Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[Fisherman]

because its not that different and people realize memories arent perfect. cadosch statement is about innocuous as you can get and theres no reason to disbeleive him. unless of course, his testimony dosnt fit your theory.

"Like something suddenly touched the fence" and "a scuffle followed by a heavy fall against the fence and the ground exactly where the body was found"?

Not that different, Abby?

"A voice that could have come from anywhere saying 'No'" and "two people spekaing to the other in the corner of the backyard of No 29, whereupon the woman said 'No'"?

Not different?

I donīt think you should speak of his testimony being fitted to suit a theory when he gives THREE testimonies; in actual fact he fits many theories, itīs just a question of choosing which testimony you like. If you want to look at it in that fashion.
I have always said that he cannot have been right, just as Long cannot have been correct either. As it happens, Cadoschīs Lloyds testimony is exactly in line with what I have expected to surface, and so I should be congratulated, not castigated. Predicting things and getting it right is surely a good thing?

[Fisherman]

Cadosch, in his Inquest statement, expressed zero doubt about the origin of the noise.

Why did no one at the time notice or point out the difference between what he said to the police and what he said at the Inquest?

At least partly because the aim of the inquest was to establish the cause of death, and that could be established without Cadosch.

[Abby Normal]

Cadosch, in his Inquest statement, expressed zero doubt about the origin of the noise.

Why did no one at the time notice or point out the difference between what he said to the police and what he said at the Inquest?

because its not that different and people realize memories arent perfect. cadosch statement is about innocuous as you can get and theres no reason to disbeleive him. unless of course, his testimony dosnt fit your theory.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Cadosch, in his Inquest statement, expressed zero doubt about the origin of the noise.

Why did no one at the time notice or point out the difference between what he said to the police and what he said at the Inquest?

[Fisherman]

So the question is now ‘why the discrepancy?’

So there IS a discrepancy? Could it not be Cadosch describing the exact same thing in a slightly varying vocabulary...?

Now we can either, a) take the ‘Trevor’ route and immediately dismiss the statements as worthless because of the discrepancy, or b) make suggestions as to why this occurred?

Thatīs what Iīm doing, pointing out why it happened.

Ill run the risk of Fish telling me that I’m putting words into his mouth but I suggest the he will say that Cadosch made up the story but then decided to back-pedal when he was under oath at the Inquest?

Iīve already said so, so you are welcome.

I’m not dismissing this opinion of course but I don’t agree.

... come what may.

For example, if he just rolled back to the uncontroversial suggestion that the ‘no’ could have come from elsewhere why did he not do the same with the noise? “I heard a noise which I first thought came from number 29 but it could have come from anywhere really?”

He didnīt have to, after he had disarmed the heavy fall to the ground at the exact spot where Chapman was found, Herlock. The police had the murderer and Chapman doing the rounds replaced with a cat or a bird or a rat or anything else that decidedly NOT fell to the ground, it only "touched the fence quickly". They had gold and were handed ****.

What would would been the point of watering down the ‘no’ but remaining adamant about the noise? Why didn’t he go the whole hog?

No, no, no, no, Herlock - Cadosch was NOT adamant about the noise. If he had been adamant about the noise he had described, he would have said that it came from the corner of No 29, just where Chapman was found, that there was a scuffle first and then a heavy fall against the fence and ground.
Letīs not try and inject the idea that Cadosch was in any way whatsoever adamant. He was the least adamant witness you can imagine, right?

[Fisherman]

Hi, The Baron

There are two significant differences to this version of events which (IMHO) adds to its veracity:

1. Cadosch identifies where the voice and noises came from - I would expect that a voice and noise that close to the hearer could be fairly accurately located.
2. The voice was identified as female, something else I would expect Cadosch to identify.

If he wanted to make his story fit with events, he would have said this at the inquest, ensuring his five minutes of fame. He does the opposite and is as vague as he can possibly be. I am beginning to think Herlock may be correct in suggesting Cadosch became aware that the Doctor's TOD makes his experience unlikely, therefore he doubts himself and so he removes as much detail as he can.

Yes, Cadosch is very specific here, the voices and scuffle was not only coming from No 29, it was coming from the very corner where Chapman was found killed. The problem is, though, that Cadosch had entirely forgotten about all this detail and accuracy at the inquest! The same goes for the female voice.

I am having a hard time understanding how you think that two so very differing versions of the events would lend truthfulness to Cadosch. Basicall, altered testimony NEVER lends credibility to a witness, and when we can add how it would have been apparent to Cadosch that his he-man version would be severely questioned, his veracity flies out of the window never to returna again as fas as Iīm concerned.

He was an attention-seeker and a liar in my book.

Herlock tries to ironize over how I supposedly would think that all three witnesses were lying, implying that such a thing could not happen. Well, the Star tells us that the police thought that Richardson was not kosher, Swanson laments how Long seems not to have been giving a correct view of what went down, and now it seems that Cadosch was a real world Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde figure, as far as the testimony goes.

