Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    How is ‘steps’ ambiguous? There were only the steps by the door. If you are implying the cellar doors then these were behind a locked door and not visible. He was very obviously talking about the steps by the door.
    It's obvious I am too. I just quoted JR talking about the middle step - the one he supposedly cut his boot on.

    My position is simple; the top step is level with the wall and cellar door (that's what the pictures suggest to me) - that is no place to check the padlock. Richardson pushed the backdoor open a little, glanced at the the cellar door, found it to be okay, and left for work. The door closed automatically as he left, as he said.
    The only issue is why he made up the boot cutting story, but ultimately, Richardson cannot help us determine when the murder occurred.
    Regardless, how much do we care what time the murder occurred, other than in relation to judging Cross as a suspect?

    You ask why the police didn’t object but there’s a fair bit that they might have objected to but didn’t. Why did no one pursue the knife story that on the face of it makes little sense for example?
    Good point. I agree. Baxter makes it obvious that he is aware of the discrepancy in the knife story.
    For me, it points to the fact that Richardson feels vulnerable in having visited the murder location but having no sense of the (possible) presence of the body.
    Will he look silly? Will he appear to be hiding the truth of his knowledge of a woman being in the backyard - one that it may be thought he interacted with?
    I think Richardson is scared, and the boot story is there to prove that he behaved innocently and did not see the victim.

    How do we know that Chandler was correct in what he said. He might have been mistaken. After all he only ‘interviewed’ Richardson in the passageway during a difficult time and we don’t even know if he took notes? What if Richardson simply said something like “ I checked the cellar from the back steps and I couldn’t have missed a body had it been there.” Maybe he was reluctant to mention using a knife in case the police were suspicious of him and Chandler didn’t go into detail with him but just accepted that Richardson couldn’t have missed a body?

    Was Chandler so reliable and trustworthy? He was demoted for drinking on duty not long after.
    We don't know how how reliable and trustworthy he is. That's true.
    However, Baxter seems to have trusted him (by reading his tone and manner!), and therefore we have a discrepancy between what Chandler reports JR said on the day, and what JR testifies.
    It's the discrepancy I'm interested in - I have no opinion on Chandler as such.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
    Re #102



    He could see it from the steps? That's ambiguous - which step exactly?

    Whichever step he and his mother spoke of.

    By vaguely referring to 'the steps', you're glossing over the important issue - did Richardson sit on the middle step to tend to his boot?

    I am not the one being vague. Mrs Richardson and her son were the vague ones.

    JR: When I was on the doorstep I saw that the padlock on the cellar door was in its proper place.
    WB: Did you sit on the top step?
    JR: No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard.

    So did JR stand on the middle step to check the padlock, and then sit down on that step to work on his boot?
    If yes, then he must have seen the body.

    No, he must not. Why is that so hard to understand? Even if his position allowed for seeing the body (and it neednīt have to with him on the second step), it remains a question of more than a single parameter. There is the issue of the light, the issue of what direction he looked in and so on.

    So how could the police not have had objections to JR after he testified, given this?...

    See the above.

    Chandler:
    Richardson only told me that he went to the top of the steps and looked down into the cellar. He said nothing about having sat on the top step.

    Yet you have no doubts about Richardson, but think Cadosch was lying?

    Cadosch was there much later, and to my mind, and could not have heard Chapman. She was dead. So either he lies, or he has coincidentally had anothe scuffle and fall than Chapmans happening in the spot where Chapman was found dead. And the ones scuffling seem to have missed out on the body. Just how likely is that?

    As for observing the padlock from the top step, I very much doubt it - the cellar door would likely not be perfectly flush with the wall - so it would be almost impossible to get a good view of it from the top step.

    It was said that he could see the lock from the steps, not the top steps. If you thibk it could not, then why did the Richardsosns claim that this was so?

    This is an important point - JR just makes a cursory glance at the cellar, probably just to see if the door is closed.
    That's the sense I get when I read this...

