Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[Fisherman]

Another pointless post. I’ve always accepted that witness can be mistaken. Unlike the infallible Dr Phillips

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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

[harry]

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

[rjpalmer]

Thereīs of course also the Demjanjuk case, where another dead certain five witnesses were wrong:

"Professor Wagenaar, a psychologist, says in the introduction to his book that he will limit himself to the analysis of one identification, that of John Demjanjuk, an Ukrainian immigrated to the United States, as Ivan the Terrible, who killed thousands of people in the infamous Treblinka concentration camp.
Five people testified in court unanimously that they were sure that John was Ivan; none testified there that he was NOT Ivan. Nevertheless, Wagenaar dismounts those identifications one by one as unreliable. After a painstaking analysis, he comes to the surprising conclusion that John was probably not Ivan after all. At any rate, Wagenaar proves that because the testimonies of the witnesses were obtained in wrong and uncontrolled ways, they should be not admitted as veritable identifications but rather as after-the-facts concordances.
The court believed the witnesses above Wagenaar and condemned John to death; however, after this book was written, uncontestable evidence surfaced that proved Wagenaar's tentative conclusion: John was not Ivan, so the witnesses were all wrong even when they were so convinced on the contrary. Israel's Supreme Court admitted this later evidence and acquitted John."

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thereīs of course also the Demjanjuk case, where another dead certain five witnesses were wrong:

"Professor Wagenaar, a psychologist, says in the introduction to his book that he will limit himself to the analysis of one identification, that of John Demjanjuk, an Ukrainian immigrated to the United States, as Ivan the Terrible, who killed thousands of people in the infamous Treblinka concentration camp.
Five people testified in court unanimously that they were sure that John was Ivan; none testified there that he was NOT Ivan. Nevertheless, Wagenaar dismounts those identifications one by one as unreliable. After a painstaking analysis, he comes to the surprising conclusion that John was probably not Ivan after all. At any rate, Wagenaar proves that because the testimonies of the witnesses were obtained in wrong and uncontrolled ways, they should be not admitted as veritable identifications but rather as after-the-facts concordances.
The court believed the witnesses above Wagenaar and condemned John to death; however, after this book was written, uncontestable evidence surfaced that proved Wagenaar's tentative conclusion: John was not Ivan, so the witnesses were all wrong even when they were so convinced on the contrary. Israel's Supreme Court admitted this later evidence and acquitted John."

Of course, identifying people is another thing than looking at backyards and missing out on dead bodies lying around, so it is hard to find an apt comparison. Somebody posted one case earlier that was a good parallel, where somebody had missed out on a person that should have been noticed.
The more relevant thing to ask why it would be likelier to get four medical parameters wrong in the exact same fashion, all of them pointing to a TOD at least two hours away than it would be that three witnesses where we KNOW that the police mistrusted at least one of them, where we KNOW that this witness was recorded as saying A to Chandler and B to Baxter, where we KNOW that two contradicted each other in terms of chronology and where we KNOW that one altered his testimony in a massive way, diluting away every safe pointer to having overheard the murder.

In terms of quality, Iīd say that much as no mistake at all is or can be proven in the case of Phillips verdict, a significant number of goof-ups is already on record for the witnesses.

Maybe we should rest our cases there? Your case seems in dire need of a rest.

Another pointless post. I’ve always accepted that witness can be mistaken. Unlike the infallible Dr Phillips

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, I am very envious of how you are never biased. Why is it just me...?

You are wrong. Again. Ask that researcher if he or she has an example of a doctor getting four parameters in line - and being wrong. You seem to avoid that question?

I’m currently not able to contact him but I’ll be able to sometime in the near future.

One, two, three, four inaccurate parameters though? It’s like asking if I can find an example of someone that rolled 4 double sixes. Inaccurate is inaccurate is inaccurate.

Its impossible to debate with someone that repeatedly says that however unlikely that Richardson missed the corpse it’s not impossible and that we should at least accept the possibility and yet, in the case of Phillips (who we know was employing unreliable methods), you assume the position that he couldn’t have been wrong.

My neck aches from trying to debate with a man who is permanently on a high horse. You expect others to accept possibilities in the sake of ‘fairness’ but this obviously doesn’t include you.

