Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
The fact that the evidence of Richardson,Long,and Cadosch was not discredited,is of major importance.

You seem to have missed out on how it WAS discredited?

[harry]

Fisherman,
The fact that the evidence of Richardson,Long,and Cadosch was not discredited,is of major importance.They each individually saw or heard things,that collectively,in a circumstantial situation,gave the police a start in their investigation.Regardless of what the Star says,no information exists that the police had no confidence in the information given.The Star,like yourself,was notable in making claims,but unable to back up those claims.I'll ask again,which policeman made a negative remark on the evidence of those three witnesse's.(Yawn)
The fact that the evidence was given under oath in a court is important.Of course any one or all three could have lied,could have been at fault with memory,could have been wrong in detail.but that evidence stands until evidence surfaces that puts them at fault.None has. Your beliefs are as wortless as your theory of Cross did it,and as you have been told before,your obsessionis making a fool of you.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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?

A brush against a fence is hardly going to be memorable to someone like Albert Cadosch, who was thinking about work and did not even think to take a peek over the fence (to the evident frustration of Wynne Baxter).

You seem to want to account for what was heard, outside of the context of how the murder took place.
However, the latter determines the former.
Does your killer brushing the fence notion account for the smears of blood on the fence?
Did Jack get bloodied and leave the scene blood-stained?

To me, the mechanics of the murder is the primary question.
What explains the location of blood away from the body, the bruising on the body, the strangulation, and the lack of noise?
The Ripper seems so skilled and quiet, that I doubt he is going to clumsily start bumping into the fence as he goes, or get lots of blood on his hands and clothes.

On the other hand, a daytime murder and rip, coinciding with a first harvesting of an organs, would seem to indicate that Jack wants more light this time.
Is it significant then, that Dear Boss appears after this murder, rather than one of the priors, as though the letter and change of MO were linked?
Would that in turn gives us a clue as to the authorship of the letter and postcard?
Someone who is 'down on whores', and uses American terms like 'boss', and laughs at being called a doctor, perhaps?

I read today that someone reckoned that at the time the police suspected that Annie had been given chloroform.

Would that have been detectable?
How difficult would it have been to obtain some?

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you think that is compatible with the following, fine.

AC: ... I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.

However, this must also be considered...

Phillips: There were about half a dozen small patches of blood on the wall at the back of the head, about eighteen inches from the ground, and on the palings, about fourteen inches from the ground, near the head, were smears of blood.

The smeared blood on the fence suggests Annie's already bleeding body has pressed against it.

As discussed in #39, this is a little odd though, as it suggests Annie was cut before she fell, and yet the only other blood at a distance from the body was the 6 or so small patches on the wall. Also, Annie seems to have been strangled. Also, there are bruises on her body...

Phillips: I noticed a bruise over the right temple. There was a bruise under the clavicle, and there were two distinct bruises, each the size of a man's thumb, on the fore part of the chest.

One or two of those bruises may have already existed, but the bruising on the chest sounds a lot like Stride...

Phillips: Over both shoulders, especially the right, from the front aspect under colar bones and in front of chest there is a bluish discolouration ...

This is surely not a coincidence.
How is this apparently two-handed pressure against chest (in both cases) compatible with the victim not crying out in pain?
How is he doing this and cutting the throat, and, in Chapman's case, strangling?
Doesn't the strangling make the pressure against the chest unnecessary, and what purpose does the chest pressure serve anyway?
If Chapman was cut before falling against the fence and smearing it with blood, where is the arterial spray?
If she is cut after falling, hasn't Jack first pulled her away from the fence to give himself room, and therefore why are there smears of blood on the fence, and, why is the blood on the wall at a higher level than the blood smears on the fence?

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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

None of the above insinuates that her murder must have been hours earlier.

This is true, Michael.

However, if we assume "at least two hours, and probably more", to be 2― hours, the time of contact with fence sound to be the time of death - 5:25, and time of examination to be 6:30, then Phillips is estimating the murder to have occurred 150 minutes ago, whereas is was only 65.

65/150 = ~43%

So really Phillips must have been way off the mark, or what Cadosch heard was not what we think it was, and either Richardson did not tell the whole truth, or was incredibly unobservant.
If the former, makes you wonder about Caroline Maxwell...

[Michael W Richards]

"The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body. Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing."

"How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood."

None of the above insinuates that her murder must have been hours earlier.

