Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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!

The rascal! Then again, maybe itīs simply a case of these papers getting the text "who lodges next door" and making the wrong guess, going for 31 instead of 27 for whatever reason? If so, I donīt think it means that we can dismiss the rest of the press agency material as obviously flawed or tendentious.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You certainly have to commiserate with the police in regard to the fact that the Chapman murder seems to have been a magnet for dishonest or incompetent witnesses. Three of them on such a vital
aspect of the case. The inconvenient Caroline Maxwell pales into insignificance.

I have to correct you on one thing Fish in that I didn’t conflate the ‘no’ with the ‘scuffle’ but with the noise against the fence.

When Cadosch said “a slight scuffle, with the noise of falling against the palings ” it’s no great leap to suggest that he might have felt that the noise was the result of a scuffle. By the time he’d spoken to the police he’d have known that the Whitechapel Murderer had struck again and that he’d probably heard him. So it’s entirely possible that he did get a little carried away by using the word ‘scuffle’ to suggest a reason for the noise. By the time of the Inquest he felt it wiser to just mention the noise rather than his explanation for it (a scuffle) Isn’t it also possible that he might have heard that his evidence contradicted the doctor? Adding to his reason for just mentioning what he’d heard (a noise) rather than it’s assumed cause (the scuffle?)

He also mentions the possibility of the neighbours being in the yard which again suggests that he believed that the ‘no’ didn’t come as a result of a one person incident but as part of a conversation.

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

Would Cadosch have known that he apparently had free reign to make up anything when speaking to the police? Would he have never considered that he might have been called to appear at the Inquest?

I think that you’re making a mountain out of a molehill here Fish. How can it be so outrageously impossible that a man hears the word ‘no’ and assumes that it was in response to a question which implies 2 people. So he tells the police that he hears a ‘no’ as part of a conversation (which he assumed that it was)

A genuine question: did anyone at the time (police for eg) point out this discrepancy? Could this also have been pointed out to the Coroner (I don’t know how these occasions work?) Wouldn’t the Coroner have been interested that one of his witnesses have given testimony that varied from the testimony that he gave to the police?

Like the Richardson evidence, no one seemed to point out these discrepancies or mysteries. Weren’t they interested or bothered or did they have their explanations at the time but they were never made available?

[etenguy]

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.

Hey Herlock

I am coming around to your way of thinking with regard to Cadosch. I think I have found a fuller explanation of what Cadosch witnessed, which if true, is more convincing. It appeared in the Lloyds Weekly News of 9 September. It also appears to be following a direct conversation between the reporter and Cadosch. The whole report of poor Annie's murder is quite detailed and seems accurate in terms of what we know about the murder. The reporter appears to have talked with a large number of locals, including Cadosch (though names him Cadosen). My two concerns/questions is why did Cadosch not say this at the inquest and also no note that it was two, not one, trip to the yard.

On visiting the house next door to the tragedy, 27, our representative saw Mr. Albert Cadosen, a carpenter, who resides there and works in Shoe-lane, Fleet-street. He says: I was not very well in the night and I went out into the back yard about 25 minutes past five. It was just getting daylight, and as I passed to the back of the yard I heard a sound as of two people up in the corner of the next yard. On coming back I heard some words which I did not catch, but I heard a woman say "No." Then I heard a kind of scuffle going on, and someone seemed to fall heavily on to the ground against the wooden partition which divided the yard, at the spot where the body was afterwards found. As I though it was some of the people belonging to the house, I passed into my own room, and took no further notice.

[The Baron]

"On coming back I heard some words which I did not catch, but I heard a woman say "No." Then I heard a kind of scuffle going on, and someone seemed to fall heavily on to the ground against the wooden partition which divided the yard, at the spot where the body was afterwards found"



He only needed to add this:


"I stopped and looked over the fence and saw Jack the Ripper cutting the poor woman."




Thats what happens when you want your story to fit with some events.




