Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[Fisherman]

We can’ t know it as such, but the implication us a very strong one. Personally, I have tremendously more trouble making the assumption that he was honest than accepting he was a lying attention-seeker.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Or that he knew that next door was a packing case business and that he’d heard the sounds of ‘wooden things’ banging against the fence at times and made a very obvious deduction.

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!

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.

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?

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 really on, that morning?

[Herlock Sholmes]

So given that you don't want to deal with probabilities, we must therefore accept that we cannot know if Cadosch heard the murder, and thus we cannot use his testimony to determine the approximate time of death, or anything else of relevance.

I’m just saying that we can’t assume that we know an unknown.

It is not up to you to decide what Cadosch regards as out of the ordinary.
Nor is it up to you to decide how Cadosch would have reacted to an out of the ordinary sound.
All you are doing is guessing, based on what you suppose you would do, in Cadosch's situation.
And is that what you mean by evidence - your own subjective appraisal of someone's hypothetical behavior, in response to a hypothetical sound, 132 years ago?

You were the one saying that it was 100% If there’s a noise coming from the other side of a fence in your neighbours garden are you honestly saying that you’d stick your head over the fence?

Btw, how do you suppose Cadosch knew that next door's packing business was in the habit placing cases against the fence, unless he were a ‘nosey b*#^*#d.’?
Let me guess - "something we cannot know".

Or that he’d seen the packing cases from his bedroom window.

Or that he knew that next door was a packing case business and that he’d heard the sounds of ‘wooden things’ banging against the fence at times and made a very obvious deduction.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Something we cannot know.

So given that you don't want to deal with probabilities, we must therefore accept that we cannot know if Cadosch heard the murder, and thus we cannot use his testimony to determine the approximate time of death, or anything else of relevance.

The sound of something brushing/falling against a fence in the yard of a packing case business. Cadosch was aware of this fact so unless the noise was something way out of the ordinary (examples above) he’d have had zero reason to look over the fence and risk being called a ‘nosey b*#^*#d.’

It is not up to you to decide what Cadosch regards as out of the ordinary.
Nor is it up to you to decide how Cadosch would have reacted to an out of the ordinary sound.
All you are doing is guessing, based on what you suppose you would do, in Cadosch's situation.
And is that what you mean by evidence - your own subjective appraisal of someone's hypothetical behavior, in response to a hypothetical sound, 132 years ago?

Btw, how do you suppose Cadosch knew that next door's packing business was in the habit placing cases against the fence, unless he were a ‘nosey b*#^*#d.’?
Let me guess - "something we cannot know".

[Herlock Sholmes]

That depends - are we talking about normal people, or a boring and overly cautious person like yourself?

It’s instructive that you appear to consider caution a defect. You also consider me boring because I prefer the real world.

If the later, I'd say the chances of that person at least taking a peak, would be near enough to 100%.

Id say nearer 1% or fewer. Of someone hears a sound from their neighbours yard no one would bother looking unless it was someone yelling “murder” or a shout of pain or fear.

For normal people, it would depend on how unusual that sound were - which was the point of my reply to the good post by Azarna.

The sound of something brushing/falling against a fence in the yard of a packing case business. Cadosch was aware of this fact so unless the noise was something way out of the ordinary (examples above) he’d have had zero reason to look over the fence and risk being called a ‘nosey b*#^*#d.’

We are dealing with probabilities here (at least I am) - it's not an either/or.
I am not saying that Richardson must have looked, in response to the sound, but I am saying that he is much more likely to look if the sound is that of a fall, and not that made by the packing cases contacting the fence.

Cadosch not Richardson. We can’t imply anything from the fact that he didn’t look over the fence.

However, this would only be true if Richardson had indeed heard something that sounded like a fall, and was not using that description due to the bias of knowing that a woman has been found murdered at the base of the fence on the other side.

Something we cannot know.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

How many people would look over a fence simply because they heard a sound coming from next door? Especially when the people next door ran a business which used the back door?

That depends - are we talking about normal people, or a boring and overly cautious person like yourself?
If the later, I'd say the chances of that person at least taking a peak, would be near enough to 100%.
For normal people, it would depend on how unusual that sound were - which was the point of my reply to the good post by Azarna.
We are dealing with probabilities here (at least I am) - it's not an either/or.
I am not saying that Richardson must have looked, in response to the sound, but I am saying that he is much more likely to look if the sound is that of a fall, and not that made by the packing cases contacting the fence.
However, this would only be true if Richardson had indeed heard something that sounded like a fall, and was not using that description due to the bias of knowing that a woman has been found murdered at the base of the fence on the other side.

[Herlock Sholmes]

How many people would look over a fence simply because they heard a sound coming from next door? Especially when the people next door ran a business which used the back door?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Am I right in thinking that, at the time he was interviewed by the police, Albert Cadosch would have been aware that there had been a murder in the yard next door?

If someone is asked to remember an incident, such as "what did you hear when you went out to the toilet during the early hours?" they are probably less likely to speculate than if they already know of about a specific event that they could potentially have heard.