[Fisherman]

Ok Fish, the Phillips infallibility was an exaggeration but you do seem reluctant to admit the possibility of error (again, not due to any incompetence on Phillips part)

Thank you, Herlock! Yes, I am reluctant to admit that Phillips could have been wrong. Had it been just the one parameter he was going by, it would have been a different story to some degree, but with four parameters in line, I think it is decidedly unhealthy to dismiss him. To be perfectly honest, even if he only had the temperature to go on, I would still say he was by far the best bid, because it is so huge a leap from nearly all cold to perfectly warm, like Eddowes was. But I would be a little less hard to move with just the one parameter in place.
If the four parameters all pointed in various directions, I would very much allow for Phillips verdict being unsafe - I would even recommend to distrust him if he had said at least two hours. Then again, if the parameters had not been in sync, I donīt think he would have made the kind of assessment that he made. If hat makes sense?

I really can’t debate the specifics of medical evidence Fish because my knowledge of the subject is close to non-existent. All I can say is that someone that I trust highly and have the highest regard for his meticulousness in research tells me with confidence that Phillips could easily have got his timing wrong.

Not as massively wrong as he needed to, to get the witnesses into play, though. And that hinges on two things: the four concurring paranmeters and the relative closeness to the TOD. The closer we get to the time of death, the less likely will he be to make a mistake. Ask your aquaintance, he will confirm that.
Have you asked him the question I put to you: Considering that Phillips weighed four parameters together, the temperature, the onsetting rigor, the digestion and the clotting degree of the blood, how likely is he to have mistaken a dead not even an hour away for one around three hours removed? Itīs not so much a question about whether the methods he used were unreliable to a degree, it is more a question about how monumental a mistake he was likely to make - if he was likely to make one at all. Look at Eddowes! Warm to the touch, no rigor, blood in the process of clotting, some of the serum still fluid - surely you can see that Chapman is a VERY different cup of tea?

As for the four parameters all that I can say is that surely the outcomes were never going to vary much anyway?

There will be variances. Every case will be unique - to a degree. But even if we were to buy in to the idea that Chapman very dramatically defied the common outcome in one of these parameters, it is way too much of a stretch to accept that she will have done so in all four. The logical thing to expect with four parameters saying that she had been dead for at least two hours is NOT that she differed from the rest of us on each of these parameters but instead that she followed the normal scheme: We do not drop in temperature the first half hour to an hour when we die, and we then loose the discernible surface warth over a period of some four hours, meaning that a severely cut person like Chapman was quite likely to have lost almost all her warmth after three hours. we do. not get onsetting rigor in less than anhour n ormally, and even less so in cold temperatures. Therefore onsetiing rigor after three hours is spot on what we should expect. Digested food was to be expected. Well clotted blood was to be expected. Each and every bit is in line, Sherlock, and I that is vital information.

We It’s not as if one parameter was going to say that Annie had been dead for 8 hours.

Because she had not been dead for 8 hours. She had been dead for three.

You say ‘less than an hour’ Fish? If I suggest that she might have been killed around 5.20 this would have been an hour and 10 mins after Phillips saw her (with variations in watch/clock times it might even have been 6.35 when he actually first touched the body which would give us 1 hour 15 minutes) Either way this means that Phillips might only have been 40-45 minutes out.

Is that really so unbelievable?

Honestly and frankly: yes. Remember that Phillips offered the 2 hour limit as an extreme and said it was probably longer. He would have been almost two hours out, going by what he actually believed. And how could she have been killed at 5.20 if Long saw her outside the yard at 5.30? And she was certain of the ID and the timings!
The answer is easy enough to me: Neither of these two witnesses could possibly have seen or heard Chapman. Thge police knew it, Cadosch knew it - and so he backpedalled. It is all very simple to me, Herlock. Once again, look at Eddowes - THAT is what to expect after 40-45 minutes.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

But your conclusion is based on the noise being Annie’s body falling against the fence. That would be problematic of course due to the time gap but I’ve suggested that the noise might have been made after Annie had been killed; by the killer performing the mutilations. Maybe he brushed an elbow or an arm against the fence? Possibly as he was changing his position?

If you think that is compatible with the following, fine.

AC: ... I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.

However, this must also be considered...

Phillips: There were about half a dozen small patches of blood on the wall at the back of the head, about eighteen inches from the ground, and on the palings, about fourteen inches from the ground, near the head, were smears of blood.

The smeared blood on the fence suggests Annie's already bleeding body has pressed against it.

As discussed in #39, this is a little odd though, as it suggests Annie was cut before she fell, and yet the only other blood at a distance from the body was the 6 or so small patches on the wall. Also, Annie seems to have been strangled. Also, there are bruises on her body...

Phillips: I noticed a bruise over the right temple. There was a bruise under the clavicle, and there were two distinct bruises, each the size of a man's thumb, on the fore part of the chest.

One or two of those bruises may have already existed, but the bruising on the chest sounds a lot like Stride...