Maybe we should not write off the possibility that three witness in a high profile case actually MAY lie? Then again, I have never said that they were all liars. I have said that they were all WRONG, and you can be wrong on account of many things, one of them being making an honest mistake.

Cadosch, though, was anything but honest if you ask me.

[Fisherman]

"On coming back I heard some words which I did not catch, but I heard a woman say "No." Then I heard a kind of scuffle going on, and someone seemed to fall heavily on to the ground against the wooden partition which divided the yard, at the spot where the body was afterwards found"



He only needed to add this:


"I stopped and looked over the fence and saw Jack the Ripper cutting the poor woman."




Thats what happens when you want your story to fit with some events.




The Baron

Exactly so. It seems very much as if he tried his hardest to impress upon the police that he had overheard the murder. The Lloyds clipping is, if anything, much more in support of such a view than the press agency material.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi, The Baron

There are two significant differences to this version of events which (IMHO) adds to its veracity:

1. Cadosch identifies where the voice and noises came from - I would expect that a voice and noise that close to the hearer could be fairly accurately located.
2. The voice was identified as female, something else I would expect Cadosch to identify.

If he wanted to make his story fit with events, he would have said this at the inquest, ensuring his five minutes of fame. He does the opposite and is as vague as he can possibly be. I am beginning to think Herlock may be correct in suggesting Cadosch became aware that the Doctor's TOD makes his experience unlikely, therefore he doubts himself and so he removes as much detail as he can.

So the question is now ‘why the discrepancy?’ Now we can either, a) take the ‘Trevor’ route and immediately dismiss the statements as worthless because of the discrepancy, or b) make suggestions as to why this occurred?

Ill run the risk of Fish telling me that I’m putting words into his mouth but I suggest the he will say that Cadosch made up the story but then decided to back-pedal when he was under oath at the Inquest? I’m not dismissing this opinion of course but I don’t agree. For example, if he just rolled back to the uncontroversial suggestion that the ‘no’ could have come from elsewhere why did he not do the same with the noise? “I heard a noise which I first thought came from number 29 but it could have come from anywhere really?”

What would would been the point of watering down the ‘no’ but remaining adamant about the noise? Why didn’t he go the whole hog?

[etenguy]

"On coming back I heard some words which I did not catch, but I heard a woman say "No." Then I heard a kind of scuffle going on, and someone seemed to fall heavily on to the ground against the wooden partition which divided the yard, at the spot where the body was afterwards found"

He only needed to add this:

"I stopped and looked over the fence and saw Jack the Ripper cutting the poor woman."



Thats what happens when you want your story to fit with some events.

The Baron

Hi, The Baron

There are two significant differences to this version of events which (IMHO) adds to its veracity:

1. Cadosch identifies where the voice and noises came from - I would expect that a voice and noise that close to the hearer could be fairly accurately located.
2. The voice was identified as female, something else I would expect Cadosch to identify.

If he wanted to make his story fit with events, he would have said this at the inquest, ensuring his five minutes of fame. He does the opposite and is as vague as he can possibly be. I am beginning to think Herlock may be correct in suggesting Cadosch became aware that the Doctor's TOD makes his experience unlikely, therefore he doubts himself and so he removes as much detail as he can.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"On coming back I heard some words which I did not catch, but I heard a woman say "No." Then I heard a kind of scuffle going on, and someone seemed to fall heavily on to the ground against the wooden partition which divided the yard, at the spot where the body was afterwards found"



He only needed to add this:


"I stopped and looked over the fence and saw Jack the Ripper cutting the poor woman."




Thats what happens when you want your story to fit with some events.




The Baron

Events tell us that Richardson didn’t see a body because there was none there and that Cadosch heard a ‘no’ and sound which came from a yard where there was allegedly a mutilated corpse. Now of course you may prefer that the noise was a cat lumbering into the fence as he was trying to avoid getting blood on his paws (or possibly an escaped rabbit) and that the ‘no’ came from a ventriloquist who was practicing 40 yards away but I don’t. Or that any discrepancies are always due to sinister reasons.

And lets face it Baron we all know that your posting history is one of going for absolutely anything as long as it goes against what I think. If I said that I think the murders took place in London you would find some way of disagreeing just to stoke up an argument. Your comments are background noise.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hey Herlock

I am coming around to your way of thinking with regard to Cadosch. I think I have found a fuller explanation of what Cadosch witnessed, which if true, is more convincing. It appeared in the Lloyds Weekly News of 9 September. It also appears to be following a direct conversation between the reporter and Cadosch. The whole report of poor Annie's murder is quite detailed and seems accurate in terms of what we know about the murder. The reporter appears to have talked with a large number of locals, including Cadosch (though names him Cadosen). My two concerns/questions is why did Cadosch not say this at the inquest and also no note that it was two, not one, trip to the yard.

