Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[Fisherman]

What I’m doing is saying that a discrepancy or an unknown or a doubt is no reason to completely dismiss evidence.

That depends wholly on the character of that discrepancy, Herlock. And in this case, it is of a magnitude that actually calls upon us to dismiss Cadosch. We cannot use his evidence and hope to be taken seriously any more. That is the way I look upon it. The fact that we are not in a court room is somewhat irrelevant. Regradless if we are there oo on an internet forum, the discrepancies inbetween Cadoscheīs original statement and his inquest testimony has the exact same impact - or is should have. We cannot put trust in him, and so he must be dismissed.
If we want to try and compromise and put together some sort of story that involves elements of what he said is of course up to each and every one of us, but the problem is that it is perfectly legit not to accept any such suggestion.
Albert Cadosch is effectively out, Iīm afraid.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have said many times that Cadosh`s evidence is unsafe, the following extract from the inquest clearly proves that point.

"It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from."

I just wish people would take the blinkers off and apply some common sense to the testimony instead of inventing possible uncorroborated scenarios.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Common sense?!

Trevor we are all interpreting here. We have no choice. Just saying that a witness ‘might’ have been telling the truth is not the same as saying that he was telling the truth.

If we all adopted your thinking it would be impossible to discuss the case because you don’t allow for interpretation (whether for or against) You simply dismiss every witness. I’ve asked you this before Trevor but is there a single witness in the case that shouldn’t be dismissed?

[Herlock Sholmes]

How about this interpretation (my addition in bold);

"It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side [of that yard] it came from."

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

A 'good memory for faces', usually refers to the ability to associate a face with a name - not the ability to briefly observe a stranger while passing them by, and recognizing the same face a few days later, at a mortuary.
Wynne Baxter might have thought Long's testimony to be a big deal, but with 21st century knowledge of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony, we can safely ignore Long.

Knowledge of Annie’s name was irrelevant. She saw Annie’s face and said that it was the same person that she’d seen at the mortuary.

That seems to be the situation. You're admitting here that you don't even 'get' what people like ABE and myself are arguing.

I’m either stupid or I just think you’re exaggerating it’s relevance.

All you're doing here is justifying Cadosch in not taking an interest in what he had heard.
However, there is no question of Cadosch being criticized for not being more aware.

What I’m doing is saying that a discrepancy or an unknown or a doubt is no reason to completely dismiss evidence. We aren’t in a court room. We are discussing things that we cannot know for a fact.

There seems to be some agreement that what Albert heard, sounds quite like the murder is taking place.
In that case, having already heard the 'no, no', then hearing a scuffle and a sort of fall against the fence, he must do one of two things:

1. Take an interest in what he has heard, by paying more attention, and yes, even boldly peering over the fence
2. Regard the sounds as mundane, and therefore inconsequential - leading to him forgetting about what he had heard by the time he walks out onto the street, and never reporting the non-incident to the police

No. That’s not a valid inference. If he heard a ‘no’ and a sound these are not complex. He wasn’t being asked to recall a conversation or a complicated interaction.

The sounds appeared trivial when he heard them but gained relevance after he’d heard about the murder.

Your understanding of Cadosch seems to be like this:

Cadosch payed little attention to those sounds, but his brain faithfully stored everything he had heard in memory, and recalled it all when Albert heard about the murder, and went to the police to give them all the details.

That is not how human memory works.

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

[Fisherman]

How about this interpretation (my addition in bold);

"It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side [of that yard] it came from."

But he COULD, Joshua! In Lloyds, he placed the scuffle, the voices and the heavy fall against the fence at the precise point where the killer cut Chapman to pieces.

Otherwise, your reflection is a good one, but it is in conflict with other sources, like for example the Morning Advertiser:

"I returned in about five minutes, and heard a voice close to me, but I could not say on which side, or in which yard, say "No."

The Daily News concur: "He could not be sure that it came from the yard of No. 29."

One reflection must be that it is decidecly odd if he could not tell whether a voice that was "close to" him came from no 29 or no 25. Because those are the only yards where the voice would have been close to him. If it came from no 31, it would no longer be close, would it?
So is he telling us that he could not make out if the voice came from in front of him or from behind him? Or from his left or right? A voice that he in Lloyds knew to have emanated from a woman who had a scuffle and a heavy fall at the exact place where Chapmans body was found, in no 29, no doubts whatsoever expressed...?

[Fisherman]

The issue here is the apparent accepting of times as being not only accurate but syncronized.
i strongly feel the unreliability of time keeping and lack of synrconization means that All times can be at least 5 minutes out in either direction.
This applies to all the murders, not just Chapmans.
longs timing does not mean the cadoschs timing is wrong or irrelevant in my considered opinion.


steve

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.

[Fisherman]

Cadosch heard noises of one of two types:

A - mundane
B - suspicious

If 'A', he does not go to the police.
If 'B', he looks, and goes to the police.