    Chandler: He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.

    What must be weighed in is that he may have leant out from the top step, enabling him to see the lock. He need not have stood straight.

    That is why he may have missed the body, assuming that Cadosch did not hear the murder.
    Without his boot story, Richardson might suspect that he might become a suspect, because he would then be stating that he didn't see the body, after the doctor's estimated ToD.

    Maybe. But maybe only. We have to deal in guesswork to a large degree.

    Does this sound like an arterial spray?...

    Phillips: ... on the palings, about fourteen inches from the ground, near the head, were smears of blood.

    The word 'smears' implies bodily contact.
    14" above ground level, and only on the fence, is a very well directed arterial spray!
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    No. This was a really old Ripperologist. I’ve had to pack them away (I’m decorating) as soon as I get chance I’ll see if I can dig it out. I’m pretty sure I know what folder it’s in. It was only a short piece but I’ll give you more info when I find it.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
    Re #102



    He could see it from the steps? That's ambiguous - which step exactly?
    By vaguely referring to 'the steps', you're glossing over the important issue - did Richardson sit on the middle step to tend to his boot?

    JR: When I was on the doorstep I saw that the padlock on the cellar door was in its proper place.
    WB: Did you sit on the top step?
    JR: No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard.

    So did JR stand on the middle step to check the padlock, and then sit down on that step to work on his boot?
    If yes, then he must have seen the body.

    So how could the police not have had objections to JR after he testified, given this?...

    Chandler:
    Richardson only told me that he went to the top of the steps and looked down into the cellar. He said nothing about having sat on the top step.

    Yet you have no doubts about Richardson, but think Cadosch was lying?

    As for observing the padlock from the top step, I very much doubt it - the cellar door would likely not be perfectly flush with the wall - so it would be almost impossible to get a good view of it from the top step.
    This is an important point - JR just makes a cursory glance at the cellar, probably just to see if the door is closed.
    That's the sense I get when I read this...

    Chandler: He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.

    That is why he may have missed the body, assuming that Cadosch did not hear the murder.
    Without his boot story, Richardson might suspect that he might become a suspect, because he would then be stating that he didn't see the body, after the doctor's estimated ToD.



    Does this sound like an arterial spray?...

    Phillips: ... on the palings, about fourteen inches from the ground, near the head, were smears of blood.

    The word 'smears' implies bodily contact.
    14" above ground level, and only on the fence, is a very well directed arterial spray!
    How is ‘steps’ ambiguous? There were only the steps by the door. If you are implying the cellar doors then these were behind a locked door and not visible. He was very obviously talking about the steps by the door.

    You ask why the police didn’t object but there’s a fair bit that they might have objected to but didn’t. Why did no one pursue the knife story that on the face of it makes little sense for example?

    How do we know that Chandler was correct in what he said. He might have been mistaken. After all he only ‘interviewed’ Richardson in the passageway during a difficult time and we don’t even know if he took notes? What if Richardson simply said something like “ I checked the cellar from the back steps and I couldn’t have missed a body had it been there.” Maybe he was reluctant to mention using a knife in case the police were suspicious of him and Chandler didn’t go into detail with him but just accepted that Richardson couldn’t have missed a body?

    Was Chandler so reliable and trustworthy? He was demoted for drinking on duty not long after.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Re #102

    Furthermore, could JR actually see the cellar padlock, from that vantage point? These pictures raise doubts.

    Since it was said that he could see it from the steps and since the police seems to have had no objections about it, I think it is a given. He could see it, alright.
    He could see it from the steps? That's ambiguous - which step exactly?
    By vaguely referring to 'the steps', you're glossing over the important issue - did Richardson sit on the middle step to tend to his boot?

    JR: When I was on the doorstep I saw that the padlock on the cellar door was in its proper place.
    WB: Did you sit on the top step?
    JR: No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard.

    So did JR stand on the middle step to check the padlock, and then sit down on that step to work on his boot?
    If yes, then he must have seen the body.