So saying one heard "a fall against the fence" might well be an interpretation of the sound, based on now knowing a woman died, and presumably fell or was pushed against the fence.

Rather than a more general "I heard a noice by the fence" or "I head a bump sound" - with no reason to interpret that sound as "a fall" specifically.

Which could mean that Cadosch heard a sound and is calling it "a fall" based on subsequent information, whereas the sound was caused by something else.

Good question and points.

At the inquest, Cadosch said this about the people next door:

They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings. 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.

Okay, so next door is in the habit putting large cases up against the fence.
So when hearing the sound against the fence that morning, why didn't Cadosch suppose it were the well known sound of these packing cases banging against the palings?
Maybe it sounded different that time - as he said, like a fall?
A fall of what though? A human perhaps?
It must have been something different that time, and sounded so - which he did notice, and thus described it the way he did.
In that case why not take a look over the fence?
Perhaps though, as you suggest, he only gave that description of a fall against the fence, after knowing what it most likely was?
In that case, his perception has been coloured and his testimony is of less value than it would have been otherwise.

[Azarna]

Am I right in thinking that, at the time he was interviewed by the police, Albert Cadosch would have been aware that there had been a murder in the yard next door?

If someone is asked to remember an incident, such as "what did you hear when you went out to the toilet during the early hours?" they are probably less likely to speculate than if they already know of about a specific event that they could potentially have heard.

So saying one heard "a fall against the fence" might well be an interpretation of the sound, based on now knowing a woman died, and presumably fell or was pushed against the fence.

Rather than a more general "I heard a noice by the fence" or "I head a bump sound" - with no reason to interpret that sound as "a fall" specifically.

Which could mean that Cadosch heard a sound and is calling it "a fall" based on subsequent information, whereas the sound was caused by something else.

[Fisherman]

Thanks. I see what you mean.
Phillips is recorded as saying 14" above ground - maybe he said from the ground to 14" above? Or maybe the picture is inaccurate.
As for the spots on the wall, perhaps that was due to the Ripper flicking his wrist, to get some of the blood off his knife.

It would be if that blood all ended up precisely at 14", wouldnīt it? Phillips would reasonably have meant that the specks reached up to a height of 14", methinks. The other picture is a bit clearer as I remember it, but the impression is much the same.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I didnīt find the drawing I had in mind, but another one much like it. Use the link https://www.jack-the-ripper-tour.com...anbury-street/ and scroll down to the fifth picture.

Thanks. I see what you mean.
Phillips is recorded as saying 14" above ground - maybe he said from the ground to 14" above? Or maybe the picture is inaccurate.
As for the spots on the wall, perhaps that was due to the Ripper flicking his wrist, to get some of the blood off his knife.

[Fisherman]

If you can find that drawing, I'd be interested in having a look at it.
Otherwise I don't have anything else to say about the Chapman murder at this stage.
All this stuff is interesting enough, but I want keep it in perspective. I need to learn more about some of the other murders, and maybe later on I will have something interesting to say about those...

I didnīt find the drawing I had in mind, but another one much like it. Use the link https://www.jack-the-ripper-tour.com...anbury-street/ and scroll down to the fifth picture.

[Fisherman]

No problem Fish.

I just found that piece in issue #15. It was a letter from John Morrison. This is the relevant part:

“Might I suggest to all your Members that they should write to The Bodleian Library, Broad Street, Oxford and request all they have on The Whitechapel Murders in their Johnston File written at the time of the murders in 1888. The whole package costing around Ģ5.00 (in 1998 of course) comprises 48 pages together with a few illustrations and much information that the average Ripperologist is unaware of, for example, at the time of Annie Chapman’s death it was suspected that she had been doped with chloroform etc.”

Possibly just a rumour?

Well, I think somebody would have coughed up that fiver back in the day and found out. And if it was not just a rumor, my guess is we would have known. But thanks anyway for digging it out!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Okay, thanks for that. Iīve been having trouble with the casebook site again; sorry for not having answered your post before. I only just saw it.

No problem Fish.

I just found that piece in issue #15. It was a letter from John Morrison. This is the relevant part:

“Might I suggest to all your Members that they should write to The Bodleian Library, Broad Street, Oxford and request all they have on The Whitechapel Murders in their Johnston File written at the time of the murders in 1888. The whole package costing around Ģ5.00 (in 1998 of course) comprises 48 pages together with a few illustrations and much information that the average Ripperologist is unaware of, for example, at the time of Annie Chapman’s death it was suspected that she had been doped with chloroform etc.”

Possibly just a rumour?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

There is a drawing somewhere, that may well have been drawn in situ, and it looks much like arterial spray to me. The word "smear" does lend itself to another interpretation, but itīs a semantic issue. I think it would work well to say "I got the arterial spray on me, and was smeared with blood", for example.

If you can find that drawing, I'd be interested in having a look at it.
Otherwise I don't have anything else to say about the Chapman murder at this stage.
All this stuff is interesting enough, but I want keep it in perspective. I need to learn more about some of the other murders, and maybe later on I will have something interesting to say about those...