Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[DJA]

I'd always assumed that on Richardson's return to No 29, he viewed the body from his mothers window?

Nope.

From adjoining yard.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I'd always assumed that on Richardson's return to No 29, he viewed the body from his mothers window?

Mrs Richardson occupied the first floor front.
If hers had been the first floor back, she might have witnessed the Ripper rinsing his hands in the pan of water, by the tap.

Regarding the tenants nearer the backdoor - Windows and Witnesses

[Fisherman]

In your world maybe Fish but not the real one I’m afraid.

Really?

Cadosch could have been telling the absolute literal truth.

Not in both versions, no.

The earlier statement could have been an example of Press exaggeration.

Nope. It would have been TWO examples of "press exaggeration" - where both sources made the same exaggerations. It does not happen, Iīm afraid. Well, not in "the real world", at least.

These two possibilities exist.

No, they donīt, and I just explained why.

We cannot confirm or refute them.

But we can see that Cadosch offered very differing versions of the truth, as proven by the two different sources from before the inquest and the inquest reports.

I believe it more likely that he heard what he did and that his first impression was correct in that the ‘no’ came from number 29.

Yes, I know. However, no value can be ascribed to that belief on account of the differences involved in Cadoscheīs varieties of the story.

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

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.

With Long we have an issue of timing and very little more.

And we need a LOT more, donīt we? I mean if you are not satisfied that somebody who is proven to have given very varying statements about what he heard is enough to dismiss him as a witness, then you are making some very serious demands. What will do? A signed confession that he told porkies?

With Long we have the timing, her odd certainty that a person she only gave a passing glance was the woman she saw dead four days later AND Phillips verdict - which is by far the most important matter.

None of these witness should be dismissed.

Again, yes, Cadosch dismissed himself, Richardson is dodgy, to say the least, and Long cannot have been right.

They cannot be dismissed.

All witnesses can, if they donīt meet the standards we must ask for.

Questioned yes. Doubted yes. Dismissed no.

Iīm sorry, but it is not as if it CAN happen. It HAS happened. Unless you believe that anybody is willing to accept Cadosch testimony as the truth forthwith?

We are going around in circles of course so unless someone comes up with evidence that dismisses the witnesses plus a modern day Forensic expert who tells us that Phillips cannot have been wrong my opinion is where it is. Witnesses over Doctor. Chapman killed approx 5.20/30.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. If that doubt is grounded in the kind of material we are dealing with, then yes, it could, should and will equal dismissal. There are no two ways about it; Cadoscheīs reliability is smoked. That is not to say that what he said could not involve a core of truth. That is why I do not say that his veracity is smoked, but instead that his reliability is. There is a difference, but not a difference that lends itself to making him admissible as a witnessIf that doubt is grounded in the kind of material we are dealing with, then yes, it could, should and will equapl dismissal. There are no two ways about it; Cadoscheīs reliability is smoked. That is not to say that what he said could not involve a core of truth. That is why I do not say that his veracity is smoked, but instead that his reliability is. There is a difference, but not a difference that lends itself to making him admissible as a witness

In your world maybe Fish but not the real one I’m afraid. Cadosch could have been telling the absolute literal truth. The earlier statement could have been an example of Press exaggeration.

These two possibilities exist.

We cannot confirm or refute them.

I believe it more likely that he heard what he did and that his first impression was correct in that the ‘no’ came from number 29.

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

With Long we have an issue of timing and very little more.

None of these witness should be dismissed. They cannot be dismissed. Questioned yes. Doubted yes. Dismissed no.

We are going around in circles of course so unless someone comes up with evidence that dismisses the witnesses plus a modern day Forensic expert who tells us that Phillips cannot have been wrong my opinion is where it is. Witnesses over Doctor. Chapman killed approx 5.20/30.

[Fisherman]

sure fish. no worries. well just have to part ways on this one : )

As long as you remember that witnesses who make people part ways are normally not the best of witnesses, thatīs just fine.

[Abby Normal]

I cannot answer that question, Abby. All I can say is that Cadosch compromised himself to a degree where his testimony cannot be ascribed to as having any real value.

If you are asking me my personal opinion only, then Iīd say that I donīt think Cadosch heard any couple. Or any fall. Or any scuffle. But that should not be mistaken for me saying that this must have been so, it is nothing but my gut feeling, based on the evidence and my knowledge about how high profile cases attract attention-seekers.

Does that make sense to you?

sure fish. no worries. well just have to part ways on this one : )

[Fisherman]

actually the odds on both having different times is not along stretch at all, i have recently been conducting an experiment to see just how syncronised and accurate public clocks are today, with modern time keeping.
The results are very revealing, with a range of 1 min- 8 minutes difference.
I therefore suggest that its very unlikely tge the clocks would be the same.