The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hey Herlock

I am coming around to your way of thinking with regard to Cadosch. I think I have found a fuller explanation of what Cadosch witnessed, which if true, is more convincing. It appeared in the Lloyds Weekly News of 9 September. It also appears to be following a direct conversation between the reporter and Cadosch. The whole report of poor Annie's murder is quite detailed and seems accurate in terms of what we know about the murder. The reporter appears to have talked with a large number of locals, including Cadosch (though names him Cadosen). My two concerns/questions is why did Cadosch not say this at the inquest and also no note that it was two, not one, trip to the yard.

Why this wasn’t what he said at the Inquest is the big question. Obviously I have no conclusive answer. Fish will say that’s it’s just proof of his dishonesty but I think it’s more complex than that. I wonder if it might have been because he’d heard of the doctors TOD and he suspected that that he might have been accused of being a liar and so he toned it down to just a ‘no’ which might have come from elsewhere and just a noise which might have been something else?

[Herlock Sholmes]

"On coming back I heard some words which I did not catch, but I heard a woman say "No." Then I heard a kind of scuffle going on, and someone seemed to fall heavily on to the ground against the wooden partition which divided the yard, at the spot where the body was afterwards found"



He only needed to add this:


"I stopped and looked over the fence and saw Jack the Ripper cutting the poor woman."




Thats what happens when you want your story to fit with some events.




The Baron

Events tell us that Richardson didn’t see a body because there was none there and that Cadosch heard a ‘no’ and sound which came from a yard where there was allegedly a mutilated corpse. Now of course you may prefer that the noise was a cat lumbering into the fence as he was trying to avoid getting blood on his paws (or possibly an escaped rabbit) and that the ‘no’ came from a ventriloquist who was practicing 40 yards away but I don’t. Or that any discrepancies are always due to sinister reasons.

And lets face it Baron we all know that your posting history is one of going for absolutely anything as long as it goes against what I think. If I said that I think the murders took place in London you would find some way of disagreeing just to stoke up an argument. Your comments are background noise.

[etenguy]

"On coming back I heard some words which I did not catch, but I heard a woman say "No." Then I heard a kind of scuffle going on, and someone seemed to fall heavily on to the ground against the wooden partition which divided the yard, at the spot where the body was afterwards found"

He only needed to add this:

"I stopped and looked over the fence and saw Jack the Ripper cutting the poor woman."



Thats what happens when you want your story to fit with some events.

The Baron

Hi, The Baron

There are two significant differences to this version of events which (IMHO) adds to its veracity:

1. Cadosch identifies where the voice and noises came from - I would expect that a voice and noise that close to the hearer could be fairly accurately located.
2. The voice was identified as female, something else I would expect Cadosch to identify.

If he wanted to make his story fit with events, he would have said this at the inquest, ensuring his five minutes of fame. He does the opposite and is as vague as he can possibly be. I am beginning to think Herlock may be correct in suggesting Cadosch became aware that the Doctor's TOD makes his experience unlikely, therefore he doubts himself and so he removes as much detail as he can.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi, The Baron

There are two significant differences to this version of events which (IMHO) adds to its veracity:

1. Cadosch identifies where the voice and noises came from - I would expect that a voice and noise that close to the hearer could be fairly accurately located.
2. The voice was identified as female, something else I would expect Cadosch to identify.

If he wanted to make his story fit with events, he would have said this at the inquest, ensuring his five minutes of fame. He does the opposite and is as vague as he can possibly be. I am beginning to think Herlock may be correct in suggesting Cadosch became aware that the Doctor's TOD makes his experience unlikely, therefore he doubts himself and so he removes as much detail as he can.

So the question is now ‘why the discrepancy?’ Now we can either, a) take the ‘Trevor’ route and immediately dismiss the statements as worthless because of the discrepancy, or b) make suggestions as to why this occurred?

Ill run the risk of Fish telling me that I’m putting words into his mouth but I suggest the he will say that Cadosch made up the story but then decided to back-pedal when he was under oath at the Inquest? I’m not dismissing this opinion of course but I don’t agree. For example, if he just rolled back to the uncontroversial suggestion that the ‘no’ could have come from elsewhere why did he not do the same with the noise? “I heard a noise which I first thought came from number 29 but it could have come from anywhere really?”

What would would been the point of watering down the ‘no’ but remaining adamant about the noise? Why didn’t he go the whole hog?