Phillips: Over both shoulders, especially the right, from the front aspect under colar bones and in front of chest there is a bluish discolouration ...

This is surely not a coincidence.
How is this apparently two-handed pressure against chest (in both cases) compatible with the victim not crying out in pain?
How is he doing this and cutting the throat, and, in Chapman's case, strangling?
Doesn't the strangling make the pressure against the chest unnecessary, and what purpose does the chest pressure serve anyway?
If Chapman was cut before falling against the fence and smearing it with blood, where is the arterial spray?
If she is cut after falling, hasn't Jack first pulled her away from the fence to give himself room, and therefore why are there smears of blood on the fence, and, why is the blood on the wall at a higher level than the blood smears on the fence?

[Herlock Sholmes]

There you go again. How many times must I say that I donīt consider Phillips infallible before you accept it? Phillips was a man of huge experience, he had a solid reputation, and in that respect, he would probably have been less prone to make mistakes than a greenhorn doc. But he was of course not infallible!

However, what you need for his verdict to be wrong is for four (4) parameters that all pointed to an early TOD to all be wrong. Each and every one of them.

You need a woman who was cold to the touch but for a smallish remaining heat in the abdomen to have been dead for less than an hour.

You need rigor to have set in at an extremely early hour, although it would typically not set in until after two or three hours had passed, especially since the conditions were cold.

You need for the food in her abdomen to have been affected much more than it ought to have been after less than an hour.

And you need the blood to have dried up to a well clotted state, although we know that there was fluid blood serum close to Eddowes body three quarters of an hour after she died.

Itīs not a question about Phillips being infallible or not. He made these observations, and a fallibility on his behalf would have to comprise him mistakenly not have noticed that the body was warm, that rigor had actually not set in, that the food was not digested to any larger degree at all and that the blood was not well clotted but in actual fact quite soft under the surface.

That is what you need.

Now, please be honest enough not to lie about how I would have said that Phillips was infallible. I know that you want me to look like somebody who fanatically supports the doctor, no matter what, but that is just not true. So if we could elevate the discussion to a more honest level in this respect, I would be grateful. If not, I shall have to say that you do not think that witnesses can be wrong, come what may, and we will end up with an even more stupid debate than we already have. So please?

Thank you in advance.

Ok Fish, the Phillips infallibility was an exaggeration but you do seem reluctant to admit the possibility of error (again, not due to any incompetence on Phillips part)

I really can’t debate the specifics of medical evidence Fish because my knowledge of the subject is close to non-existent. All I can say is that someone that I trust highly and have the highest regard for his meticulousness in research tells me with confidence that Phillips could easily have got his timing wrong.

As for the four parameters all that I can say is that surely the outcomes were never going to vary much anyway? It’s not as if one parameter was going to say that Annie had been dead for 8 hours.

You say ‘less than an hour’ Fish? If I suggest that she might have been killed around 5.20 this would have been an hour and 10 mins after Phillips saw her (with variations in watch/clock times it might even have been 6.35 when he actually first touched the body which would give us 1 hour 15 minutes) Either way this means that Phillips might only have been 40-45 minutes out.

Is that really so unbelievable?

[Fisherman]

But your conclusion is based on the noise being Annie’s body falling against the fence. That would be problematic of course due to the time gap but I’ve suggested that the noise might have been made after Annie had been killed; by the killer performing the mutilations. Maybe he brushed an elbow or an arm against the fence? Possibly as he was changing his position?

Changing positions. Great idea. You should try it!

[Fisherman]

Which policeman/policemen were sceptical about Richardson?Name them,Fisherman,if you have proof that police were of that leaning.

Iīll try again: We do not have proof, we have circumstantial evidence pointing in this direction. The Star wrote that Richardson was disbelieved and we know that he was interrogated. If you want the christian names and surnames of those involved, I cannot help out on that score.

Individually,all three gave testimony that was not discredited by other witnesses.

That means absolutely nothing. They could have lied anyway. What a strange thing to say, we have no other witness saying that they were wrong...!

Richardson declared no body was in the yard at a certain time,Long gave evidence she saw a couple outside of 29 Hanbury Street,and Cadosch testified he heard a voice and sounds from nearby.

Yawn. And Cadosch and Long gave timings that told us that one or both were wrong. Regardless of the ever helpful Mr Baxter.

Totally different kinds of evidence,and none given in rebuttal against each other.

Eeeehhhh - check the timings, Harry. Itīs about time.

So circumstantially each gave evidence of a different occurance.and only as it applied to them.The contradiction of times is a different matter,and does not infer that one or all three must be lying,or even that we must accept that all three were linked to the murder of Chapman,but as it is the only evidence we have,none can be overlooked.

