Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Cadosch, in his Inquest statement, expressed zero doubt about the origin of the noise.

Why did no one at the time notice or point out the difference between what he said to the police and what he said at the Inquest?

[Abby Normal]

Cadosch, in his Inquest statement, expressed zero doubt about the origin of the noise.

Why did no one at the time notice or point out the difference between what he said to the police and what he said at the Inquest?

because its not that different and people realize memories arent perfect. cadosch statement is about innocuous as you can get and theres no reason to disbeleive him. unless of course, his testimony dosnt fit your theory.

[Fisherman]

Cadosch, in his Inquest statement, expressed zero doubt about the origin of the noise.

Why did no one at the time notice or point out the difference between what he said to the police and what he said at the Inquest?

At least partly because the aim of the inquest was to establish the cause of death, and that could be established without Cadosch.

[Fisherman]

because its not that different and people realize memories arent perfect. cadosch statement is about innocuous as you can get and theres no reason to disbeleive him. unless of course, his testimony dosnt fit your theory.

"Like something suddenly touched the fence" and "a scuffle followed by a heavy fall against the fence and the ground exactly where the body was found"?

Not that different, Abby?

"A voice that could have come from anywhere saying 'No'" and "two people spekaing to the other in the corner of the backyard of No 29, whereupon the woman said 'No'"?

Not different?

I donŽt think you should speak of his testimony being fitted to suit a theory when he gives THREE testimonies; in actual fact he fits many theories, itŽs just a question of choosing which testimony you like. If you want to look at it in that fashion.
I have always said that he cannot have been right, just as Long cannot have been correct either. As it happens, CadoschŽs Lloyds testimony is exactly in line with what I have expected to surface, and so I should be congratulated, not castigated. Predicting things and getting it right is surely a good thing?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Has it ever been known in this case for the press to have exaggerated in any way?

In a case where most don’t go with absolutes but accept that we have to try and assess likelihood’s it’s interesting that you repeatedly use words like ‘cannot’ when talking about whether a witness was correct or not. It appears Fish that your approach to assessing witnesses begins from a starting point of “Dr Phillips cannot possibly have been wrong.” From that starting point any witness, no matter what their inherent strengths or weaknesses, must have been wrong or lying in your eyes?

Before Joshua posted that quote of an early press report of a statement by Cadosch I’d always said that I found zero fault with Cadosch’s testimony. This statement obviously leaves us with an unanswered question. Why is this now cause for triumphalism? I’ll repeat Fish that I’m certainly not calling you a conspiracy theorist but it’s that kind of thinking. Any error, an discrepancy, any alternative spelling, any difference is immediately regarded as of a sinister nature. So the possibilities from my point of view (others may suggest more)..

Cadosch lied at first and then back pedalled because he was worried about testifying under oath at the Inquest.

(He could have told the police that he’d made it up and avoided being called of course.)

Maybe the press exaggerated what Cadosch actually said in the earlier interview?

Cadosch exaggerated in the earlier interview but he still heard the ‘no’ and the noise.

Cadosch was truthful in the earlier interview but he’d then learned about the Doctors TOD. He didn’t wish to appear either a liar or an idiot at the Inquest so he removed the added detail to allow for another interpretation of what he’d heard.