It is unlikely in the extreme that they would be exactly the same. How unlikely it is - or isnīt - that they were, say, five minutes wrong both of them, we cannot say.

with regards to Phillips and is TOD, the Science to give an acurrate TOD in 88, simply did not exist.

Letīs not fool ourselves, Steve. The doctors could feel body heat for a period of up to around four hours; this was something that they used as a benchmark, and it is still used today when no thermometers are at hand.

Rigor typically set in at around two hours or more after death back then as today. And back then as today, it set in later in cold conditions.

Congealed blood was always going to be softer for some time after clotting, whereas it grows dry and harder after more time is added. Today as back then.

Once these parameters are in sync, and - not least - in sync with what should be expected from a body that has been dead for some hours, recognizing that each and every one of these parameters has a level of uncertainty built in becomes more of an academic exercise than anything else.
Chapman had been dead for at least two hours when she was found and probably more. Thatīs all there is to it, or, more correctly, it would have been all there was to it if it had not been for latter day theorists not admitting the obvious.
Disagree if you will, it wonīt change matters for me. I donīt buy into the idea that Chapman may have differed medically from the rest of us in these three respects.

The TODs that appear to give an accurate time are those where police were at tge site a set number of minutes before the discovery of a body, that timing was undoubtly used to arrive at a TOD in those cases.
Its not a coincidence that the TWO disputed TODs are those with no such police input.

steve

What was used by Phillips was body temperature, rigor, blood coagulation and food digestion. Doubtlessly, he also assessed the overall impression as such. The police will have had nothing to do with it.

[Fisherman]

so cadosch was completely lying? he didnt hear the couple talking?

I cannot answer that question, Abby. All I can say is that Cadosch compromised himself to a degree where his testimony cannot be ascribed to as having any real value.

If you are asking me my personal opinion only, then Iīd say that I donīt think Cadosch heard any couple. Or any fall. Or any scuffle. But that should not be mistaken for me saying that this must have been so, it is nothing but my gut feeling, based on the evidence and my knowledge about how high profile cases attract attention-seekers.

Does that make sense to you?

[Abby Normal]

Yes, Abby, it makes zero sense to reason that the neighbours had a chat over Chapmans dead body, eventually ignoring it. So that never happened. Which leaves us with the two options that either the witnesses were wrong or Phillips was. And if Phillips was, then Chapman turned cold in an hour (which will not happen), developed rigor in an hour (which is unlikely in the extreme give the circumstances) and had her blood drying up totally in a very short time (which is just as unlikely). Plus the stomach content was also in line with a TOD before 4.30.

It is really a very easy problem to solve. And it didnīt get harder once we looked at Cadoschīs initial statements!

so cadosch was completely lying? he didnt hear the couple talking?

[Elamarna]

The clock matter is interesting. Just as you say, even if Longs and Cadoscheīs observations were correct, there is still the possibility that the clocks they overheard were not correct.

The problem does not lie there, it lies with the verdict Phillips passed in combination with how the witnesses told very varying stories about their observations. So we have to gulp down not only two clocks that were wrong, but also that the witnesses were misquoted or misunderstood.

It is a lot to ask. And I am not one to accept it, becasue the alternative is much more logical (or considered, if you like) to me. It does not even predispose that the clocks must have been wrong; they and Phillips seemingly both functioned like... well, you know: clockwork.

actually the odds on both having different times is not along stretch at all, i have recently been conducting an experiment to see just how syncronised and accurate public clocks are today, with modern time keeping.
The results are very revealing, with a range of 1 min- 8 minutes difference.
I therefore suggest that its very unlikely tge the clocks would be the same.

with regards to Phillips and is TOD, the Science to give an acurrate TOD in 88, simply did not exist.
The TODs that appear to give an accurate time are those where police were at tge site a set number of minutes before the discovery of a body, that timing was undoubtly used to arrive at a TOD in those cases.
Its not a coincidence that the TWO disputed TODs are those with no such police input.

steve

[Fisherman]

Almost all discussion on this case can be rendered null and void on the criteria that are being promoted here. There is a middle ground that is being totally abandoned in a conveniently black and white world. Any error or discrepancy (no matter if there might have been a reasonable explanation) results in a blanket dismissal of the witness.

Since there are two independent sources informing us that Cadosch inititally gave a very clear picture of having overheard the murder, there can be no reasonable doubt that this was so. That is how sources must be looked upon when researching something. So it is not as if ANY error or discrepancy results in a dismissal - but the specific kind of discrepancies we are dealing with calls upon us to dismiss Cadosch as a reliable witness.

Can anyone on here prove that Cadosch couldn’t have been telling the truth and that there might have been a reasonable explanation for any discrepancy?

No, and Iīve said so before. But it is not abut whether we can prove if he told the truth at any of these instances - it is about how we can prove that he gave so very differing versions of the matter that he cannot be relied upon.

