Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve started this thread because the Richardson’s View thread is in danger of being sent off topic (by myself as much as anyone) on the subject of Cadosch.

The title is in response to a opinion by Trevor that Cadosch is an unreliable witness but it’s mainly to do with Trevor’s thinking behind this claim that Cadosch is unreliable that I’m concerned with so I’d like to hear other viewpoints.

We all know the story. Cadosch first heard the word ‘no’ which he felt came from number 29 but he qualified this by saying that it might have come from elsewhere. He then heard a noise of something brushing against the fence between numbers 27 and 29. He expressed no doubt about this.

My first point is, since when was caution in a witness a detrimental quality? Enough to say that any further statements by him cannot be trusted?

His first impression was that the ‘no’ came from number 29 and he was less than 6 feet away. I’d suggest that far more often than not a first impression would be correct. Surely the pice would have checked the other houses too and been told that no one was in those yards so how far away could this ‘no’ have been but still sounded like a couple of feet away.

The ‘no’ was out of the blue but after that Cadosch was aware that someone might have been in next doors yard. So the noise might have been less of a surprise. He showed no doubt at all that it came from number 29.

So, does the fact that Cadosch expressed caution about the ‘no’ possibly after been pressed on the subject render his confident assertion about the noise unreliable?

I certainly don’t think so but I’d be interested in all views.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi Herlock,

I can't see how this thread will differ greatly from your "was Cadosch a reliable witness?" thread, but they always end up going in the same sort of directions.

In keeping with the question, I'd say it's not so much a discrediting, more an evaluation of his uncertainty. If any witness said they were unsure, it naturally invites questioning what they said. So I think it's fair to open that to interpretation.

In this case, if Cadosch said he was absolutely sure, would we still have the questions around TOD? Yes. So we have to fit it in with everything else.

I don't think his uncertainty affects his integrity, I don't believe he was misleading or lying. But, by virtue of being uncertain, he accepts he might be wrong. So if he believed he might have been mistaken, however slightly, then we're entitled to examine that uncertainty.

Should it be taken in isolation? No, not if we want to get a fuller picture. Cadosch had no idea about Long and Richardson, so his statement isn't influenced by them, but the overall scene is. We have the luxury of seeing it all (ish) and can evaluate his integrity, but I don't think it's solely his honesty that discredits him, if anything does. However, if someone needed to discredit him, he's fair game, because he wasn't sure himself. I imagine in a modern trial, a witness would be dismembered by the opposing counsel along the same lines.

To sum up, I don't think he's discredited for being honest, he invites questioning for not being sure. But we can see the fuller picture, so it's how we interpret his place. Should we discredit him, or take him at face value or above?

[Kattrup]

It doesn’t. The problem is that some posters think the way to approach the sources is that of police/prosecutor: will this hold up in court? Can doubt be thrown on it? What kind of critical questions should be asked?
Which is all well and good if one is involved in an active case, where one has access to interviewing the witnesses, hearing their own words, observing their body language etc.

We, however, are discussing a historical case, therefore a police approach is useless. Moaning about how the coroner failed to ask the right questions gets us nowhere.

[Simon Wood]

For Cadosch's story to have any evidential value, Mrs. Long's story must be closely examined.

And so must Wynne Baxter's construction of events.

[etenguy]

Hi Herlock

I can find no reason to doubt Cadosch told the truth. I wish he had said more about what he heard, a faint no, a scream, a shout, a man's voice, a woman's voice. I assume there was nothing alarming about the word 'No' as he heard it or else he would have said so. So I infer that it was not part of a murderous attack (but couldn't say that with certainty). So my take is he heard someone say no somewhere close by but he's not sure where from. Maybe from the yard next door. Nothing about the word alarmed him.

On his second visit he said he heard something bang against the fence and this time he said it was the fence between 27 and 29. I believe him - there's no reason not to. What banged against the fence we don't know. If it was by human agency, I think the majority would say it was Annie or her killer, anyone else, we hope, would have shouted 'murder' or reported Annie's body and we have no record anyone did. But it was one bang against the fence and no other sounds reported. No sounds of struggle or anyone hitting the floor. So was it part of a murderous attack? Maybe. More noises might help us be more confident it was.