[Fisherman]

"On coming back I heard some words which I did not catch, but I heard a woman say "No." Then I heard a kind of scuffle going on, and someone seemed to fall heavily on to the ground against the wooden partition which divided the yard, at the spot where the body was afterwards found"



He only needed to add this:


"I stopped and looked over the fence and saw Jack the Ripper cutting the poor woman."




Thats what happens when you want your story to fit with some events.




The Baron

Exactly so. It seems very much as if he tried his hardest to impress upon the police that he had overheard the murder. The Lloyds clipping is, if anything, much more in support of such a view than the press agency material.

[Fisherman]

Hi, The Baron

There are two significant differences to this version of events which (IMHO) adds to its veracity:

1. Cadosch identifies where the voice and noises came from - I would expect that a voice and noise that close to the hearer could be fairly accurately located.
2. The voice was identified as female, something else I would expect Cadosch to identify.

If he wanted to make his story fit with events, he would have said this at the inquest, ensuring his five minutes of fame. He does the opposite and is as vague as he can possibly be. I am beginning to think Herlock may be correct in suggesting Cadosch became aware that the Doctor's TOD makes his experience unlikely, therefore he doubts himself and so he removes as much detail as he can.

Yes, Cadosch is very specific here, the voices and scuffle was not only coming from No 29, it was coming from the very corner where Chapman was found killed. The problem is, though, that Cadosch had entirely forgotten about all this detail and accuracy at the inquest! The same goes for the female voice.

I am having a hard time understanding how you think that two so very differing versions of the events would lend truthfulness to Cadosch. Basicall, altered testimony NEVER lends credibility to a witness, and when we can add how it would have been apparent to Cadosch that his he-man version would be severely questioned, his veracity flies out of the window never to returna again as fas as Iīm concerned.

He was an attention-seeker and a liar in my book.

Herlock tries to ironize over how I supposedly would think that all three witnesses were lying, implying that such a thing could not happen. Well, the Star tells us that the police thought that Richardson was not kosher, Swanson laments how Long seems not to have been giving a correct view of what went down, and now it seems that Cadosch was a real world Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde figure, as far as the testimony goes.

Maybe we should not write off the possibility that three witness in a high profile case actually MAY lie? Then again, I have never said that they were all liars. I have said that they were all WRONG, and you can be wrong on account of many things, one of them being making an honest mistake.

Cadosch, though, was anything but honest if you ask me.

[Fisherman]

So the question is now ‘why the discrepancy?’

So there IS a discrepancy? Could it not be Cadosch describing the exact same thing in a slightly varying vocabulary...?

Now we can either, a) take the ‘Trevor’ route and immediately dismiss the statements as worthless because of the discrepancy, or b) make suggestions as to why this occurred?

Thatīs what Iīm doing, pointing out why it happened.

Ill run the risk of Fish telling me that I’m putting words into his mouth but I suggest the he will say that Cadosch made up the story but then decided to back-pedal when he was under oath at the Inquest?

Iīve already said so, so you are welcome.

I’m not dismissing this opinion of course but I don’t agree.

... come what may.

For example, if he just rolled back to the uncontroversial suggestion that the ‘no’ could have come from elsewhere why did he not do the same with the noise? “I heard a noise which I first thought came from number 29 but it could have come from anywhere really?”

He didnīt have to, after he had disarmed the heavy fall to the ground at the exact spot where Chapman was found, Herlock. The police had the murderer and Chapman doing the rounds replaced with a cat or a bird or a rat or anything else that decidedly NOT fell to the ground, it only "touched the fence quickly". They had gold and were handed ****.

What would would been the point of watering down the ‘no’ but remaining adamant about the noise? Why didn’t he go the whole hog?

No, no, no, no, Herlock - Cadosch was NOT adamant about the noise. If he had been adamant about the noise he had described, he would have said that it came from the corner of No 29, just where Chapman was found, that there was a scuffle first and then a heavy fall against the fence and ground.
Letīs not try and inject the idea that Cadosch was in any way whatsoever adamant. He was the least adamant witness you can imagine, right?