers to actually emenated from.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes he was. We’ve been over this so many times and it was the reason I began the thread. Why can’t you get this point Trevor?

He wasn’t uncertain about the noise. In fact he was absolutely 100% unshakeably certain. He expressed zero doubt about the noise Trevor.

If someone says a) I think that ‘x’ happened although I might possibly have been mistaken. And b) I’m absolutely certain that ‘y’ happened, you cannot dismiss b) on the basis of a) Trevor. But this is exactly what you keep doing. Why?

[Fisherman]

... and of course, Chandler never gave two differing versions. But Richardson did.

[Fisherman]

Is it beyond the realms of possibility that it was Chandler that was mistaken?

Although Iīd say that he is not likely to have been as mistaken as he has to be to suit your argument, I would not say that it is impossible. But that is not the issue here, the issue is that you claimed that "Richardson can only be budged by conspiracy theorist blather about knives and rabbits", and that is totally wrong. Chandler is an all-important witness when it comes to the reliability of Richardson. To suggest that Richardson told him that he sat on the middle step and cut leather from his boot, and that Chandler misundetood what he said to mean that he never did anything like it at all is a bit rich. So not inmpossible, but hugely improbable.

Again, there is more than one possible explanation but of course those seeking to dismiss witnesses just assume that Richardson lied. Perhaps I should take a reverse view.

You seem to believe that dismissing witnesses is a hobby of mine? It isnīt. But is seems explaining away severe flaws in their testimonies is a favourite pastime of yours...?
There is very clear information pointing to Richardson having provided differing versions of what he did in the yard. That must reflect on how we regard his testimony. It is that simple.

Chandler said something that is refuted by other testimony.

Therefore he is unreliable.

Therefore anything he says can be dismissed.

Yes, that is true. It stands between Richardson and Chandler (if we disregard the faact that we know that Richardson wavered about the cutting of the boot). And so we should ask ourselves, what is the more common thing, police inspectors who make things up or amateur witnesses who make things up? Iīll leave you to ponder that question!


If there is a chance that Cadosch might have been telling the truth?

Yes.

In one of his versions, you mean? Yes, there is a chance that this was so. But youīd be amazed to learn how common it is that witnesses that tell very differing stories are making things up.

Therefore we apply caution and balance in our interpretations.

Caution? Is it "caution" to believe in witnesses that tell totally different stories? Nope. Caution is to remove the risk of getting conned.

Which is what I’m doing and will continue to do. An absolute dismissal of a witness should only occur if you have absolute proof that his/her evidence is a lie or a mistake. Until then caution is appropriate.

Once again, try the angle that Cadosch probably overheard the murder and see what happens, Herlock. You must realize that no saving of Cadosch is possible at this stage. You may of course say "I choose to believe in him", but it will not have people nodding their heads, it will have them shaking them.

[Trevor Marriott]

B

Is it beyond the realms of possibility that it was Chandler that was mistaken? Again, there is more than one possible explanation but of course those seeking to dismiss witnesses just assume that Richardson lied. Perhaps I should take a reverse view.

Chandler said something that is refuted by other testimony.

Therefore he is unreliable.

Therefore anything he says can be dismissed.



If there is a chance that Cadosch might have been telling the truth?

Yes.

Therefore we apply caution and balance in our interpretations.

Which is what I’m doing and will continue to do. An absolute dismissal of a witness should only occur if you have absolute proof that his/her evidence is a lie or a mistake. Until then caution is appropriate.

But you are not applying caution you are digging your heels into the fact that Cadosch`s testimony is safe to rely on, when it is clearly unsafe to rely on because he cannot be certain where the noises he refers to actually emenated from.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am not going around in circles at all. I am at a standstill. Cadosch is out. The evidence to dismiss him has already arrived. No circling will bring him back. Once you realize that, youīve done circling too.

Is that so? How about Chandler telling us that he never said anything about sitting on that step? Or is Chandler that conspiration theorist, blathering about knives and rabbits you are speaking of?
If you calm down a little, Iīm sure you will come to terms with the state of things

Is it beyond the realms of possibility that it was Chandler that was mistaken? Again, there is more than one possible explanation but of course those seeking to dismiss witnesses just assume that Richardson lied. Perhaps I should take a reverse view.

Chandler said something that is refuted by other testimony.

Therefore he is unreliable.

Therefore anything he says can be dismissed.



If there is a chance that Cadosch might have been telling the truth?

Yes.

Therefore we apply caution and balance in our interpretations.

Which is what I’m doing and will continue to do. An absolute dismissal of a witness should only occur if you have absolute proof that his/her evidence is a lie or a mistake. Until then caution is appropriate.