Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Hi Al,

Cadosch was cautious about the ‘no’ though but not the noise. Apologies if I’m being slow but you appear to be saying what Trevor does “subject to dismissal due to his caution?”

Basically Cadosch is saying “well maybe I could have been wrong about the ‘no’ but not about the noise.” I think caution is commendable and indicative of honesty. Basically if I said “ the capital of **** is x but I’m not sure about it but I’m sure that the capitol of Italy is Rome,” by Trevor’s logic my suggestion of the capitol of Italy is unreliable. That can’t be the case?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi Al,

Cadosch was cautious about the ‘no’ though but not the noise. Apologies if I’m being slow but you appear to be saying what Trevor does “subject to dismissal due to his caution?”

Basically Cadosch is saying “well maybe I could have been wrong about the ‘no’ but not about the noise.” I think caution is commendable and indicative of honesty. Basically if I said “ the capital of **** is x but I’m not sure about it but I’m sure that the capitol of Italy is Rome,” by Trevor’s logic my suggestion of the capitol of Italy is unreliable. That can’t be the case?

Sorry Herlock,

The "No" is the caution, he was sure of the noise, but the noise is unprovable, so it leaves us with the voice, and that's always going to be the thing of contention.

Sorry, im aware I'm not always clear on things, I struggle with putting thoughts into text. I personally think Cadosch is reliable, he's no other interest in misleading anyone. If I was to explore why anyone might question his testimony, it's that uncertainty. It's an open door to inquisitiveness. The noise could be anything, the "no" has to be a voice. If it came from 29, that settles much. But he's uncertain.

The noise can't be proved, the "no" is up for debate because Alb was uncertain. That's essentially my view. Cadosch isn't dismissed for his uncertainty, it's his accepted doubt. Fair enough.

If what your asking is "do current speculators dismiss him for his caution?", that's a different question.

If your asking if I dismiss him, no, not at all, but I get why people would.

[Sunny Delight]

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?

[etenguy]

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?

Absolutely - and the time of death can be important when considering potential suspects. Richardson's testimony is key here, but so is Cadosch. The question the OP is trying to answer is whether we can rely on Cadosch, speculating that since he was willing to be uncertain about where the voice saying 'no' originated he can be considered more reliable than those unwilling to admit what they are not sure of. I agree that this talks to Cadosch's honesty and integrity, but it also brings into question whether what he heard was connected to the murder (at least as far as the voice was concerned).

[Fisherman]

What Cadosch said was, according to the DT:
"While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly. "

Chandler was asked about the fence and described it as temporary and slight. It sounds to me as if that fence would have been greatly impacted if a woman fell against it. A sudden touching of the fence is not likely to have been Chapman falling against it in my world. Moreover, there were no further sounds, no rustling of clothes, no thump of a body falling onto the ground, no nothing.

Does that sound like a five foot woman with a broad frame falling against that slight fence?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Absolutely - and the time of death can be important when considering potential suspects. Richardson's testimony is key here, but so is Cadosch. The question the OP is trying to answer is whether we can rely on Cadosch, speculating that since he was willing to be uncertain about where the voice saying 'no' originated he can be considered more reliable than those unwilling to admit what they are not sure of. I agree that this talks to Cadosch's honesty and integrity, but it also brings into question whether what he heard was connected to the murder (at least as far as the voice was concerned).

Hi Eten,

Then is have to ask what was the alternative? I’ve asked this a few times and no one has attempted an answer. If Annie Chapman was lying dead in that yard by the time that Cadosch heard the ‘no’ and the sound. Who uttered the ‘no’ and who or what made the sound?

[Herlock Sholmes]

What Cadosch said was, according to the DT:
"While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly. "

Chandler was asked about the fence and described it as temporary and slight. It sounds to me as if that fence would have been greatly impacted if a woman fell against it. A sudden touching of the fence is not likely to have been Chapman falling against it in my world. Moreover, there were no further sounds, no rustling of clothes, no thump of a body falling onto the ground, no nothing.

Does that sound like a five foot woman with a broad frame falling against that slight fence?

A ‘sort of’ fall against the fence and something touching the fence suddenly. These were just ways of trying to describe a sound. So the sound didn’t have to be Annie falling against the fence. It could have been the killer brushing a shoulder against the fence.

[Joshua Rogan]

I like to think the noise of something hitting the fence was the killer being startled at someone in the next yard walking past yet AGAIN!
He probably had the sense to keep quiet after that though, until he was sure Albert had left.
Or maybe that's what rattled him, and he decided to call it a day, hence Annie not ending up like Kate.

[Joshua Rogan]

Incidentally, for what it's worth, here is the report of Cadosch's story from the 10th, pre inquest.

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."

[etenguy]

Hi Eten,

Then is have to ask what was the alternative? I’ve asked this a few times and no one has attempted an answer. If Annie Chapman was lying dead in that yard by the time that Cadosch heard the ‘no’ and the sound. Who uttered the ‘no’ and who or what made the sound?

Hey Herlock

I want what I can't have. I want to ask Cadosch about the voice(s) he heard and while the only word he remembers is NO, how much more was there - talking all the time he was in the yard, an argument, more than two voices, was there a woman's voice included. That would help us so much to come to a view as whether he was hearing Annie and the killer, especially as he wasn't sure from which yard the voice(s) came. Why didn't the police or papers ask him about this? Or maybe the police did but we don't have a record of his answers. Did anyone (the police) ask the other neighbours if there was anyone in the yard at that time? Surely they must have done. But if they did, we don't know what they found out. So we are left not knowing where the voice(s) came from and it could have been people in the neighbour yard on the other side.