The answer to that is no. Does this mean that he cannot have been lying? No, of course it doesn’t but why is there an attempt to remove certain options from the table? Doubt does not equal dismissal.

If that doubt is grounded in the kind of material we are dealing with, then yes, it could, should and will equal dismissal. There are no two ways about it; Cadoscheīs reliability is smoked. That is not to say that what he said could not involve a core of truth. That is why I do not say that his veracity is smoked, but instead that his reliability is. There is a difference, but not a difference that lends itself to making him admissible as a witness.

Theres nothing laughable about considering options and possibilities when it comes to witnesses where discrepancies occur.

There is actually a duty on our behalf to do so. And it is what I have done.

The ‘fifteen minutes of fame’ argument is a very convenient one to put in place of evidence of lying and without the need of a reason to lie or even a recognition of the possible ramifications to the person ‘lying.’

How many of historyīs witnesses who sought fifteen minutes of fame do you think had a reason to lie - other than wanting to share in the limelight? And as I said before, Cadosch actually reduces the amount of risk when he backpedalled. Before that, he arguably never even understood that his information could be challenged.

****

Dr Phillips - Could have been right or he could have been wrong. ( cue Fish and his talk of parameters) Unreliable one’s.

No, not cue me - cue the parameters themselves. Four of them, all in line. And we have Eddowes to compare to - who was completely warm, who had no rigor and who had fluid blood serum around her body around three quarters of an hour after she died. It is an almighty heap of concurring factors, Iīm afraid. There is nothing strange at all about it, but for the fact that so many people have accepted the witnesses as a real possibility over the years. They never were.

Richardson - Seems unlikely that he’d have lied to place himself at the scene of a murder with a knife.

Could he have been mistaken? I’d still say unlikely in the extreme.

Cadosch - Despite discrepancies which might very possibly be explained he heard a ‘no’ and a sound from number 29.

Long - Saw a woman’s face and remembered it. According to some this is tantamount to witchcraft. Could she have been mistaken....yes. Could she have been mistaken about her timing? Perish the thought because this would mean 3 witnesses aligned. Can anyone sense a double standard here?

****

Double standard? A double standard is when we say that witness x MUST have looked left, whereas witness y need not have. Let me assure you that my stance has nothing at all of any double standards about it. If you refer to me, I deeply resent the suggestion.

Phillips cannot be proved to have been lying or wrong. Neither can the three witnesses.

I would say personally that the four parameters do amount to decisive proof. The possibility that they could all align and still be wrong, each of them, is not within what can be accepted as in any way likely.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Almost all discussion on this case can be rendered null and void on the criteria that are being promoted here. There is a middle ground that is being totally abandoned in a conveniently black and white world. Any error or discrepancy (no matter if there might have been a reasonable explanation) results in a blanket dismissal of the witness.

Can anyone on here prove that Cadosch couldn’t have been telling the truth and that there might have been a reasonable explanation for any discrepancy? The answer to that is no. Does this mean that he cannot have been lying? No, of course it doesn’t but why is there an attempt to remove certain options from the table? Doubt does not equal dismissal.

Theres nothing laughable about considering options and possibilities when it comes to witnesses where discrepancies occur. The ‘fifteen minutes of fame’ argument is a very convenient one to put in place of evidence of lying and without the need of a reason to lie or even a recognition of the possible ramifications to the person ‘lying.’

****

Dr Phillips - Could have been right or he could have been wrong. ( cue Fish and his talk of parameters) Unreliable one’s.

Richardson - Seems unlikely that he’d have lied to place himself at the scene of a murder with a knife.

Could he have been mistaken? I’d still say unlikely in the extreme.

Cadosch - Despite discrepancies which might very possibly be explained he heard a ‘no’ and a sound from number 29.

Long - Saw a woman’s face and remembered it. According to some this is tantamount to witchcraft. Could she have been mistaken....yes. Could she have been mistaken about her timing? Perish the thought because this would mean 3 witnesses aligned. Can anyone sense a double standard here?

****

Phillips cannot be proved to have been lying or wrong. Neither can the three witnesses.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is your Cadosch that has the photographic-like memory, and is therefore most like Hawking

You’re basically saying that no one can be trusted in saying what they heard unless they were actually anticipating it.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Cadosch didn’t need to be Stephen Hawking to remember a ‘no’ and a sound. Your exaggerating. Again.

It is your Cadosch that has the photographic-like memory, and is therefore most like Hawking

[Fisherman]

Excellent point Joshua. But didn’t you know that you’re breaking the rules by not employing the most sinister interpretation?

See post 195. In it, you will find two different quotes from two different papers that make it very clear that Cadosch stated that he could not hear from which backyard the voice emanated. And they are paper articles, mind you, not "sinister interpretations". It seems clear to me that some of the papers condensed away the important point that Cadosch could not say which yard the voice came from.