Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[Fisherman]

In essence he heard the word ‘no’ which implies that it was said to someone else. What would he have gained or lost by first mentioning unidentifiable words only to withdraw that part at the Inquest? It’s seems to me that it was nothing.

Hereīs the rub:

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.

Cadosh spoke to the police on the 8:th, at which remove in time John Richardson had not yet been subjected to a slow grilling over hot coals for having claimed that Chapman was not in the yard, while Phillipsīevidence said that he was wrong.

Cadosch spoke at the inquest on the 19:th, at which time Richardsons fate was well known. Ergo, if Cadosh had lied about the whole thing, he now needed to erase the parts of his testimony that spoke of him having overheard a conversation with two people involved, that spoke of him having heard a scuffle between two people, that spoke of him having heard these things in one unbroken sequence and the parts that put it beyond doubt that these occurrences were all overheard from the yard of No 29. In short, he needed to make his picture of having overheard the murder go away.

If Cadosch had persisted in this information, he stood to be treated rather harshly by the police. If he diluted away all information that pointed to him having heard what most likely was the murder in the backyard of No 29, replacing it with a version where he had no idea where what the one word he heard came from and where the fall against the fence that seemed to be the result of a scuffle is diluted into something, anything, suddenly touching the fence, he would instead steer clear of any possibility of the police putting the thumbscrews on him. And he would not be up for any accusations of perjury.

This is what he would have gained - and what he actually DID gain. He went from star witness to a confused, uncertain and very undetermined weather wane in the blink of an eye. And, as I say, it is the exact kind of thing I have been expecting to find.

[Fisherman]

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.

Here is how much the detail changed from quote to quote inbetween the various papers:

Albert Cadosch, who lodges next door, had occasion to go into the adjoining yard at the back at 5.25, and states that he heard a conversation on the other side of the palings, as if between two people. He caught the word "No," and fancied he subsequently heard a slight scuffle, with the noise of a falling against the palings, but thinking that his neighbours might probably be out in the yard, he took no further notice and went to his work. (Daily News)


Albert Cadosch, who lodges next door, had occasion to go into the adjoining yard at the back at 5.25, and states that he heard a conversation on the other side of the palings as if between two people. He caught the word "No," and fancied he subsequently heard a slight scuffle, with the noise of a falling against the palings, but, thinking that his neighbours might probably be out in the yard, he took no further notice, and went to his work. (Morning Advertiser)


Albert Cadosch, who lodges next door, had occasion to go into the adjoining yard at the back, and states that he heard a conversation on the other side of the palings as if between two people. He caught the word "No,' and fancied he subsequently heard a slight scuffle, with the noise of a falling against the palings, but thinking that his neighbours might probably be out in the yard he took no further notice and went to his work. (Manchester Guardian)

Are you suggesting that he spoke of a scuffle at the inquest too, but all the papers misquoted him at that remove in time? Or was he misquoted by the press agency reporter in the above quotes, that is to say, he perhaps never mentioned the scuffle and the reporter made it up for him?

Which is it, Herlock?

[Fisherman]

As Joshua points out, we will be looking at press agency material. If we want to, we can choose to believe that the reporter made up that Cadosch spoke of a scuffle, that he told his story as if it all happened in one sequence, that he overheard a conversation between two people and that the scuffle was followed by a fall against the fence.
I would strongly recommend that specifically you do not take such a course, though, because it would look like you are desperately trying to minimize the damage done by what is revealed by the press agency material.

Much of the reporting from the inquests and such matters is press agency related. So far, that has never meant that researchers have ruled it out on that behalf. Instead, it has been treated as any newspaper material, which is by and large wise; itīs source is a reporter, just as is the case with material exclusive to various papers.

We may regard it as established that the overall picture of what Cadosch told the police is a correct one, therefore.

Letīs have a look at your effort to disarm the material.

You seem to claim that if he said ‘I heard someone next door but all that I could make out was the word no”, that would be understood by the reporter as if Cadosch had spoken about a scuffle. Is that about correct?

You then write: "He also says ‘ a conversation....as if between two people.’ Would someone really need to add the last part? As opposed to a conversation with one person? And if he heard a ‘no’ then it’s obviously implied that more than one person was present. So why would he ‘lie’ as per the difference?"

