Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Apart from Long being impossible to take seriously, she also causes us to too easily suppose that Jack and Annie must have entered #29, together.

Another major exaggeration. She might have been mistaken of course but ‘impossible to to seriously?’ Come on. Unless you take Phillips as gospel then Long has to be at least considered.

So what do we have?

Richardson a lying, part-time bouncer who placed himself at the scene of a murder with a knife in his hand.
Mrs Richardson, packing case maker and Pink Pussycat Madam.
Elizabeth Long, inconvenient passing fantasist.
Cadosch, a carpenter who couldn't distinguish between 5’6” and 4’ who is suspicious because he didn’t peer over a neighbours fence.
Police so mind numbing my dumb that they didn’t notice that the cellar lock couldn’t be seen from the step or that unless there was a dwarf convention going on anyone could have been seen over the fence with no effort required.

Whats next?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. They were talking pretty loudly. I overheard him say to her "Will you?" and she replied, "Yes." That is all I heard, and I heard this as I passed. I left them standing there, and I did not look back, so I cannot say where they went to.

You said “and when she looked in there direction a second time.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

. WB: You have been there at all hours of the night?
JR: Yes.
WB: Have you ever seen any strangers there?
JR: Yes, plenty, at all hours - both men and women. I have often turned them out. We have had them on our first floor as well, on the landing.
WB: Do you mean to say that they go there for an immoral purpose?
JR: Yes, they do.

Quit being naïve, people. John didn't go to #29 to check the padlock - several residents could have managed that trivial task, either alone or collectively.
John was really there to turf out unwanted people - he was effectively the part-time bouncer.

Why would Richardson be turning out potential customers for The Pink Pussycat Club in his moms cellar?

It’s not naivety to believe that Richardson was there to check the cellar it’s that we have zero reason to doubt him. The ‘why didn’t she get someone else to do it’ is irrelevant. How can we know? She didn’t tell Richardson to check the cellar he did it anyway. How is a son being concerned about his mothers livelihood unbelievable?

[Herlock Sholmes]

But when you call in a medical expert why is it that some choose to ignore that expert opinion?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It’s different to understand Trevor. After all experts have never been wrong have they.

[Fisherman]

But when you call in a medical expert why is it that some choose to ignore that expert opinion?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I think we may both suggest an explanation to that one, Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

If you call in a leading expert om matters medical to give an opinion, then what you get is an expert opinion. It is a very good example of what expert opinions are about.

But when you call in a medical expert why is it that some choose to ignore that expert opinion?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Phillip's evidence as to time of death was opinion.There is insufficent evidence to show it was expert opinion,normally the required level in a serious crime case.Of course the wording of his testimony stands,and cannot be ignored,but by the same token,the testimony of Richardson,Long,and Cadosch stands and cannot be altered or ignored.All in the eyes of the law were witnesses,of equal standing,and unless they had at the time, proved to have been lying,the witness Phillips's evidence cannot be classed as superior,nor should it.

EL at the inquest...

They were talking pretty loudly. I overheard him say to her "Will you?" and she replied, "Yes." That is all I heard, and I heard this as I passed. I left them standing there, and I did not look back, so I cannot say where they went to.

Here's another account, in the Echo Sep 13...

The police have received some important information as to the hour at which the crime was committed, and the possible neighbourhood of the murderer.

A woman named Durrell has communicated with the authorities in reference to these points. She originally made a statement to the effect that at about half past five o'clock on the morning of the murder she saw a man and a woman conversing outside of No. 29 Hanbury street, the scene of the murder, and that they disappeared very suddenly. She was taken to the mortuary yesterday, and there she identified the body of Chapman as that of the woman whom she saw in Hanbury street. If this identification can be relied upon, it is obviously an important piece of evidence, as it fixes with precision the time at which the crime was committed, and corroborates the statement of John Richardson, who went into the yard at a quarter to five, and has consistently and persistently declared that the body was not then on the premises. Davis, the man who first saw the corpse, went into the yard shortly after six o'clock. Assuming, therefore, that the various witnesses have spoken the truth - which there is not the slightest reason to doubt - the murder must have been committed between half past five and six o'clock and the murderer must have walked through the streets in almost broad daylight without attracting attention, although he must have been at the time more or less stained with blood. This seems incredible, and it has certainly strengthened the belief of many of those engaged in the case that the murderer had not far to go to reach his lodgings.

By 'disappeared very suddenly', she means she wasn't really paying attention to the couple, and when she looked in their direction a second time, they had departed. The famous "Will you?" - "Yes" is just something she made up to add a bit of theatrical flair.

Apart from Long being impossible to take seriously, she also causes us to too easily suppose that Jack and Annie must have entered #29, together.

Mrs. Richardson: The only possible clue that I can think of is that Mr. Thompsons's wife met a man about a month ago lying on the stairs. This was about four o'clock in the morning. He looked like a Jew, and spoke with a foreign accent. When asked what he was doing there, he replied he was wanting to do a 'doss' before the market opened. He slept on the stairs that night, and I believe he has slept on the stairs on other nights. Mrs. Thompson is certain she could recognise the man again both by his personal appearance and peculiar voice.

If this is 'our man', it might half explain why Amelia heard no one come in, that morning.

[DJA]

Reckon we need John West.

[Fisherman]

Now that this thread has descended into the usual throwing of horse manure, meaningless sidetracking and recurring obfuscation of the real issue at hand, maybe the time has come to put an end to it?

Thoughts, suggestions?

