Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

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. 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.’

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

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.

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?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Wouldn’t this have made a much harsher sound and one that would have been easier for Cadosch to have recognised ? Plus, wouldn’t he have noticed the open door over the top of the fence?

[Fisherman]

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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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!

[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?

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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!