If it was not by human agency, what was it - an animal? A dog maybe? No idea if stray dogs were common in the area, but even if they were I don't find that very convincing. I don't know what he heard, I guess if pushed I would have to say it was more likely to be Annie or her killer, but I think it would be hard to explain why he didn't other sounds if there was an attack taking place.

[Simon Wood]

How can Cadosch's story hold any water, when, five minutes after his auditory encounter with the fence, Annie Chapman was seen on Hanbury Street by Mrs. Long?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

How can Cadosch's story hold any water, when, five minutes after his auditory encounter with the fence, Annie Chapman was seen on Hanbury Street by Mrs. Long?

Well, that's the thing though. Was Long totally reliable? Could she have been mistaken? There's two possible interpretations of her address, either would have her hearing the brewery clock at the quarter hour based on her walk to market. Unless we can make her timing concrete. And that's before identifying Annie.

That doesn't confirm Alb, but what are the criteria for favouring one witness over another?

JeffHamm did alot of bone picking on this matter, he's worth a shout if he wants to get back in the subject. Cadosch was uncertain, Long was sure, both could have been mistaken.

[Kattrup]

How can Cadosch's story hold any water, when, five minutes after his auditory encounter with the fence, Annie Chapman was seen on Hanbury Street by Mrs. Long?

Elementary: His story can hold water if his auditory encounter had nothing to do with Chapman’s murder.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Or Long was 15 minutes out on her timing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The point I was trying to make was about Trevor’s reasoning. It’s his belief that because Cadosch showed caution when talking about the ‘no,’ then his mention of hearing the noise against the fence is unreliable. This makes no sense.

[Simon Wood]

Whichever way you cut the cake, in order to make one witness right, the other witness has to be wrong.

Brilliant.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, that's the thing though. Was Long totally reliable? Could she have been mistaken? There's two possible interpretations of her address, either would have her hearing the brewery clock at the quarter hour based on her walk to market. Unless we can make her timing concrete. And that's before identifying Annie.

That doesn't confirm Alb, but what are the criteria for favouring one witness over another?

JeffHamm did alot of bone picking on this matter, he's worth a shout if he wants to get back in the subject. Cadosch was uncertain, Long was sure, both could have been mistaken.

But Cadosch wasn’t uncertain about the noise. And to be honest Al, for me, the chances of someone hearing a word from however many yards away and mistaking them for a word from 2 or 3 feet away (as was his first impression) is virtually non-existant. He was cautious about which side it came from 29 or 31 or 23 or 25. The police surely checked neighbours. That only leaves 29, a yard with a dead body. He never says “well I suppose it could have come from 14 houses away.” I think his first instinct was correct.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Whichever way you cut the cake, in order to make one witness right, the other witness has to be wrong.

Brilliant.

They could all be wrong. They could all be liars. Do we dismiss all witnesses?

[Simon Wood]

They could indeed.

Personally, as their testimonies were at such odds with each other, I'd dismiss them both and draw a line under this irreconcilable conundrum.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

But Cadosch wasn’t uncertain about the noise. And to be honest Al, for me, the chances of someone hearing a word from however many yards away and mistaking them for a word from 2 or 3 feet away (as was his first impression) is virtually non-existant. He was cautious about which side it came from 29 or 31 or 23 or 25. The police surely checked neighbours. That only leaves 29, a yard with a dead body. He never says “well I suppose it could have come from 14 houses away.” I think his first instinct was correct.

Hi Herlock,

I'm not disputing your view, as was covered in your other thread I don't think Alb should be discredited outright. The noise is debatable, until the end of time. "No" not so, but his own uncertainty is what opens him up to debate. I'm trying to stick to your OP, I don't think his caution is reason to discredit him, but it's enough to question him. I think his instinct is correct, I think Richardson was correct.

Dismissed for being cautious? No, subject to dismissal due to his caution? Yes.