I agree that this is going nowhere though.

[Fisherman]

Thereīs of course also the Demjanjuk case, where another dead certain five witnesses were wrong:

"Professor Wagenaar, a psychologist, says in the introduction to his book that he will limit himself to the analysis of one identification, that of John Demjanjuk, an Ukrainian immigrated to the United States, as Ivan the Terrible, who killed thousands of people in the infamous Treblinka concentration camp.
Five people testified in court unanimously that they were sure that John was Ivan; none testified there that he was NOT Ivan. Nevertheless, Wagenaar dismounts those identifications one by one as unreliable. After a painstaking analysis, he comes to the surprising conclusion that John was probably not Ivan after all. At any rate, Wagenaar proves that because the testimonies of the witnesses were obtained in wrong and uncontrolled ways, they should be not admitted as veritable identifications but rather as after-the-facts concordances.
The court believed the witnesses above Wagenaar and condemned John to death; however, after this book was written, uncontestable evidence surfaced that proved Wagenaar's tentative conclusion: John was not Ivan, so the witnesses were all wrong even when they were so convinced on the contrary. Israel's Supreme Court admitted this later evidence and acquitted John."

Of course, identifying people is another thing than looking at backyards and missing out on dead bodies lying around, so it is hard to find an apt comparison. Somebody posted one case earlier that was a good parallel, where somebody had missed out on a person that should have been noticed.

The more relevant thing to ask is why it would be likelier to get four medical parameters wrong in the exact same fashion, all of them pointing to a TOD at least two hours away than it would be that three witnesses were wrong, three witnesses where we KNOW that the police mistrusted at least one of them, where we KNOW that this witness was recorded as saying A to Chandler and B to Baxter, where we KNOW that two contradicted each other in terms of chronology and where we KNOW that one altered his testimony in a massive way, diluting away every safe pointer to having overheard the murder?

In terms of quality, Iīd say that much as no mistake at all is or can be proven in the case of Phillips verdict, a significant number of goof-ups is already on record for the witnesses.

Maybe we should rest our cases there? Your case seems in dire need of a rest.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is one for you Herlock, and only because you deserve it!


"IN 1984 KIRK BLOODSWORTH was convicted of the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl and sentenced to the gas chamber—an outcome that rested largely on the testimony of five eyewitnesses. After Bloodsworth served nine years in prison, DNA testing proved him to be innocent"


https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-eyes-have-it/


Read it, and see for yourself why we need science, even if it was in its early stage.


I will leave you for now, pondering hopelessly how you can counter this one!


Five eyewitnesses Herlock, count them, one, two, three, four, ... FIVE!





The Baron

Like yourself that quote is completely irrelevant. Witnesses can be wrong so what? There have been occasions where crowds of people have been wrong it doesn’t prove that these particular witnesses were wrong.

Should I take advice from the man that felt that Richardson had hair hanging over his one good eye and a body twisted to the right.......errr....nope.

[The Baron]

I wonder what the odds are of three such vital witnesses on the same issue, who’s testimony could have such an important effect on our interpretation of the case, could all have been liars or mistaken.


I know which version I tend to favour.

This is one for you Herlock, and only because you deserve it!


"IN 1984 KIRK BLOODSWORTH was convicted of the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl and sentenced to the gas chamber—an outcome that rested largely on the testimony of five eyewitnesses. After Bloodsworth served nine years in prison, DNA testing proved him to be innocent"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/

Read it, and see for yourself why we need science, even if it was in its early stage.


I will leave you for now, pondering hopelessly how you can counter this one!


Five eyewitnesses Herlock, count them, one, two, three, four, ... FIVE!





The Baron

[Fisherman]

You do get angry when you’re disagreed with Fish.

Yes, Iīd say you are very much better at staying cool, calm and composed.

I’ll leave you to it for the time being. You were proven wrong time and time again on the other thread yet you kept on using misinformation and you kept on wriggling as always.

Show me and the boards one example of me misinforming, please. You really should not lie about these things, itīs unbecoming.