    So how could the police not have had objections to JR after he testified, given this?...

    Chandler:
    Richardson only told me that he went to the top of the steps and looked down into the cellar. He said nothing about having sat on the top step.

    Yet you have no doubts about Richardson, but think Cadosch was lying?

    As for observing the padlock from the top step, I very much doubt it - the cellar door would likely not be perfectly flush with the wall - so it would be almost impossible to get a good view of it from the top step.
    This is an important point - JR just makes a cursory glance at the cellar, probably just to see if the door is closed.
    That's the sense I get when I read this...

    Chandler: He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.

    That is why he may have missed the body, assuming that Cadosch did not hear the murder.
    Without his boot story, Richardson might suspect that he might become a suspect, because he would then be stating that he didn't see the body, after the doctor's estimated ToD.

    The blood on the fence seems to be arterial spray. Reasonably, there will have been some blood on the ground too, between the fence and Chapman.
    Does this sound like an arterial spray?...

    Phillips: ... on the palings, about fourteen inches from the ground, near the head, were smears of blood.

    The word 'smears' implies bodily contact.
    14" above ground level, and only on the fence, is a very well directed arterial spray!
    Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 10-05-2020, 12:42 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • harry
    replied
    Going by what Chandler said,is he (Chandler) stating a fact of what he( Chandler) personnly observed from the top of the steps,or is he refering to a situation of what he thinks Richardson might have seen?How would Chandler know the position of the door when Richardson stood there before sitting on the steps?Well he wouldn't,that is why Chandler uses the (if it/he was),which suggests Chandler was not sure of the situation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    And did you send for the file?
    No. This was a really old Ripperologist. I’ve had to pack them away (I’m decorating) as soon as I get chance I’ll see if I can dig it out. I’m pretty sure I know what folder it’s in. It was only a short piece but I’ll give you more info when I find it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    In that case, I refer you back to this post on the Richardson thread.
    A cursory glance might have had Richardson missing the body, but then why is he going out of his way to go to #29 Hanbury on market mornings, but not bothering to at least walk down to the cellar steps?

    Letīs begin by establishing that we do not know that he went out of his way to go to the backyard on markes mornings, we only know that he SAYS that he made it his business.

    Furthermore, could JR actually see the cellar padlock, from that vantage point? These pictures raise doubts.

    Since it was said that he could see it from the steps and since the police seems to have had no objections about it, I think it is a given. He could see it, alright.

    It's peculiar how JR takes the time to cut up a piece of carrot for a rabbit, but is also so casual about checking the cellar, which stores many valuable things and has been broken into. Except that at night time he does check it thoroughly - both visually and mechanically.
    Richardson is a bit weird.

    Well, he did not cut the carrot when on the stpes of the backyard, and we donīt know how casual his checking was. If he could see the lock, he could see the lock, and no more checking had to be done. In the post you refer me back to, I think you make a valuable point when you suggest it may have been about embarrasment he did not admit to the body possibly being there. I reason much along the same line - if he was in the backyard at all.



    But was it just at the place Chapman was later found at, or almost?...

    Just, Iīd say. At least when we look at what Lloyds wrote. To my mind, there can be no sensibe doubt that he described the incident as if he had overheard the murder.

    James Kent: Her head was near the house, but no part of the body was against the wall.

    Exactly so.

    She wasn't found against the fence, so was there a short trail of blood from the fence to the head/neck region?

    The blood on the fence seems to be arterial spray. Reasonably, there will have been some blood on the ground too, between the fence and Chapman.

    Phillips: ... on the wooden fence there were smears of blood, corresponding to where the head of the deceased laid, and immediately above the part where the blood had mainly flowed from the neck, which was well clotted.

    Sounds like there was.
    In that case, was she cut before hitting the fence?
    If yes, when did this happen?...

    I donīt think she hit the fence at all. I think Cadosch made it up, because she was dead at 5.20.

    Phillips: My impression is that she was partially strangled.