You seem to be missing out on how a conversation can be had with two or MORE people. And it would of course be important for the police to establish this point, not least if they were fishing for whether it could have been the killer and Chapman that Cadosch had overheard.

What Cadosch could have "gained or lost" by telling the police that there was a conversation in which the word "No" occurred is a very odd thing to ask. If he heard voices from a conversation, but only could make out the word "No", then why would he not offer that exact information? Are you suggesting that he should have suppressed potentially important material, that he should have edited out the part that told the police that TWO, not one person were involved...?
You seemingly want to justify this odd advice of yours by saying that the police should have understood that there must have been more than one person involved, since the word "No" will have been said to somebody. But that is not true, is it? When I read a post like yours, I could go "No!", could I not? Similarly, anybody who enters a yard can see something that they are flummoxed by, like birdshit on the drying laundry, and go "No!".

And, of course, if there is a meeting going on in a backyard, the word "No" can be offered to ten people instead of just the one. Why would that not be crucial to know for the police?

Albert Cadosch offered a radically different story to the police on the 8:th than he did at the inquest eleven days later. This cannot be contested. The fact that he did so is in line with him having back-pedalled at the inquest out of a fear to perjur himself. He would have been very much aware of what happened to Richardson - and why.

This has a direct bearing on the two testimonies offered by Albert Cadosh, something that was clad in words many hundred years ago by Galilei: There cannot be two competing truths.

Personally, I am very inclined to distrust old Albert at this stage - and on eminent grounds.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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!

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.

I know that we can’t recreate what was actually said but what if Cadosch had actually said something like: ‘I heard someone next door but all that I could make out was the word no.” Which became the above. This would mean that there was no essential difference in his Inquest testimony.

He also says ‘ a conversation....as if between two people.’ Would someone really need to add the last part? As opposed to a conversation with one person? And if he heard a ‘no’ then it’s obviously implied that more than one person was present. So why would he ‘lie’ as per the difference?

In essence he heard the word ‘no’ which implies that it was said to someone else. What would he have gained or lost by first mentioning unidentifiable words only to withdraw that part at the Inquest? It’s seems to me that it was nothing.

[Joshua Rogan]

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!

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you consider this phrase some sort of dig, then you are wrong. It goes without saying that it is quite astounding when a poster accepts a 180 degree turn from a witness, no questions asked. What I am asking myself is that it will take for you to reconsider your absolute trust in Cadosch.

Much as you say you are not alone in believing in Cadosch, I think you may have to accept that part of those who shared that belief may have taken another course as a result of all of this. It would be remarkable if they did not. How anybody can take in how testimony is radically changed without allowing it to reflect in any way on the witness giving such information is beyond me.

Surely, SURELY, Herlock, you are aware that radically changing information between a police interview and an ensuing inquest MUST detract from the overall veracity of the testimony...?

PS. I donīt think you are incapable of judgement. If I did, I would not be baffled by your take on this particular matter. But I genuinely am, and it disappoints me.

eg Daily News 10 Sept
"Albert Cadosch, who lodges next door, had occasion to go into the adjoining yard at the back at 5.25, and states that he heard a conversation on the other side of the palings, as if between two people. He caught the word "No," and fancied he subsequently heard a slight scuffle, with the noise of a falling against the palings, but thinking that his neighbours might probably be out in the yard, he took no further notice and went to his work."

This quote posted by Joshua came from a newspaper Fish. We all know how when reading these quotes that differ in some ways that we are at the mercy of the person who wrote them. Errors come into it. Words can be added which the writer might have felt justified in thinking were implied by the witness. So the above might very easily have originally been the witness hearing a ‘no’ as if it was a response to a question which implies a conversation of sorts.
As we don’t have an original statement I think we’re on slightly shaky ground to make definite assumptions based on slight variations in text.

Im not a researcher Fish so I’ll ask you or anyone how the newspaper would have got this quote? They obviously wouldn’t have sat in on an interview.

[Fisherman]

Well Fish, I see that our resolution to hold back on the digs and insults lasted a matter of hours.



At least I’m not alone in being incapable of judgment. I have a few fellow incompetents who also don’t see Cadosch as an untrustworthy witness.

If you consider this phrase some sort of dig, then you are wrong. It goes without saying that it is quite astounding when a poster accepts a 180 degree turn from a witness, no questions asked. What I am asking myself is that it will take for you to reconsider your absolute trust in Cadosch.