I trust the person that was researching for me over you any day in the week so if he tells me that you were categorically wrong then that’s good enough for me. Your bias is written larger than the childish NO.

Yes, I am very envious of how you are never biased. Why is it just me...?

You are wrong. Again. Ask that researcher if he or she has an example of a doctor getting four parameters in line - and being wrong. You seem to avoid that question?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You do get angry when you’re disagreed with Fish. I’ll leave you to it for the time being. You were proven wrong time and time again on the other thread yet you kept on using misinformation and you kept on wriggling as always.

I trust the person that was researching for me over you any day in the week so if he tells me that you were categorically wrong then that’s good enough for me. Your bias is written larger than the childish NO.

[Fisherman]

Of course it is because you very conveniently base all of your judgments on Phillips.

There is nothing at all convenient with basing my take on Phillis. He had FOUR parameters that were ALL in sync with an early TOD. If anything, it is convenient in the extreme to just surmise that they all misfired - and with the exact same result! They ALL - misleadingly - pointed to an early TOD, at least two hours removed. But no, letīs not care about that, letīs just say that they were all unrelaibe and coincidentally happened to show the same result.

It has been shown, by experts in the field, that the methods that he was using were UNRELIABLE. You adopt a mocking tone as ever Fish but it’s this absolute certainty in Phillips which deserves mockery.

Show me one expert who says it was to be expected that the four parameters would all get it wrong in the exact same way, and your raving about "experts" suddenly gets interesting. I have no wish to once again go over all the misinterpretations you made last time, providing faulty material, totally and painfully misunderstanding the information and then bragging about how you had proven me wrong. Itīs too sad an experience to put a thinking person through twice. I deserve better.

In a case that occurred 130 years ago and where we are so reliant on the press and where there are quite naturally things that we don’t have conclusive explanations for it’s very easy to draw convenient conclusions. (Did Mizen tell the truth or Lechmere and Paul - naturally it’s Mizen for you)

No, not naturally. After having looked at all the evidence and assessed it, itīs Mizen for me. After NOT having looked at all the evidence and after having misassessed it, itīs Lechmere for you.

To doubt that Richardson wasn’t on that step is pretty laughable.

Why? It seems you have a very different kind of humor than many out here.

That he could have missed the body is unlikely in the extreme without accepting the ludicrous.

You have no problem whining over how I am "mocking you", but you think it is a good idea to claim that it is "ludicrous" to accept physical laws?

I don’t think that Cadosch lied for a minute.

Nor do I. I think he lied for much longer than so.

The ‘15 minutes of fame’ argument is the ultimate get out clause I’m afraid.

So get out.

Your adherence to the falsehood of Phillips infallibility detracts massively from the already unlikely suggestion that Richardson, Cadosch and Long all lied or were mistaken (stupidly so in Richardson’s case)

Wrong again. I donīt think that Phillips was infallible, do I? I think he was thorough, since he knew quite well that one parameter only could be fallible. So he checked FOUR parameters (that we know of), and they were all in line. The one thing that is not in line is your ability to understand this. You so desperately want to believe in the most fallible commodity of them all, amateur witnesses in a high profile murder case that you cannot see the simplest of logic. Thatīs your problem, and if you want it, you can have it. Just donīt disrespect that people disagree.

Witnesses over doctors dodgy TOD.

As if the witnesses were not dodgy. Dear me. Can you show me one (1) single case where all four parameters were in sync the way they are in this case - and nevertheless wrong? Iīll answer for you, and you wonīt need any more "experts":
NO!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course it is because you very conveniently base all of your judgments on Phillips. It has been shown, by experts in the field, that the methods that he was using were UNRELIABLE. You adopt a mocking tone as ever Fish but it’s this absolute certainty in Phillips which deserves mockery.

In a case that occurred 130 years ago and where we are so reliant on the press and where there are quite naturally things that we don’t have conclusive explanations for it’s very easy to draw convenient conclusions. (Did Mizen tell the truth or Lechmere and Paul - naturally it’s Mizen for you)

To doubt that Richardson wasn’t on that step is pretty laughable. That he could have missed the body is unlikely in the extreme without accepting the ludicrous. I don’t think that Cadosch lied for a minute. The ‘15 minutes of fame’ argument is the ultimate get out clause I’m afraid.