The noise against the fence, Cadosch is more certain of. If it was a person, then surely it must be either Annie or her killer. If it was an animal then my bet would be a cat trying to fence jump, I think urban foxes were not so common then. Dogs fence jump too, but I don't know that there were stray dogs at that time. I guess its possible.

Given there were voices before the fence noise, it would be natural to think the two noises ( voice(s) and fence sound ) were connected. And you'd think Cadosch would make that connection. Yet he doesn't, he's not sure where the voice(s) come from despite his proximity to number 29's yard. Does that mean he thought the voice(s) came from a different yard but having heard the fence noise is thinking that maybe they both came from no. 29?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

What Cadosch said was, according to the DT:
"While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly. "

Chandler was asked about the fence and described it as temporary and slight. It sounds to me as if that fence would have been greatly impacted if a woman fell against it. A sudden touching of the fence is not likely to have been Chapman falling against it in my world. Moreover, there were no further sounds, no rustling of clothes, no thump of a body falling onto the ground, no nothing.

Does that sound like a five foot woman with a broad frame falling against that slight fence?

No, it does not.

Furthermore, why didn't Cadosch see anything?
The fence was about 5'6", quite possibly with gaps between the palings.
Perhaps both Jack and Albert were shorties?

I'm still wondering - could the door have been wide enough and have enough rotation for the door knob/handle edge to have touched the fence, when pushed open as far as possible?
That would be more compatible with something touching the fence, than would Annie's largish frame crashing into it.

Hypothetically, could someone have discovered the body prior to Davies, and pushed the door wide open to get a better view, said "No" (in disbelief), closed the door and fled the scene?
That might explain why Cadosch saw nothing, and was unsure of the direction of the 'no' - it was spoken from partly inside #29, so the direction was ambiguous.

[Fisherman]

Hi Eten,

Then is have to ask what was the alternative? I’ve asked this a few times and no one has attempted an answer. If Annie Chapman was lying dead in that yard by the time that Cadosch heard the ‘no’ and the sound. Who uttered the ‘no’ and who or what made the sound?

As has been pointed out, Cadosch could not say from where the "no" came, so that parameter is off the table. The remaining one is the sudden touching of the fence, the "sort of fall", and to me, it does not sound anything like Chapmans body crashing into it. A cat chasing a rat, a bird flying too low, something leaning against the fence falling to the ground, a sudden gust of wind - or Cadosch either maiking it up or his fantasy playing a prank on him? Any one of those, perhaps?

[Fisherman]

A ‘sort of’ fall against the fence and something touching the fence suddenly. These were just ways of trying to describe a sound. So the sound didn’t have to be Annie falling against the fence. It could have been the killer brushing a shoulder against the fence.

That would have been more in line with the character of the sound as described by Cadosh. Then again, why would anybody hearing somebody touching a fence think that the sound came from a fall...?
We can discuss this for the longest time, and we will not be able to identify the sound. However, predisposing tnhat Chapman lay dead in the yard since before 4 AM does not mean that no other phenomenon could have been at play, making the sound. It is not as if the sound rules out that Chapman could have been killed in the early morning hours.
And at this stage, I read Joshuas post, and I recommend you read my post 29!

[Fisherman]

Incidentally, for what it's worth, here is the report of Cadosch's story from the 10th, pre inquest.

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."

That sounds much more like Chapman and her killer having a wrestling match, resulting in Chapman being thrown to the ground. I would even say that it seems to me as if Cadosch was trying to conjure up that exact picture.
So one has to ask oneself what happened at the inquest...? Why did he not mention the scuffle, understanding as he must have, that this factor pointed very much to an overhearing of the killer subduing Chapman? And why did he change the fall to a "sort of fall", with no subsequent rustling of clothes, and no thud against the ground? Why did he describe it as one sequence, only to divide it up in two at the inquest? And, not least, why did he suddenly introduce the possibility that the "no" could have come from number 25 and not from 29?

If I was to make a suggestion, hereīs one that readily offers itself up:

Cadosch never heard either any "No" or any fall against the fence. He made it up for whatever reason (one such reason would be a desire for fifteen minutes of fame). He told porkies to the police on the 9:th, thinking that nobody would be likely to prove him a liar.
Then the inquest began, Richardson went on the stand on the 13:th - and found himself in all sorts of trouble with the police, who - according to the Star - did not buy his story about being able to deny Chapmans presence in the yard at 4.45. Richardson was even put on the suspects list, and subjected to great pressure, and that all boiled down to how Phillips estimation, based on many parameters, made mincemeat of Richardsons story in the eyes of the police.

And there was Albert, having fed the police a story that not even was Chapman alive at 4.45, she was supposedly alive and not kicking, but falling, at 5.20! So what to do? Well, one solution would be to detract the parts of the story that pointed to him being more or less sure of having overheard the murder, and instead offer a diluted version where the "No" need not have come from No 29 and where the fall turned into a sudden smallish thud that could have been anything.

Call me cynical, but I think we may begin to see what it was that really went down. Itīs not as if I am going to be able to prove it, but this is the EXACT kind of thing I have always expected to be the case.

[etenguy]

That sounds much more like Chapman and her killer having a wrestling match, resulting in Chapman being thrown to the ground. I would even say that it seems to me as if Cadosch was trying to conjure up that exact picture.

Or the journalist was. I think it may be a bit of journalistic licence in summarising what Cadosch had said.