Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Star, Sep 8 (murder date), is a good read. For example:

The yard is a small one, square in shape, with a 4ft. fence on either side. The fence is old and rotten.

I think what may have happened to Albert, is that he went outside the second time because he heard unusual noises - not that he was outside again coincident to those noises.
He gets a clear view of what is going on over that 4' fence, and flees to work - trying to think about that, and rid his mind of the horrors he has just witnessed.

The fence wasn’t 4 feet though. If I remember correctly it was five and a half feet. None of the photos show a fence of anything near four feet.

[Fisherman]

Disaster is far too strong a word imo Fish. It raises a question of course and one that we can’t provide a definitive answer for.

Thatīs two out of two, Herlock. But what we CAN agree on is that any lawyer worth his salt would completely destroy a witness like Cadosch in two seconds flat.

We have the issue of the reporters choice of wording. He would have made notes at the time of the interview and then wrote it up later so might he not have embellished for effect or because he made the connection between what he heard and the murder.

We have TWO different takes on Cadosch pre-inquest sentiments, and that does the trick, Iīm afraid. At least in my book.

Also, as I’ve previously suggested, might he not have made his original statement and then after hearing about Phillips’ TOD he decided that he didn’t want to be made to look like a liar so he toned it down? Maybe the police put pressure on him to toe the line?

Yes, of course this may have been so. The problem is, though, that since we donīt know what applies, we cannot take one version and claim it to be true. We go to the trash bin with BOTH versions, and so Cadosch is out, effectively. Leaving Long on two very wobbly legs.

There are questions that we don’t have definitive answers to regarding all witnesses in this case Fish so do we disregard them all or simply assume the ‘sinister’ explanation when the actual explanation might have been an innocent one?

As I said, we assume neither version to be true. We rule witnesses out when they serve two so totally different statements.

Until Joshua posted the Lloyd’s statement I didn’t see a single fault in Cadosch’s statement. Obviously I now accept that there is a question but its not one that we can assume a definitive answer to.

No, we canīt. But he is out, there are no two ways around it. Whether we choose to lament his departure or not is up to each and every one of us. Myself, I have always taken the stance that Phillips cannot possibly have been as wrong as he needs to be to allow for Long and Cadosch. In my book, Cadosch and Long cannot have been right in a million years, and so I wave farewell to Albert Cadosch with elation and relief. Although there can be no absolute certainty about what he actually heard - if he heard anything at all, which I personally donīt think he did - it becomes not only possible but actually vital that we ditch him. Itīs now now down to Long - who of course is as impossible a witness as Cadosch in my personal book - and Richardson. The latter is more trustworthy when it comes to the timings, but he is nevertheless a witness where two versions of a story also surfaced.

I have always expected the witnesses to be wrong, and bit by bit, I find it is a stance that receives increasing factual support. Itīs not something I will gloat about, but I am genuinely happy about the development becasue I believe it serves our field of research.

*****

As an aside look at Long. She walked straight past a woman that she was convinced was Annie. What evidence do we have that she was lying or mistaken? Her statement accords with Richardson. As per Cadosch she is around 15 minutes astray. Hardly an age. So on what grounds do we dismiss Mr Long (apart from just Phillips of course.)

She SAID she walked straight past a woman she later ID:d as Annie. She also said that she did not take much notice of the couple, though, so her being able to positively identify a dead woman (death does funny things to how we look) four days later is decidedly odd.
We donīt have to compare her timings to Cadoschīs, for the simple reason that we have found that Cadosch cannot be used as a witness anymore.

As for other reasons to rule Long out than her identification of Chapman - who she had not paid much attention to - Phillips is the one and only reason we need. I have always been adamant about that, and I am not about to change my position now. His four parameter verdict sees Long off, as far as Iīm concerned. With gusto.

Once you think about it, it goes without saying that sooner or later, high profile cases WILL attract incorrect witnesses, regardless of whether they are lying or just mistaken, who seemingly corroborate each other. All one can hope for in such cases is that there is otyer evidence that dissolves the incorrect picture that otherwise wins the day. That is should happen in the Ripper case is not all that unexpected if you ask me.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The Star, Sep 8 (murder date), is a good read. For example:

The yard is a small one, square in shape, with a 4ft. fence on either side. The fence is old and rotten.

I think what may have happened to Albert, is that he went outside the second time because he heard unusual noises - not that he was outside again coincident to those noises.
He gets a clear view of what is going on over that 4' fence, and flees to work - trying to think about that, and rid his mind of the horrors he has just witnessed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Bumping the fence with his elbow or shoulder, then loosing his balance, falling against the fence and landing on the ground with a thump, if Cadosch was telling the truth to the Lloyds representative.

Once we weigh in the whole material, it spells disaster for poor Albert.

Disaster is far too strong a word imo Fish. It raises a question of course and one that we can’t provide a definitive answer for.

We have the issue of the reporters choice of wording. He would have made notes at the time of the interview and then wrote it up later so might he not have embellished for effect or because he made the connection between what he heard and the murder.