No, it is not the "only evidence we have". We have the medical evidence, based on four parameters.

If at first you donīt succeed, try, try again. But please keep me out of it, I have better things to do than to correct you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The main issue with Cadosch's testimony is the 3 or 4 minute gap between the 'no', and the apparent fall against the fence.
If it is assumed the 'no' was spoken by Annie, then we have to wonder what Jack is up to in the those few minutes.
It's now daytime - is he having a chat with her, before moving in for the kill?
Not exactly Jack be nimble, Jack be quick.

Alternatively, if the 'no' came from someone else at #29, then that person is obviously up and about when Jack and Annie arrive, but managed not to notice them.
Seems very unlikely.

The 'no' cannot have emanated from #29, which makes sense, as Cadosch gives no indication that the 'no' was spoken with any sort of emotion, or even that it was a female voice.

So it would seem that Jack and Annie have gone out through the back door, just prior to Cadosch going out of his.
Jack then gets straight to the point...

Grand work the last job was. I gave the lady no time to squeal.

But your conclusion is based on the noise being Annie’s body falling against the fence. That would be problematic of course due to the time gap but I’ve suggested that the noise might have been made after Annie had been killed; by the killer performing the mutilations. Maybe he brushed an elbow or an arm against the fence? Possibly as he was changing his position?

[harry]

Which policeman/policemen were sceptical about Richardson?Name them,Fisherman,if you have proof that police were of that leaning.
Individually,all three gave testimony that was not discredited by other witnesses.Richardson declared no body was in the yard at a certain time,Long gave evidence she saw a couple outside of 29 Hanbury Street,and Cadosch testified he heard a voice and sounds from nearby.Totally different kinds of evidence,and none given in rebuttal against each other.So circumstantially each gave evidence of a different occurance.and only as it applied to them.The contradiction of times is a different matter,and does not infer that one or all three must be lying,or even that we must accept that all three were linked to the murder of Chapman,but as it is the only evidence we have,none can be overlooked.

[Fisherman]

I'm sure that Herlock could supply as many cases where witnesses were found to be truthful,as others can where witnesses were found to be less so.

My personal conviction is that he - and anybody who tries - can actually provide many more truthful witnesses than liars. However, taken on their own, the number of liars who have taken part in various investigations, inquests and trials will be staggeringly high.

Doesn't help in deciding whether Richardson,Long,or Cadosch were honest.

No, it doesnīt. Each and every case is unique.

They could equally be as correct as they could be wrong,but they have one thing in their favour.Their evidence was/has never been challenged by evidence showing they were wrong.That included Phillips,who only gave opinion.

Hold your horses, Harry. No PROOF has been provided that tells us that the three witnesses were not truthful. However, the evidence as such contains information that Long and Cadosch, both very sure of their timings, contradicted each other, that Richardson was looked upon with great scepticism by the police and that Cadosch changed his testimony monumentally while making the walk from the cop shop to the inquest room. That means that we have circumstantial evidence that speaks against the veracity of the three.

[Fisherman]

I'm not so sure, Fish.

The Demjanjuk case is very complex and troubling and I'm not satisfied with the above summary. It's too glib and it's too certain of its own accuracy. There's a long documentary on the case on Netflix, well worth the watch, called "The Devil Next Door," that interviews at length both prosecutors and defense attorneys.

After the Israelis freed Demjanjuk, he was sent to Germany for a second trial, which produced convincing evidence that he was, in fact, an SS prison guard at Sobiborbut, but his link to Treblinka was impossible to prove. He was found guilty of war crimes, but was appealing the conviction at the time of his death.

All told, there is considerable uncertainty whether he was "Ivan the Terrible," but to flat-out state he was not at Treblinka and the memories of all the witnesses were wrong goes too far. If anyone disagrees, I encourage them to watch the documentary, and to study the case. It raises many troubling questions.

P.S. The witnesses in the Demjanjuk case were recalling events that happened decades earlier; it's not particularly analogous to the matter at hand.

That is true, and if you read my entire post, you would see that I said as much. The Richardson conundrum is not about an identification. I do not, however, accept the task of noticing dead people whenever they are around as the only parameter of the witness recognition field where nothing can go wrong and all bodies are always seen. It boils down to visibility and vigilance. Furthermore, I am perfectly convinced that the annals of history involves many a sad witness who has not been willing to accept any shortcomings at all on his or her own behalf, and who would readily have said "I could never have missed it" when indeed he or she could well have done so. And I KNOW that many witnesses in high profile cases simply lie to get a share of the buzz.
That is the point I am making. Or trying to make.