Why this wasn’t what he said at the Inquest is the big question. Obviously I have no conclusive answer. Fish will say that’s it’s just proof of his dishonesty but I think it’s more complex than that. I wonder if it might have been because he’d heard of the doctors TOD and he suspected that that he might have been accused of being a liar and so he toned it down to just a ‘no’ which might have come from elsewhere and just a noise which might have been something else?

[The Baron]

"On coming back I heard some words which I did not catch, but I heard a woman say "No." Then I heard a kind of scuffle going on, and someone seemed to fall heavily on to the ground against the wooden partition which divided the yard, at the spot where the body was afterwards found"



He only needed to add this:


"I stopped and looked over the fence and saw Jack the Ripper cutting the poor woman."




Thats what happens when you want your story to fit with some events.




The Baron

[etenguy]

Thanks for that Joshua. It appears to be a case of which of the detail changes from quote to quote are the real deal and which might be put down to things like mishearing or misinterpretation or writing what someone thinks was said because it appeared to have seemed logical at the time.

Hey Herlock

I am coming around to your way of thinking with regard to Cadosch. I think I have found a fuller explanation of what Cadosch witnessed, which if true, is more convincing. It appeared in the Lloyds Weekly News of 9 September. It also appears to be following a direct conversation between the reporter and Cadosch. The whole report of poor Annie's murder is quite detailed and seems accurate in terms of what we know about the murder. The reporter appears to have talked with a large number of locals, including Cadosch (though names him Cadosen). My two concerns/questions is why did Cadosch not say this at the inquest and also no note that it was two, not one, trip to the yard.

On visiting the house next door to the tragedy, 27, our representative saw Mr. Albert Cadosen, a carpenter, who resides there and works in Shoe-lane, Fleet-street. He says: I was not very well in the night and I went out into the back yard about 25 minutes past five. It was just getting daylight, and as I passed to the back of the yard I heard a sound as of two people up in the corner of the next yard. On coming back I heard some words which I did not catch, but I heard a woman say "No." Then I heard a kind of scuffle going on, and someone seemed to fall heavily on to the ground against the wooden partition which divided the yard, at the spot where the body was afterwards found. As I though it was some of the people belonging to the house, I passed into my own room, and took no further notice.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You certainly have to commiserate with the police in regard to the fact that the Chapman murder seems to have been a magnet for dishonest or incompetent witnesses. Three of them on such a vital
aspect of the case. The inconvenient Caroline Maxwell pales into insignificance.

I have to correct you on one thing Fish in that I didn’t conflate the ‘no’ with the ‘scuffle’ but with the noise against the fence.

When Cadosch said “a slight scuffle, with the noise of falling against the palings ” it’s no great leap to suggest that he might have felt that the noise was the result of a scuffle. By the time he’d spoken to the police he’d have known that the Whitechapel Murderer had struck again and that he’d probably heard him. So it’s entirely possible that he did get a little carried away by using the word ‘scuffle’ to suggest a reason for the noise. By the time of the Inquest he felt it wiser to just mention the noise rather than his explanation for it (a scuffle) Isn’t it also possible that he might have heard that his evidence contradicted the doctor? Adding to his reason for just mentioning what he’d heard (a noise) rather than it’s assumed cause (the scuffle?)

He also mentions the possibility of the neighbours being in the yard which again suggests that he believed that the ‘no’ didn’t come as a result of a one person incident but as part of a conversation.

When you speak to the police, you are not sworn in. Thus, you cannot perjur yourself.

When you are giving evidence at an inquest, you ARE sworn in, and you CAN perjur yourself

Would Cadosch have known that he apparently had free reign to make up anything when speaking to the police? Would he have never considered that he might have been called to appear at the Inquest?

I think that you’re making a mountain out of a molehill here Fish. How can it be so outrageously impossible that a man hears the word ‘no’ and assumes that it was in response to a question which implies 2 people. So he tells the police that he hears a ‘no’ as part of a conversation (which he assumed that it was)

A genuine question: did anyone at the time (police for eg) point out this discrepancy? Could this also have been pointed out to the Coroner (I don’t know how these occasions work?) Wouldn’t the Coroner have been interested that one of his witnesses have given testimony that varied from the testimony that he gave to the police?

Like the Richardson evidence, no one seemed to point out these discrepancies or mysteries. Weren’t they interested or bothered or did they have their explanations at the time but they were never made available?

[Fisherman]

Probably from a press agency reporter, as several papers carry essentially the same story with minor detail changes.
Mind you, the Star and Echo versions say he lived at no. 31 when at the inquest he said he lived at no.27 - what a liar the man was!

The rascal! Then again, maybe itīs simply a case of these papers getting the text "who lodges next door" and making the wrong guess, going for 31 instead of 27 for whatever reason? If so, I donīt think it means that we can dismiss the rest of the press agency material as obviously flawed or tendentious.