Your adherence to the falsehood of Phillips infallibility detracts massively from the already unlikely suggestion that Richardson, Cadosch and Long all lied or were mistaken (stupidly so in Richardson’s case)

Witnesses over doctors dodgy TOD.

[Fisherman]

Has it ever been known in this case for the press to have exaggerated in any way?

Yes, it has. But generally speaking, they donīt. And there is nothing to suggest they did this time either. On the contrary; both the press agency material and the Lloyds material is both of pretty much the same character. A character that is wildly different from that poor old Albert produced in front of coroner Baxter.

In a case where most don’t go with absolutes but accept that we have to try and assess likelihood’s it’s interesting that you repeatedly use words like ‘cannot’ when talking about whether a witness was correct or not. It appears Fish that your approach to assessing witnesses begins from a starting point of “Dr Phillips cannot possibly have been wrong.” From that starting point any witness, no matter what their inherent strengths or weaknesses, must have been wrong or lying in your eyes?

If they said that they saw or heard Annie Chapman alive at 5.30, yes, I am of the meaning that they must have lied. There is no room for them having been truthful. Phillips had four parameters in sych for a TOD at least two hours removed, and that seals the deal. No matter what "inherent strengths or weakness" the witnesses stand for. I donīt believe in resurrection.

Before Joshua posted that quote of an early press report of a statement by Cadosch I’d always said that I found zero fault with Cadosch’s testimony.

You even went as far as to name him the best witness of the entire case, Herlock.

This statement obviously leaves us with an unanswered question. Why is this now cause for triumphalism?

Triumphalism? I am very content that I have something to show for my long held belief that Cadosch and Long were incorrect, and I am happy about it. So sorry if it annoys you.

I’ll repeat Fish that I’m certainly not calling you a conspiracy theorist but it’s that kind of thinking.

Aha. So you would not call me a conspiray theorist, you only say that I think like one?

Any error, an discrepancy, any alternative spelling, any difference is immediately regarded as of a sinister nature.

Immediately? May I remind you that I have held this view for decades? And why would I not entertain the very possible option that it WAS of a sinister nature, given the immense backpedalling Cadosch performs once it has become known that the police are not buying Richardsons story? It all fits like a glove, so whatīs your problem?

So the possibilities from my point of view (others may suggest more)..

This should be fun ...

Cadosch lied at first and then back pedalled because he was worried about testifying under oath at the Inquest.

Hey there - thatīs MY view! Good to see it top the list!!

(He could have told the police that he’d made it up and avoided being called of course.)

Yes, he could, but there was supposedly a punishment for obstructing police work. Iīm sure somebody out here can tell me. Anyways, the way he diluted his testimony, he made sure that he could not get in trouble over it, right?

Maybe the press exaggerated what Cadosch actually said in the earlier interview?

The press agency and Lloyds alike? And BOTH spoke of a scuffle, not mentioned at the inquest? And BOTH spoke of a female speaking? And BOTH spoke of him having overheard a conversation? And BOTH ...

Nah, Herlock. Not with two sources, complimenting each other.

Cadosch exaggerated in the earlier interview but he still heard the ‘no’ and the noise.

And if he lied to the police, why not lie to the inquest? If he wanted to be believed, that would be how to go about it. Are you suggesting that he had second thoughts, and wanted to be clear and precise at the inquest, whereas he had massively exagerrated the affair at the police interview? If so, how are we to know that we can put trust in him at all? Like I say, he has burnt his ships when it comes to veracity. Even if he HID do it this way, how on earth can we trust him? It could just as well be the other way around, he heard nothing and made it all up. Thatīs the thing about witnesses like these.
He is out. With a bang.

Cadosch was truthful in the earlier interview but he’d then learned about the Doctors TOD. He didn’t wish to appear either a liar or an idiot at the Inquest so he removed the added detail to allow for another interpretation of what he’d heard.

See the above answer.

Maybe the police put pressure on him not to contradict the experts?