Also, as I’ve previously suggested, might he not have made his original statement and then after hearing about Phillips’ TOD he decided that he didn’t want to be made to look like a liar so he toned it down? Maybe the police put pressure on him to toe the line?

There are questions that we don’t have definitive answers to regarding all witnesses in this case Fish so do we disregard them all or simply assume the ‘sinister’ explanation when the actual explanation might have been an innocent one?

Until Joshua posted the Lloyd’s statement I didn’t see a single fault in Cadosch’s statement. Obviously I now accept that there is a question but its not one that we can assume a definitive answer to.

*****

As an aside look at Long. She walked straight past a woman that she was convinced was Annie. What evidence do we have that she was lying or mistaken? Her statement accords with Richardson. As per Cadosch she is around 15 minutes astray. Hardly an age. So on what grounds do we dismiss Mr Long (apart from just Phillips of course.)

[Fisherman]

Or the killer bumping the fence with his elbow or shoulder?

Bumping the fence with his elbow or shoulder, then loosing his balance, falling against the fence and landing on the ground with a thump, if Cadosch was telling the truth to the Lloyds representative.

Once we weigh in the whole material, it spells disaster for poor Albert.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Re #125



Phillips: My impression is that she was partially strangled.

Was Annie partially strangled after falling dead against the fence?
Or was it before the fall, in which case she must have conveniently remained standing so the Ripper could then cut her throat.

So the Ripper bumping against the fence sounded like the packing case bumps?
Sounds more like a head-butt than a bump.

Or the killer bumping the fence with his elbow or shoulder?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Re #125

And why does Cadosch need to go outside twice in a few minutes, anyway?
Does he really need to pee when he gets up, and then again just 3 or 4 minutes later?
Can the bladder really fill that quickly?

He explained that. He’d just been in hospital which caused him to need the loo more than he would have normally.

Okay, but that's not the sense that I get from reading what he says.

While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence...

Freeze time right there. What are Albert's next movements?

I then went into the house, and from there into the street to go to my work.

In between these statements, Baxter asks him if he heard any noise while at the end of the yard.
However, that was in regard to his first trip outside, not the second.
It's as though Albert has heard the fall against the fence, and immediately turned around and walked back inside.
Evening Standard, Sep 15:

Mr. Cadoche, who lives in the next house to No. 29 Hanbury street, where the murder was committed, has stated that he went to the back of the premises at half past five on the morning of the murder, and as he passed the wooden partition, he heard a woman say, "No, no." On returning he heard a scuffle, and then some one fell heavily against the fence. He heard no cry for help, and so he went into the house.

No time elapses between hearing the noise and going back inside.
As he claims to reach Spitalfield's Church about 5:32, he would appear to have a missing few minutes.
Sure we can fill those in for him, but why should we?

[Trevor Marriott]

Isnīt it all very obvious?

He tells Lloyds that he heard a scuffle, at the end of which someone seemingly fell heavily against the fence and thumped against the ground, at the exact point where Chapmans body was later found.

And then, when Baxter asks him if what he had described at the inquest as something suddenly touching the fence did not evoke his interest, he says "I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over."

A sudden touching of the fence does not mean that something necessarily is the matter. Irt does not mean that you will get curious.

A scuffle between two people, followed by a heavy fall against the fence and down to the ground, definitely means that something is the matter. And you will get curious.

Cadosch could only claim a disinterest against the background of the helium light version of his original "I heard Chapman getting killed" story. His "I overheard the real thing" story would not have worked in that context.

I think the time has come to move on. Cadosch has stolen our interest for 132 years, and that really should be quite enough.

Totally agree this topic has been done to death now (no pun intended)

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I don’t think that it’s me that’s ‘missing the point’ here Trevor. Of course he either heard something or he didn’t but... if he did hear a voice and a sound coming from number 29 and Annie was supposedly already lying there dead what else could it have been? Please don’t say a cat.

But he is not specific as to where the sound actually came from so as I keep saying his testimony is unsafe to totally rely on. You would appear to be relying on Richardsons testimony to support your belief in Cadosch`s testimony, which is dangerous because each witness and their testimony has to be judged separately and accepted or rejected accordingly.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Isnīt it all very obvious?

He tells Lloyds that he heard a scuffle, at the end of which someone seemingly fell heavily against the fence and thumped against the ground, at the exact point where Chapmans body was later found.

And then, when Baxter asks him if what he had described at the inquest as something suddenly touching the fence did not evoke his interest, he says "I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over."

A sudden touching of the fence does not mean that something necessarily is the matter. Irt does not mean that you will get curious.

A scuffle between two people, followed by a heavy fall against the fence and down to the ground, definitely means that something is the matter. And you will get curious.

Cadosch could only claim a disinterest against the background of the helium light version of his original "I heard Chapman getting killed" story. His "I overheard the real thing" story would not have worked in that context.