[Fisherman]

Phillip's evidence as to time of death was opinion.There is insufficent evidence to show it was expert opinion,normally the required level in a serious crime case.Of course the wording of his testimony stands,and cannot be ignored,but by the same token,the testimony of Richardson,Long,and Cadosch stands and cannot be altered or ignored.All in the eyes of the law were witnesses,of equal standing,and unless they had at the time, proved to have been lying,the witness Phillips's evidence cannot be classed as superior,nor should it.

If you call in a leading expert om matters medical to give an opinion, then what you get is an expert opinion. It is a very good example of what expert opinions are about.

I canīt believe that you need to have that explained to you.

No, wait, I was a bit rash there. I actually CAN believe that you need to have that explained to you.

[Fisherman]

For all we know it could have been The Guild Of Swedish Journalists.

No, it could not. It could only have been the British police. What your ingenious Danish friend has noticed is that the word police is actually not part of the quotation I made. What he does not mention is that it is of course out of the question that it was anybody else. The quotation is embedded in news about what the police thought and said, and it is headed "Police Meet and are Mysterious", and there can be no realistic doubt about the source.

But this is the level of discussion you are ready and willing to stoop to. Me, I avoid it; I havenīt got any experience of such antics, and so I will quickly be outgunned by those who master the discipline to perfection.

Unless you want to press the idea further that it WAS the Nottingham guild of tin foil hats, I suggest we try to elevate the level of this discussion somewhat. Then again, you seem to loose out on all levels...?

[Fisherman]

It’s equally irresponsible to assume that they couldn’t be guilty of elaboration.

I cannot for the life of me see where anybody suggests that they couldnīt. Can you?

The problem, however, is that we have not one, not two BUT THREE sources that all speak of a scuffle (they all use that exact word), a heavy fall against the fence and a woman saying "No" or "No, no".

If, as you fear, these journalists and papers all separately decided to frame Albert Cadosch and exagerrate what he said, wouldnīt you say that it is of that they all came up with the exact same wording and the exact same scenario? If they were as elaborative and inventive as you lead on, would they not be likely to come up with different scenarios and wordings? Why is it that one paper does not suggest that the woman cried "Please no!", another that she said "Donīt kill me!" and the third that she gave up a bloodcurdling scream? If they want to exaggerate, then why not do it proper?

Iīd like to hear your explanation for this total consistency inbetween the alleged exaggerations, Herlock. You see, in my world, we can rule out any such suggestio. when we have three concurring sources. Apparently this is not so in YOOUR world, and I am dying to hear how you reason about it.

[DJA]

Considerable doubt is being thrown on the evidence of NotBlamedForNothing

Yep.

He's all at sea on this one.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

My initial hunch would be 'bone idleness' followed by a total lack of toss' given about it by Richardson.

But the real question is how are you factoring in this apron with Madame Richardson's high class massage parlour?

The theory:

Seemingly irrelevant subjects or details raised or provided by a witness, are not (somewhat paradoxically) irrelevant.

The Foreman said it would be desirable to know something more about a leather apron which the witness had casually referred to in her previous evidence as having been worn by her son and washed by her.

So either the foreman or someone in the jury was curious as to why Amelia had casually referred to the leather apron.

[Coroner] Did you say anything about a leather apron? - Yes, my son wears one when he works in the cellar.
The Coroner: It is rather a dangerous thing to wear, is it not?
Witness: Yes. On Thursday, Sept. 6, I found my son's leather apron in the cellar mildewed. He had not used it for a month. I took it and put it under the tap in the yard, and left it there. It was found there on Saturday morning by the police, who took charge of it. The apron had remained there from Thursday to Saturday.
[Coroner] Was this tap used? - Yes, by all of us in the house. The apron was on the stones.

So she retrieved the mildewed apron from the cellar, and left it under the tap. This information is irrelevant to the inquest, and so the theory says that it is relevant.
If you don't like the theory, at least wonder why someone would place a molding apron under a tap, and leave it there.

Chandler: There was a leather apron, lying in the yard, saturated with water. It was about two feet from the water tap.

Here's another example...

WB: Have you ever washed your son's apron?
AR: Yes, sir; I washed it last Thursday, because I found it in the cellar mildewed. He had not used it for a month. We are so slack. I put it under the tap in the yard and left it there till Saturday morning, when the police took it away. There was a pan of beautiful clean water under the tap on Saturday morning about half-past seven, after the body was moved. It could not have been disturbed. It was in the same position as on Friday night.

A beautifully clean pan of water that could not have been disturbed overnight?
Was she asked about the pan of water near the tap? No - there is no apparent relevance - therefore, the opposite is probably true.

It would seem the Ripper rinsed his bloodied hands in the water pan, before leaving.
So how could the pan end up with clean water in it, by the time Chandler arrived?

Baxter: You spoke of some liquid having been thrown over her. Did you notice any water or anything?
James Kent: I could not tell what it was.

Baxter: Could you see she was dead?
James Kent: Yes; she had some kind of handkerchief round her neck which seemed "soaked" into her throat. Her face and hands were smeared with blood, as if she had struggled. She looked as if she had been sprinkled with water or something. I did not touch her.

[harry]

Phillip's evidence as to time of death was opinion.There is insufficent evidence to show it was expert opinion,normally the required level in a serious crime case.Of course the wording of his testimony stands,and cannot be ignored,but by the same token,the testimony of Richardson,Long,and Cadosch stands and cannot be altered or ignored.All in the eyes of the law were witnesses,of equal standing,and unless they had at the time, proved to have been lying,the witness Phillips's evidence cannot be classed as superior,nor should it.