Not at the original interview. And they will reasonably have known Phillips view at that stage. So it would be a very odd change of heart. And Cadosch is the one having heart changes here. Transplantations, as it were.

~~~

I wonder what the odds are of three such vital witnesses on the same issue, who’s testimony could have such an important effect on our interpretation of the case, could all have been liars or mistaken.

Extremely high. In two of the cases, there can be no reasonable doubt (which is why I am so very content about having found the early testimony Cadosch delivered), and in the third, we know full well that the police seemingly would have nothing of Richardsons testimony. I can see the point you are trying to make, but I keep saying and have said all along that witnesses are not nearly as credible as medical evidence resting on four legs, the way Phillipsīevidence did. I consider Baxter a first class clown for his approach to the evidence, but I am acutely aware that he would have felt that he patched things up as best as he could. It was nevertheless a disaster, involving a blatant lie about how Phillips would have allowed for just about any TOD. He never did.
We are dealing with a VERY high profile case, THE most high profile case in criminal history, arguably. We should expect heaps of "witnesses" that were anything but truthful.

Richardson was allegedly 2 feet or less from an horrifically mutilated corpse and yet he didn’t understand that she ‘might’ have been behind the door.

That predisposes that Richardson was where he said he was, to begin with, and that is by no means proven. But it IS proven that the door could hide Chapman from many angles. And if it did, the level of horror involved in the mutilations matters not a iot.

Cadosch was a very few feet from the fence but he either lied or was hallucinating.

Yes, that is spot on - IF he was ever in the yard, that is. We simply donīt know, but we DO know that his timings are in total conflict with Longs. And BOTH were 100 per cent sure of the timings, something that Baxter did not care about at all.

And Long walked straight past a possible Annie and her possible killer. A man and a woman (who unluckily looks like Annie), in the early morning, just happen to stop for a chat outside the scene of a murder.

And Annie and her killer had just arrived back out after having rehearsed the murder in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street. With a one-man audience.

I know which version I tend to favour.

And I know on what grounds. Which is why I have a much different take on things, going for the police view, the medicos view and the logical view. It does not invoke much trust in human nature, but being what it is, why would I trust it in the first place?
This is as far as we are going to get, methinks.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Has it ever been known in this case for the press to have exaggerated in any way?

In a case where most don’t go with absolutes but accept that we have to try and assess likelihood’s it’s interesting that you repeatedly use words like ‘cannot’ when talking about whether a witness was correct or not. It appears Fish that your approach to assessing witnesses begins from a starting point of “Dr Phillips cannot possibly have been wrong.” From that starting point any witness, no matter what their inherent strengths or weaknesses, must have been wrong or lying in your eyes?

Before Joshua posted that quote of an early press report of a statement by Cadosch I’d always said that I found zero fault with Cadosch’s testimony. This statement obviously leaves us with an unanswered question. Why is this now cause for triumphalism? I’ll repeat Fish that I’m certainly not calling you a conspiracy theorist but it’s that kind of thinking. Any error, an discrepancy, any alternative spelling, any difference is immediately regarded as of a sinister nature. So the possibilities from my point of view (others may suggest more)..

Cadosch lied at first and then back pedalled because he was worried about testifying under oath at the Inquest.

(He could have told the police that he’d made it up and avoided being called of course.)

Maybe the press exaggerated what Cadosch actually said in the earlier interview?

Cadosch exaggerated in the earlier interview but he still heard the ‘no’ and the noise.

Cadosch was truthful in the earlier interview but he’d then learned about the Doctors TOD. He didn’t wish to appear either a liar or an idiot at the Inquest so he removed the added detail to allow for another interpretation of what he’d heard.

Maybe the police put pressure on him not to contradict the experts?

~~~

I wonder what the odds are of three such vital witnesses on the same issue, who’s testimony could have such an important effect on our interpretation of the case, could all have been liars or mistaken.

Richardson was allegedly 2 feet or less from an horrifically mutilated corpse and yet he didn’t understand that she ‘might’ have been behind the door.

Cadosch was a very few feet from the fence but he either lied or was hallucinating.

And Long walked straight past a possible Annie and her possible killer. A man and a woman (who unluckily looks like Annie), in the early morning, just happen to stop for a chat outside the scene of a murder.

I know which version I tend to favour.