Much as you say you are not alone in believing in Cadosch, I think you may have to accept that part of those who shared that belief may have taken another course as a result of all of this. It would be remarkable if they did not. How anybody can take in how testimony is radically changed without allowing it to reflect in any way on the witness giving such information is beyond me.

Surely, SURELY, Herlock, you are aware that radically changing information between a police interview and an ensuing inquest MUST detract from the overall veracity of the testimony...?

PS. I donīt think you are incapable of judgement. If I did, I would not be baffled by your take on this particular matter. But I genuinely am, and it disappoints me.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well Fish, I see that our resolution to hold back on the digs and insults lasted a matter of hours.

. If you really cannot see any issue with a witness who says A to the police and B to the inquest, then that says more about your capability to judge witnesses than it does about Cadosches veracity, Iīm afraid.

At least I’m not alone in being incapable of judgment. I have a few fellow incompetents who also don’t see Cadosch as an untrustworthy witness.

[Fisherman]

Any transcription errors or omissions, or differences in reporting or alternate wording are of course meat and drink for conspiracy theorist thinking (no I’m not calling you a conspiracy theorist btw Fish) but we are left to pick and choose which version to believe. And although we have to accept the obvious fact that witnesses can lie we can’t use this as a default position.

True. Then again, once we have very differing testimonies by the same source, we have left the default position behind and must adjust to the entire material.

Cadosch was an ordinary working man (and probably not a well educated one) it’s not a leap to suggest that he would have had very little contact with ‘officialdom’ and so I’d think that there would have been every chance of him being more that a little intimidated when faced with the police (possibly informing him that their doctor was telling him that Annie Chapman was already dead by the time he’d entered his yard) And so, for me, it’s hardly a surprise that he might have ‘back-pedalled somewhat in the face of those that would have been considered his ‘betters.’

Then again, those intimidated by the police tend to tell them the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And it was to the police he told his initial version, so at that stage he seemed not to be intimidated. it was only at the inquest, when faced with the risk of perjuring himself, that he faltered.
As I said, I have been expecting this all along, so to me, it came as a confirmation of those suspicions; very clearly, Cadosch could not have heard Chapman and so he must have either mistinterpreted someone else for her (and it is not likely to have happened, because that would put two people discussing, scuffling and falling against the fence of No 29 without noticing Chapman lying dead there), or he must have fed the police an incorrect story. The logical solution to the riddle is that Cadosch made his story up and got cold feet when Richardson was keelhauled by the inquest. I am not saying that I can prove that this was so, but it is how I see it - and on thoroughly good grounds, by now.

I really can’t see any issue with Cadosch as a witness. Could he have lied? Anything’s ‘possible’ be we only have the ‘15 minutes of fame’ reason which can be applied to any witness. Could he have heard the word ‘no’ but it came from elsewhere? I just can’t accept this. He was a very few feet away. The police would surely have checked the near neighbours and found no one who might have been originator of the word. Likewise the noise. So I’m as convinced as I can be that both came from number 29 and that they had to have been connected to Annie’s murder.

If you really cannot see any issue with a witness who says A to the police and B to the inquest, then that says more about your capability to judge witnesses than it does about Cadosches veracity, Iīm afraid.

As no new evidence is likely to surface I don’t see my opinion changing on this (as I don’t see yours changing either Fish) so we’re unlikely to advance.

I already HAVE advanced, Herlock. You are forgetting that.

If it can be suggested that, under certain circumstances, Richardson might have missed the corpse (which I’d say whilst not physically impossible but unlikely in the extreme) then I’d say that it’s not impossible (and far less unlikely) that Long was a mere 15 minutes out in her timing. And so if we accept the Richardson possibility then the Long possibility gives us three witnesses who tie up and confirm the later TOD.

Yes, if we choose to make an array of calls to that end and equally throw a lot of other material out that is in total conflict with the idea, we will effectively exclude any possibility that Chapman was killed at the same early hour as the others. Thatīs how it goes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Any transcription errors or omissions, or differences in reporting or alternate wording are of course meat and drink for conspiracy theorist thinking (no I’m not calling you a conspiracy theorist btw Fish) but we are left to pick and choose which version to believe. And although we have to accept the obvious fact that witnesses can lie we can’t use this as a default position.