    Perhaps it went like this:

    Partial strangulation whilst victim is standing > falls against fence > initial throat cut while slouched against fence > pulled away from fence, onto back > throat cut right around > cut open

    Yes, it could have happened like that. But not at 5.20

    But there is also this to consider...

    Was there evidence of any struggle? - No; not about the body of the woman, but I am positive that a struggle took place in the yard.

    That was from the MA. In the DT ...

    [Coroner]
    Was there any evidence of any struggle? - No; not about the body of the woman. You do not forget the smearing of blood about the palings.

    I presume the last sentence was spoken by Baxter.

    Given Kent's testimony, I tentatively conclude that even after being partially suffocated, collapsing against a fence, and having her throat cut, Annie was still putting up a fight.
    Yet Cadosch only hears the fall against the fence, and maybe a bit of a scuffle?
    Again, he heard nothing. He made it up, which is why it is illogical to a degree.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    With the door fully open, anybody on the top step could easily see Annie Chapmanīs whole body, that was lying with the head roughy in line with the lowest step. To obscure the body from somebody standing on the top step, it takes for the door NOT to be fully open. It is not as if the position of the doorblade has no influence on the matter. When Chandler established that the door could well have hindered Richardson from seeing the body if he was on the top step, he knew quite well what he was saying.
    In that case, I refer you back to this post on the Richardson thread.
    A cursory glance might have had Richardson missing the body, but then why is he going out of his way to go to #29 Hanbury on market mornings, but not bothering to at least walk down to the cellar steps?
    Furthermore, could JR actually see the cellar padlock, from that vantage point? These pictures raise doubts.
    It's peculiar how JR takes the time to cut up a piece of carrot for a rabbit, but is also so casual about checking the cellar, which stores many valuable things and has been broken into. Except that at night time he does check it thoroughly - both visually and mechanically.
    Richardson is a bit weird.

    Yes, Cadosch gave a very vivid account of the scuffle, the heavy fall against the fence and down onto the ground with a thump, just at the place where Chapman was later found.
    Then again, all of that vital and case-specific information had gone out the window when he testified under oath. For some peculiar reason.
    But was it just at the place Chapman was later found at, or almost?...

    James Kent: Her head was near the house, but no part of the body was against the wall.

    She wasn't found against the fence, so was there a short trail of blood from the fence to the head/neck region?

    Phillips: ... on the wooden fence there were smears of blood, corresponding to where the head of the deceased laid, and immediately above the part where the blood had mainly flowed from the neck, which was well clotted.

    Sounds like there was.
    In that case, was she cut before hitting the fence?
    If yes, when did this happen?...

    Phillips: My impression is that she was partially strangled.

    Perhaps it went like this:

    Partial strangulation whilst victim is standing > falls against fence > initial throat cut while slouched against fence > pulled away from fence, onto back > throat cut right around > cut open

    But there is also this to consider...

    Was there evidence of any struggle? - No; not about the body of the woman, but I am positive that a struggle took place in the yard.

    That was from the MA. In the DT ...

    [Coroner]
    Was there any evidence of any struggle? - No; not about the body of the woman. You do not forget the smearing of blood about the palings.

    I presume the last sentence was spoken by Baxter.

    Given Kent's testimony, I tentatively conclude that even after being partially suffocated, collapsing against a fence, and having her throat cut, Annie was still putting up a fight.
    Yet Cadosch only hears the fall against the fence, and maybe a bit of a scuffle?
    Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 10-04-2020, 08:40 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
    It is worth contrasting the testimony of Cadosch, with that of James Kent.
    The following also has relevance to the current Richardson thread.

    WB: Had you heard any noise while you were at the end of your yard?
    AC: No.

    WB: Any rustling of clothes?
    AC: No. I then went into the house ...

    WB: Do you ever hear people in these yards?
    AC: Now and then, but not often.


    So apparently there is nothing wrong with Cadosch's hearing.

    The following from the Morning Advertiser, Sep 13.