He went to the police - suggesting 'B' - and pretended it was an 'A' situation.

If you overhear a B scenario and go to the police, you donīt tell them it was an A scenario you overheard.

Of course, if you note that the police are not willing to accept a suggestion of a B scenario at the point in time when you claim to have heard it, you may have a change of heart and opt for claiming that you heard an A scenario, not a B one. But if you do, you burn your ships when it comes to credibility. After that, it will take that someone speculates that you are squeaky clean but too intimidated to stick to the truth - the way you do now, NBA. And even if someone does, it still remains that
A/ Cadosch is spent as a witness force, and
B/ The scenario lends itself eminently to a suggestion of an attention -seeker, lying to the police.

Regardless of what applies, we have one compromised witness.

[Fisherman]

We don’t know anything about Cadosch level of intelligence of course but it might be worth considering the risk that he was taking if he was lying.

He was intelligent enough to avoid repeating his star witness testimony at the inquest, it would seem. And that would all have been about risk minimizing.

If he’d actually heard nothing then he wouldn’t have had a clue when Annie had been murdered. How could he have been sure that someone hadn’t seen Annie and her client entering number 29 at 3.30am? Or that some inhabitant of number 29 hadn’t heard something suspicious at 3.45am? Or a neighbour in some house overlooking the yard hadn’t seen something at 3.45am? What if someone that knew her had seen Annie alive 3 streets away at 5.30am?

This very point is very much in line with how he could have reasoned that there was no risk involved in concocting his Lloyds star witness story. It was not until he realized that Chapman could NOT have been killed at 5.20 that he backpedalled.

Im just pointing out the risks of been accused of lying to the police Cadosch might have faced had he indeed lied.

Once again, just as ypu point out, there is every reason to think that he believed it risk-free to make things up. And then he realized it was no such thing at all, and lo and behold, what happens to his testimony? Out goes the scuffle, the heavy fall, the famale voice, the couple, the localization to the exact murder spot and so on. The inference is crystal clear.

Of course we have to accept the existence of the earlier, more detailed, statement that Cadosch gave. We also have to accept that any witness can be accused of lying or being mistaken but with Cadosch it wasn’t as if he was, like Long, just identifying someone that he believed he’d seen in the street. If he’d been shown to have been mistaken on a piece of Long-like identification then he shrugs his shoulders and says “ok, it looks like I was mistaken.” But with his Inquest statement, if he was proven wrong, how does he pass it off as an error? He either heard a ‘no’ and a sound or he didn’t. He was running quite an obvious and needless risk of being branded a liar.

Correct, he cannot pass it off as an error. He cannot say "I heard no voices and I heard nothing falling against the fence". But he CAN dilute away all the particulars that specified that we were dealing with the Chapman murder. And so the "No!" can suddenly have come from another yard, and the heavy thump agains the fence turns into what may be a cat.

I certainly favour that he heard heard what he said that he did

... and what was that? A scuffle and a heavy fall and a woman saying "No!" in the back yard of No 29? Or somebody - man OR woman - saying "No!" in any backyard and a sudden touching of the fence?

and that there was probably an understandable reason for the earlier discrepancy.

We can always try and make such a thing up. But the inference that he lied wonīt go away by now.

Perhaps he’d heard about the doctors TOD and toned down his Inquest statement because he feared being called a liar?

That is the escape route that seems the perhaps best one, when trying to save "the best witness of them all". One has to say, though, that itīs a crying shame that the scenario lends itself wo very well to a suggestion of a lying attention-seeker ...
Any which way, he is compromised beyond any possibility of getting saved.

Maybe the police pressured him? Maybe the press exaggerated what he’d said in the earlier statement? We can’t be certain of course but it’s at least a possibility.

Maybe he should have stuck with what he said originally if he wanted to be believed? That is what truthful witnesses do; even if all and sundry say that what they claim must be wrong, they stick to their stories - because they know that they are correct, and they are not going to start lying because their stories are inconvenient.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

How about this interpretation (my addition in bold);

"It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side [of that yard] it came from."

Interesting.

We should be able to test these scenarios by finding a suitably sized yard, with suitably tall wooden fencing on either side (cough, four feet, cough).
However, the listener would probably have to be blindfolded, to make the test a passably scientific one.
Same thing with Diemschitz whip handle prodding Stride - we should be able to replicate it to see if it works out.
I'm willing to participate in either or both tests. Actually, anything involving blindfolds and whips would be right up my alley.

[Trevor Marriott]

Cadosch heard noises of one of two types:

A - mundane
B - suspicious

If 'A', he does not go to the police.
If 'B', he looks, and goes to the police.

He went to the police - suggesting 'B' - and pretended it was an 'A' situation.