Cadosch was an ordinary working man (and probably not a well educated one) it’s not a leap to suggest that he would have had very little contact with ‘officialdom’ and so I’d think that there would have been every chance of him being more that a little intimidated when faced with the police (possibly informing him that their doctor was telling him that Annie Chapman was already dead by the time he’d entered his yard) And so, for me, it’s hardly a surprise that he might have ‘back-pedalled somewhat in the face of those that would have been considered his ‘betters.’

I really can’t see any issue with Cadosch as a witness. Could he have lied? Anything’s ‘possible’ be we only have the ‘15 minutes of fame’ reason which can be applied to any witness. Could he have heard the word ‘no’ but it came from elsewhere? I just can’t accept this. He was a very few feet away. The police would surely have checked the near neighbours and found no one who might have been originator of the word. Likewise the noise. So I’m as convinced as I can be that both came from number 29 and that they had to have been connected to Annie’s murder.

As no new evidence is likely to surface I don’t see my opinion changing on this (as I don’t see yours changing either Fish) so we’re unlikely to advance.

If it can be suggested that, under certain circumstances, Richardson might have missed the corpse (which I’d say whilst not physically impossible but unlikely in the extreme) then I’d say that it’s not impossible (and far less unlikely) that Long was a mere 15 minutes out in her timing. And so if we accept the Richardson possibility then the Long possibility gives us three witnesses who tie up and confirm the later TOD.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Wouldn’t this have made a much harsher sound and one that would have been easier for Cadosch to have recognised ?

A wooden door swinging against a wooden fence?
I would have thought that would have made a rather woody 'tonk'.

Whatever the case, that hypothetical I gave can't be right, as the 'no' and apparent fall against the fence are of course a few minutes apart.
I guess I'm just curious as to why Cadosch saw and heard so little.

Plus, wouldn’t he have noticed the open door over the top of the fence?

I think the possibility of the door reaching the fence is only about 50:50 - which by the way is quite a bit better odds than Diemschitz' whip handle reaching Stride's body, when perched up on top of his barrow - but to answer your question; no - Cadosch is not very observant or curious...

AC: It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.
WB: Did you look to see what it was?
AC: No.
...
WB: And you had not the curiosity to look over?
AC: No, I had not.

This doesn't sound like a man who would have noticed the top of a door edge extended as far as the fence.
However, I can't understand why Cadosch heard nothing else, and saw nothing at all.
Let's suppose when he walks outside the second time, the murder is being committed - Jack is strangling Annie, and she eventually falls against the fence.
Does she fall high or low on the fence? High would make it shake around a bit I would suppose, and maybe push a few palings out of alignment - low not so much.
Here is some evidence in that regard...

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.

So there are smears of blood on the palings about a foot above ground level.
If she were strangled, fell against the fence, and then cut while against the fence, Cadosch was just metres away (but only one yard ha ha) when the cut occurs, but hears nothing other than the fall, and sees nothing either above or between the palings.
Did Jack actually wait until Cadosch had gone back inside before continuing?
Geez this guy's got nerves of steel!

Phillips: I noticed that the throat was severed deeply, and that the incision through the skin was jagged.

A jagged cut is compatible with a body awkwardly slouched against a fence.
On the other hand, what explains the small patches of blood on the wall behind the head? Arterial spray?
How far from the wall was Annie's head then?

Phillips: The head was about 6in in front of the level of the bottom step, and the feet were towards a shed at the end of the yard.

So that's quite a jump for the blood to make.
Is that compatible with the body being low and against the fence when initially cut?
What about the approximate height of the blood above ground, on wall and fence respectively?

Fence: 14"
Wall: 18"

So did the arterial spray shoot upwards from a height of about 14", and land 4" higher, on the back wall, but nowhere else?
Alternatively, was Annie cut while standing? Surely not, because she was strangled, right?

[Fisherman]

The picture is a very consequent one, though. I think it sounds very much like Cadosch backpeddled so that he could not be accused of perjury.

Backpedaled. Not backpeddled!

[Michael W Richards]

Well the question is moreso did the noise that Cadosch hear have anything to do with the murder? He was certain he had heard a voice say 'no' and something then fall against the fence. We of course will never know for certain that it had any connection to Annie Chapman's death but my own opinion is that it was. Not sure though what that does for the case as we know Annie Chapman was murdered in the back yard of 29. It may give us an accurate time of death certainly but not much else?