I think the time has come to move on. Cadosch has stolen our interest for 132 years, and that really should be quite enough.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Re #125

And why does Cadosch hear nothing else when outside the second time?
There are signs that Annie fought for her life - not hard to believe - yet Cadosch was apparently unaware of anything going on behind a rickety old fence, just feet away from where he would have walked outside and in, but he apparently remained totally oblivious ... because he was thinking about work.

Because Annie was already dead and the sound that he heard was the killer bumping against the fence as he performed the mutilations. A single bump.

Phillips: My impression is that she was partially strangled.

Was Annie partially strangled after falling dead against the fence?
Or was it before the fall, in which case she must have conveniently remained standing so the Ripper could then cut her throat.

So the Ripper bumping against the fence sounded like the packing case bumps?
Sounds more like a head-butt than a bump.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You keep missing the point with this witness.

No matter what he heard if he in fact did hear anything, it does not prove that the noise he said he heard was from the killer murdering Chapman,

In the grand scheme of things does it really matter what time she was murdered, does the time of the murder change anything, no it doesnt, but the time of the murder is somewhat relevant because there were no other murders as late as 5am which took place in a location not conducive to the killer being seen or disturbed at that time of the morning when it was almost daylight.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I don’t think that it’s me that’s ‘missing the point’ here Trevor. Of course he either heard something or he didn’t but... if he did hear a voice and a sound coming from number 29 and Annie was supposedly already lying there dead what else could it have been? Please don’t say a cat.

[Trevor Marriott]

I read the article (good research by Colin) and realised that I’d read it before. It doesn’t impact on this case though. Just because someone has the capacity to lie (which would include everyone) doesn’t mean he lied about what he heard.

You keep missing the point with this witness.

No matter what he heard if he in fact did hear anything, it does not prove that the noise he said he heard was from the killer murdering Chapman,

In the grand scheme of things does it really matter what time she was murdered, does the time of the murder change anything, no it doesnt, but the time of the murder is somewhat relevant because there were no other murders as late as 5am which took place in a location not conducive to the killer being seen or disturbed at that time of the morning when it was almost daylight.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I read the article (good research by Colin) and realised that I’d read it before. It doesn’t impact on this case though. Just because someone has the capacity to lie (which would include everyone) doesn’t mean he lied about what he heard.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Then why doesn't he make that 'very obvious deduction' explicit, at the inquest?
He talks about the sound of a fall against the fence - do packing cases fall down?
Then he says "as if something touched the fence suddenly".
Something? Why does he put it like that, if he is familiar with the case sound?
More to the point, why does he even remember this? It seems like something that would be very unmemorable for a man getting ready for work.

Cadosch: I informed the police the same night after I returned from my work.

Informed them of what? - that he had heard the familiar sound of a packing case contacting the fence that morning, a few minutes after hearing a sex-unspecified voice say 'no', possibly from #29? What's to tell?
Well it would seem that Cadosch wants us to draw an association between the 'no' and the fence sound - as if they were related.
The implication of this association being that it was not a packing case that he heard!

But here is a bigger issue; you claim Cadosch probably just assumed the sound against the fence was a packing case, and reasonably took no interest in it.
However, this is what he said to Baxter:

Cadosch: I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over.

So he would have been curious, if it were not for thoughts of another day's work being foremost in his mind.
Rather an odd thing to say, don't you think? It only takes a second to look - over the fence, between the palings, whatever.
So we don't really have to speculate on how interesting or forgettable the sound was to Cadosch - it was interesting enough to remember, and tell the police and the coroner about, and describe in a way that implies it was quite possibly not a packing case he heard that morning, but not interesting enough to glance at at the time!
How bizarre!

Why bizarre? He hears a noise. He doesn’t know what it is. As there’s a packing case business next door he thinks “probably just the neighbours working.” He’s more interested in getting to work. Then he hears about the murder and begins to wonder if it wasn’t the neighbours after all but the sound of a woman being killed.

And why does Cadosch hear nothing else when outside the second time?
There are signs that Annie fought for her life - not hard to believe - yet Cadosch was apparently unaware of anything going on behind a rickety old fence, just feet away from where he would have walked outside and in, but he apparently remained totally oblivious ... because he was thinking about work.

Because Annie was already dead and the sound that he heard was the killer bumping against the fence as he performed the mutilations. A single bump.

And why does Cadosch need to go outside twice in a few minutes, anyway?
Does he really need to pee when he gets up, and then again just 3 or 4 minutes later?
Can the bladder really fill that quickly?

He explained that. He’d just been in hospital which caused him to need the loo more than he would have normally.

There is an interesting post about Cadosch, by Bridewell https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...-a-secret-life
If I've read it correctly, Albert was 27 in Sep '88.
PC Smith's 'parcel man' was about 28 by looks.
Albert was a carpenter at the time of the murder, so he was probably quite strong physically, owned tools, and probably some ... chalk.
What side of the fence was Cadosch [Ireally[/I] on, that morning?

I’ll read this later on.