    JK: I went to 29, Hanbury-street, and through the passage. I did not go into the yard, but stood at the top of the steps.
    WB: You saw a woman?
    JK: I did, lying in the yard at the bottom of the steps leading from the back door. She lay between the back-door steps and the partition between the yard and the next yard.
    Inspector Chandler produced a plan of the yard, which the witness examined and pointed out the exact position of the body.
    JK: Her clothes were thrown back, but her face was visible. Her apron seemed to be thrown back over her clothes. I could see from the feet up to the knees. I did not go down the steps, but went outside, going in twice again to look. I do not believe that any man went into the yard until Inspector Chandler came, I could not [?] see she was dead. She had a handkerchief of some kind round her throat, which seemed sucked into her throat. I saw no running blood, but her face and hands were smeared with blood, as if she had struggled. I did not notice any other injuries.
    WB: What evidence was there of a struggle?
    JK: I mean as if she had been on her back and used her hands to defend herself. Her hands were turned with the palms towards her face, as if she had fought for her throat. Her legs were wide apart.
    WB: Did you notice any blood about her legs?
    JK: There were similar marks of blood as about her face.
    WB: Was there any blood about her clothes?
    JK: I did not notice. I was too much frightened to notice very particularly.
    WB: You spoke of some liquid having been thrown over her. Did you notice any water or anything?
    JK: I could not tell what it was. It seemed as if her inside had been pulled from her and thrown at her. It was lying over her left shoulder.

    A few points:
    • The body was clearly visible from the top step - Kent could even see her face from there
    • Their seemed to be clear signs of a struggle
    • The position of the hands supports the idea of strangulation, but their bloodiness does not - ... her face and hands were smeared with blood ... Her hands were turned with the palms towards her face. This perhaps suggest she could have made a vocal sound, just prior to being cut.

    So to the critical question; did Cadosch hear this struggle?

    The following quote from the Macclesfield Courier and Herald, Sep 15.

    A Press Association reporter has elicited that Mr. Cardoche [Cadosch], who lives in the next house to No. 29, Hanbury-street, where the murder was committed, went to the back of the premises at 5.30 a.m., and as he passed the wooden partition he heard a woman say: "No, no." On returning he heard a scuffle and then someone fall heavily against the fence. He heard no cry for help, and so he went into his house. Some surprise is felt that this statement was not made in evidence at the inquest.

    So two 'no's, and a heavy fall against the fence, but no other noises.

    Interesting that the same edition mentions this:

    On the wall near where the woman's body was found were the words, "Five - fifteen more, and then I give myself up."
    With the door fully open, anybody on the top step could easily see Annie Chapmanīs whole body, that was lying with the head roughy in line with the lowest step. To obscure the body from somebody standing on the top step, it takes for the door NOT to be fully open. It is not as if the position of the doorblade has no influence on the matter. When Chandler established that the door could well have hindered Richardson from seeing the body if he was on the top step, he knew quite well what he was saying.

    Yes, Cadosch gave a very vivid account of the scuffle, the heavy fall against the fence and down onto the ground with a thump, just at the place where Chapman was later found.
    Then again, all of that vital and case-specific information had gone out the window when he testified under oath. For some peculiar reason.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    I was looking through some old Ripperologists yesterday (from the days when they used to drop through the letterbox) and there was a small entry from John Morrison (the guy who first proposed James Kelly) He was recommending that readers send for a file for Ģ5. I think he called it the Johnson file and he said that it was at The Bodleian in Oxford. He said that it was mentioned in that.
    And did you send for the file?

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    It is worth contrasting the testimony of Cadosch, with that of James Kent.
    The following also has relevance to the current Richardson thread.

    WB: Had you heard any noise while you were at the end of your yard?
    AC: No.

    WB: Any rustling of clothes?
    AC: No. I then went into the house ...

    WB: Do you ever hear people in these yards?
    AC: Now and then, but not often.