That actually is common sense, by Albert, because it allows him to:

A - avoid confronting the Ripper
B - look like a coward to society

Therefore it is common sense, to suppose that is what he did!

But common sense is lacking in those who keep wanting to accept his testimony without question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I have said many times that Cadosh`s evidence is unsafe, the following extract from the inquest clearly proves that point.

"It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from."

I just wish people would take the blinkers off and apply some common sense to the testimony instead of inventing possible uncorroborated scenarios.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Cadosch heard noises of one of two types:

A - mundane
B - suspicious

If 'A', he does not go to the police.
If 'B', he looks, and goes to the police.

He went to the police - suggesting 'B' - and pretended it was an 'A' situation.

That actually is common sense, by Albert, because it allows him to:

A - avoid confronting the Ripper
B - look like a coward to society

Therefore it is common sense, to suppose that is what he did!

[Fisherman]

bingo...and even then apparently ignored it. kellys screams of murder were heard and ignored.

i keep going back to if cadosch didnt hear chapman and her killer, then why didnt that couple raise the alarm of the dead body at there feet? they missed her too? makes zero sense, logistically pointing again to the non dr witnesses more than likely being correct.

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!

[Fisherman]

Q: Did you see a man and woman talking outside the building, when you went out for lunch today?
A: No, I was thinking about work.

In that fictional exchange, the reason given for not seeing the man and woman is probably unnecessary - go outside thinking of nothing much at all, and you will still not remember seeing that hypothetical man and woman.
It is only if one is deliberately paying attention to the man and woman, that a detail like that is likely to be remembered. Even then, the memory of the man and woman is likely to be full of inaccuracies, and that is why I regard the testimony of Elizabeth Long to be almost worthless.

In Cadosch's case, if we assume the quote in #175 to be the closest to what he said, the problem is that there are almost two of him - the backyard Cadosch that pays scant attention to the noises he hears, including human ones - and the on the street Cadosch who is not only aware of what he did see, but who is also sure about what he didn't see.

Perhaps Cadosch put his brain into gear, the moment he walked out the front door. In that case, what he claims to see then might be a reasonable approximation to the truth.
I can't accept the same for the backyard stuff, though. Cadosch says he gives those noises minimal attention. Therefore, like the man and woman outside the building at lunchtime, there is little hope of remembering the details.

Having said that, we still have to deal with the fact that what Cadosch claims to have heard, sounds rather like a murder in process!
The resolution to this dilemma is to neither accept everything he says at face value, nor dismiss him out of hand, but to suppose that what he really witnessed was quite a bit more than he was willing to admit, and he came up with his very watered-down version of events to save face - he didn't want to look cowardly.

The coward suggestion would have been much better if it was not for the 5.20-5.25 timing. Phillips crushes the suggestion effectively. Iīm convinced that we have an attention-seeker who lost his nerve on record. His whole "I overheard it all!" concoction is blown out of the water and he decides that it would be stupid to keep it up.

[Fisherman]

Personally, I think Long got her chime wrong, it was the quarter past she heard ...

Long was adamant about the time. She left no room for doubt: "I knew the time, because I heard the brewer's clock strike half-past five just before I got to the street". And she would have arrived at the market very shortly afterwards, where she would have been able to hear the following chiming of the time too, and so if she had been mistaken, she would have been corrected. The inference is that what happened after her observation was in line with the timing, meaning that she was correct.

This all works from the assumption that Long DID see a couple outside 29 Hanbury Street (a couple that was decidedly not Chapman and the killer, but nevertheless...), and that she was honestly mistaken about the identification. Personally, I believe that there is a very great risk that she was making things up.

We have the same thing with Cadosch, he too is dead certain about the timing, and he too would have had his time observation either confirmed or dismissed as he arrived at his work. And he too made things up if you ask me.

I always thought the observations of what was uttered has that silent movie quality, where everything has to be explaines in as short messages as possible. First we have Longs "Will you? Yes!" observation that is perfect in itīs ability to say everything in three words, the followed up by Cadoscheīs "No!", hitting on the one short word that would describe the murder in as undeniable and quick a manner as possible. Itīs all too good to be true - and it isnīt true.

[Fisherman]

Whereabout where Annie and her companion allegedly standing? If Cadosch went through the door then pulled it shut he’d have been facing the door and to the right of the door (right facing outward from the door) According to how far away from the doorway they were standing he might not have looked left. Did he say that he looked both ways? Just wondering if it’s possible that he might have missed them if they were actually there?

Hmmm, Herlock. This reflection of yours comes with a problem: If Cadosch need not have looked to his left, then why is it that Richardson absolutely would have done so? How does that equation work? One would be an idiot for nbot looking left, while the other would have been likely not to do so...?

In my world, people can never be guaranteed to have looked in all directions, simple as that. Nor can people be guaranteed to notice everything, simple as that. And people who dramatically and decisively change their testimonies are worthless witnesses, simple as that.