By the timing given for hearing that voice, it can ONLY have something to do with the murder. If Cadosche can be believed...which I personally have no issues with...then the person he hears is either Annie or her killer. Since many reports suggest he heard a womans voice, likely Annies voice. The time this occurs leaves virtually no doubt whether someone else entered the yard with Annie after the "voice" left, theres not enough time for everything to transpire, and the later the kill, the more puzzling Phillips estimate becomes. If the kill is made just after the voice, there is about 45 minutes for mutilation before a physician is onsite. Phillips himself acknowledges his estimate could be incorrect due to the bodys condition and the cool morning air.

What Cadosche says is that when he was going inside he heard that voice...and as Ive said in other posts on other threads, that means he was just a few from that fence. Thats why he said he believed it came from the yard of #29. Knowing that it was within the realm of possibility that voices carry and in the dark he could have been mistaken, he said "believed". Since we KNOW that Annie and someone were in that yard that same morning, if Richardson is truthful about there being no body when he was there, to suggest Cadosche actually heard something from the other side of the fence on the other side of the yard would leave you with 2 events happening within minutes of each other, from over the fences on both sides of the yard. Not probable.

[Fisherman]

The problem is that you, and others, keep assuming (and again, very conveniently so) that the only suggestion for the noise was Annie falling against the fence. Whereas the noise could quite easily have been the killer brushing a shoulder or an elbow against the fence whilst performing the mutilations or whilst re-positioning himself. The gap between the ‘no’ and the noise might support this suggestion.

But Cadosch did not speak of any sudden touch in his police interview. There, it WAS a fall. It seems it is only when he realizes that the police can prove the idea of a late TOD wrong that he paints things in very diferent colors. And it is disastrous for him as a witness.

Cats are very light and not known for there clumsiness Fish. Would Cadosch have really heard a cat brushing against a fence? Surely he’d have needed the hearing of an antelope? Wind? You can’t be serious Fish?

Cats jump. My cat, Figo, weighs in at around seven kilogrammes (not every cat is very light at all, Herlock), and believe me, I hear him loud and clear when he jumps off the sofa. Antelopes jump too, but they do not belong to the British fauna. But as I say, I donīt think Cadosch heard anything at all, I think he made it up.

[Fisherman]

eg Daily News 10 Sept
"Albert Cadosch, who lodges next door, had occasion to go into the adjoining yard at the back at 5.25, and states that he heard a conversation on the other side of the palings, as if between two people. He caught the word "No," and fancied he subsequently heard a slight scuffle, with the noise of a falling against the palings, but thinking that his neighbours might probably be out in the yard, he took no further notice and went to his work."

This is sounds like your trying to explain away the inconvenient Fish. This is Cadosch simply linking the noise to a scuffle.

Why is it that he does not mention that scuffle at the inquest, though? It would be of pivotal interest. Itīs more or less the unique selling point if he wanted to say that he overheard the murder.

As we often read testimony transcribe with differences why should this one be dismissed. If Cadosch had heard about Phillips TOD estimate this might have induced a level of caution. Might not the police, believing Phillips, have been telling him that he must have been wrong? This might explain his additional caution at the Inquest. It’s noticeable that there’s no doubt mentioned about the origin of the ‘no.’

Regardless of what was the reason for his very much altered story, I think defending your stance of him being the perhaps best witness we have has become impossible. And trying to clear away from a phony story fits like a glove. And it sits perfectly with the medical evidence as per Phillips, evidence Cadosch would have been unaware of on the evening of the 8:th.
I always like explanations that cover the whole field.

The fact that he linked the ‘no’ to the noise show that his initial thought was that the ‘no’ came from number 29 and an initial impression I’d say is most likely to have been correct. Then if the police hit him with “well the doctors telling us she was already dead.” They succeed in putting doubts about the ‘no’ but he remains confident about the noise.

He would be a wimp if he changed his mind like that. If he was truthful (which I do not believe by now) he could easily have said that "I know the police think she was already dead, but to the best of my knowledge, I really did hear two people talking, I really heard somebody saying "No" and it was followed by a scuffle and a fall against the fence. I assure you that I am not lying."

Instead he runs for shelter. Thatīs game over for me.