    So apparently there is nothing wrong with Cadosch's hearing.

    The following from the Morning Advertiser, Sep 13.

    JK: I went to 29, Hanbury-street, and through the passage. I did not go into the yard, but stood at the top of the steps.
    WB: You saw a woman?
    JK: I did, lying in the yard at the bottom of the steps leading from the back door. She lay between the back-door steps and the partition between the yard and the next yard.
    Inspector Chandler produced a plan of the yard, which the witness examined and pointed out the exact position of the body.
    JK: Her clothes were thrown back, but her face was visible. Her apron seemed to be thrown back over her clothes. I could see from the feet up to the knees. I did not go down the steps, but went outside, going in twice again to look. I do not believe that any man went into the yard until Inspector Chandler came, I could not [?] see she was dead. She had a handkerchief of some kind round her throat, which seemed sucked into her throat. I saw no running blood, but her face and hands were smeared with blood, as if she had struggled. I did not notice any other injuries.
    WB: What evidence was there of a struggle?
    JK: I mean as if she had been on her back and used her hands to defend herself. Her hands were turned with the palms towards her face, as if she had fought for her throat. Her legs were wide apart.
    WB: Did you notice any blood about her legs?
    JK: There were similar marks of blood as about her face.
    WB: Was there any blood about her clothes?
    JK: I did not notice. I was too much frightened to notice very particularly.
    WB: You spoke of some liquid having been thrown over her. Did you notice any water or anything?
    JK: I could not tell what it was. It seemed as if her inside had been pulled from her and thrown at her. It was lying over her left shoulder.

    A few points:
    • The body was clearly visible from the top step - Kent could even see her face from there
    • Their seemed to be clear signs of a struggle
    • The position of the hands supports the idea of strangulation, but their bloodiness does not - ... her face and hands were smeared with blood ... Her hands were turned with the palms towards her face. This perhaps suggest she could have made a vocal sound, just prior to being cut.

    So to the critical question; did Cadosch hear this struggle?

    The following quote from the Macclesfield Courier and Herald, Sep 15.

    A Press Association reporter has elicited that Mr. Cardoche [Cadosch], who lives in the next house to No. 29, Hanbury-street, where the murder was committed, went to the back of the premises at 5.30 a.m., and as he passed the wooden partition he heard a woman say: "No, no." On returning he heard a scuffle and then someone fall heavily against the fence. He heard no cry for help, and so he went into his house. Some surprise is felt that this statement was not made in evidence at the inquest.

    So two 'no's, and a heavy fall against the fence, but no other noises.

    Interesting that the same edition mentions this:

    On the wall near where the woman's body was found were the words, "Five - fifteen more, and then I give myself up."

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    At the risk of sounding stupid (no doubt confirmed by Fish) I don’t understand how the above challenges the idea that the noise could have been the killer rather than Annie’s body?

    I read today that someone reckoned that at the time the police suspected that Annie had been given chloroform.
    Apologies Herlock - sometimes when I quote and reply, I use the quote as a starting point for a bit of exploration of the subject, and not necessarily as a something to be rebutted. In future, I will try to may myself clearer in that regard. Keep up the good work!

    Now in regards to chloroform, what I know now is why George McFly missed a day of school...

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    Who? Dr Phillips made no such guess.
    I was looking through some old Ripperologists yesterday (from the days when they used to drop through the letterbox) and there was a small entry from John Morrison (the guy who first proposed James Kelly) He was recommending that readers send for a file for Ģ5. I think he called it the Johnson file and he said that it was at The Bodleian in Oxford. He said that it was mentioned in that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    At the risk of sounding stupid (no doubt confirmed by Fish)

    Must you be so hard on me...?

    I don’t understand how the above challenges the idea that the noise could have been the killer rather than Annie’s body?

    It was neither, Herlock. If it was. And it probably wasnīt.

    I read today that someone reckoned that at the time the police suspected that Annie had been given chloroform.
    Who? Dr Phillips made no such guess.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X