Maybe the police put pressure on him not to contradict the experts?

~~~

I wonder what the odds are of three such vital witnesses on the same issue, who’s testimony could have such an important effect on our interpretation of the case, could all have been liars or mistaken.

Richardson was allegedly 2 feet or less from an horrifically mutilated corpse and yet he didn’t understand that she ‘might’ have been behind the door.

Cadosch was a very few feet from the fence but he either lied or was hallucinating.

And Long walked straight past a possible Annie and her possible killer. A man and a woman (who unluckily looks like Annie), in the early morning, just happen to stop for a chat outside the scene of a murder.

I know which version I tend to favour.

[Fisherman]

Has it ever been known in this case for the press to have exaggerated in any way?

Yes, it has. But generally speaking, they donŽt. And there is nothing to suggest they did this time either. On the contrary; both the press agency material and the Lloyds material is both of pretty much the same character. A character that is wildly different from that poor old Albert produced in front of coroner Baxter.

In a case where most don’t go with absolutes but accept that we have to try and assess likelihood’s it’s interesting that you repeatedly use words like ‘cannot’ when talking about whether a witness was correct or not. It appears Fish that your approach to assessing witnesses begins from a starting point of “Dr Phillips cannot possibly have been wrong.” From that starting point any witness, no matter what their inherent strengths or weaknesses, must have been wrong or lying in your eyes?

If they said that they saw or heard Annie Chapman alive at 5.30, yes, I am of the meaning that they must have lied. There is no room for them having been truthful. Phillips had four parameters in sych for a TOD at least two hours removed, and that seals the deal. No matter what "inherent strengths or weakness" the witnesses stand for. I donŽt believe in resurrection.

Before Joshua posted that quote of an early press report of a statement by Cadosch I’d always said that I found zero fault with Cadosch’s testimony.

You even went as far as to name him the best witness of the entire case, Herlock.

This statement obviously leaves us with an unanswered question. Why is this now cause for triumphalism?

Triumphalism? I am very content that I have something to show for my long held belief that Cadosch and Long were incorrect, and I am happy about it. So sorry if it annoys you.

I’ll repeat Fish that I’m certainly not calling you a conspiracy theorist but it’s that kind of thinking.

Aha. So you would not call me a conspiray theorist, you only say that I think like one?

Any error, an discrepancy, any alternative spelling, any difference is immediately regarded as of a sinister nature.

Immediately? May I remind you that I have held this view for decades? And why would I not entertain the very possible option that it WAS of a sinister nature, given the immense backpedalling Cadosch performs once it has become known that the police are not buying Richardsons story? It all fits like a glove, so whatŽs your problem?

So the possibilities from my point of view (others may suggest more)..

This should be fun ...

Cadosch lied at first and then back pedalled because he was worried about testifying under oath at the Inquest.

Hey there - thatŽs MY view! Good to see it top the list!!

(He could have told the police that he’d made it up and avoided being called of course.)

Yes, he could, but there was supposedly a punishment for obstructing police work. IŽm sure somebody out here can tell me. Anyways, the way he diluted his testimony, he made sure that he could not get in trouble over it, right?

Maybe the press exaggerated what Cadosch actually said in the earlier interview?

The press agency and Lloyds alike? And BOTH spoke of a scuffle, not mentioned at the inquest? And BOTH spoke of a female speaking? And BOTH spoke of him having overheard a conversation? And BOTH ...

Nah, Herlock. Not with two sources, complimenting each other.

Cadosch exaggerated in the earlier interview but he still heard the ‘no’ and the noise.

And if he lied to the police, why not lie to the inquest? If he wanted to be believed, that would be how to go about it. Are you suggesting that he had second thoughts, and wanted to be clear and precise at the inquest, whereas he had massively exagerrated the affair at the police interview? If so, how are we to know that we can put trust in him at all? Like I say, he has burnt his ships when it comes to veracity. Even if he HID do it this way, how on earth can we trust him? It could just as well be the other way around, he heard nothing and made it all up. ThatŽs the thing about witnesses like these.
He is out. With a bang.

Cadosch was truthful in the earlier interview but he’d then learned about the Doctors TOD. He didn’t wish to appear either a liar or an idiot at the Inquest so he removed the added detail to allow for another interpretation of what he’d heard.

See the above answer.

Maybe the police put pressure on him not to contradict the experts?

Not at the original interview. And they will reasonably have known Phillips view at that stage. So it would be a very odd change of heart. And Cadosch is the one having heart changes here. Transplantations, as it were.

~~~

I wonder what the odds are of three such vital witnesses on the same issue, who’s testimony could have such an important effect on our interpretation of the case, could all have been liars or mistaken.

Extremely high. In two of the cases, there can be no reasonable doubt (which is why I am so very content about having found the early testimony Cadosch delivered), and in the third, we know full well that the police seemingly would have nothing of Richardsons testimony. I can see the point you are trying to make, but I keep saying and have said all along that witnesses are not nearly as credible as medical evidence resting on four legs, the way PhillipsŽevidence did. I consider Baxter a first class clown for his approach to the evidence, but I am acutely aware that he would have felt that he patched things up as best as he could. It was nevertheless a disaster, involving a blatant lie about how Phillips would have allowed for just about any TOD. He never did.
We are dealing with a VERY high profile case, THE most high profile case in criminal history, arguably. We should expect heaps of "witnesses" that were anything but truthful.

Richardson was allegedly 2 feet or less from an horrifically mutilated corpse and yet he didn’t understand that she ‘might’ have been behind the door.

That predisposes that Richardson was where he said he was, to begin with, and that is by no means proven. But it IS proven that the door could hide Chapman from many angles. And if it did, the level of horror involved in the mutilations matters not a iot.

Cadosch was a very few feet from the fence but he either lied or was hallucinating.

Yes, that is spot on - IF he was ever in the yard, that is. We simply donŽt know, but we DO know that his timings are in total conflict with Longs. And BOTH were 100 per cent sure of the timings, something that Baxter did not care about at all.

And Long walked straight past a possible Annie and her possible killer. A man and a woman (who unluckily looks like Annie), in the early morning, just happen to stop for a chat outside the scene of a murder.

And Annie and her killer had just arrived back out after having rehearsed the murder in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street. With a one-man audience.

I know which version I tend to favour.

And I know on what grounds. Which is why I have a much different take on things, going for the police view, the medicos view and the logical view. It does not invoke much trust in human nature, but being what it is, why would I trust it in the first place?
This is as far as we are going to get, methinks.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course it is because you very conveniently base all of your judgments on Phillips. It has been shown, by experts in the field, that the methods that he was using were UNRELIABLE. You adopt a mocking tone as ever Fish but it’s this absolute certainty in Phillips which deserves mockery.

In a case that occurred 130 years ago and where we are so reliant on the press and where there are quite naturally things that we don’t have conclusive explanations for it’s very easy to draw convenient conclusions. (Did Mizen tell the truth or Lechmere and Paul - naturally it’s Mizen for you)

To doubt that Richardson wasn’t on that step is pretty laughable. That he could have missed the body is unlikely in the extreme without accepting the ludicrous. I don’t think that Cadosch lied for a minute. The ‘15 minutes of fame’ argument is the ultimate get out clause I’m afraid.

Your adherence to the falsehood of Phillips infallibility detracts massively from the already unlikely suggestion that Richardson, Cadosch and Long all lied or were mistaken (stupidly so in Richardson’s case)

Witnesses over doctors dodgy TOD.

[Fisherman]

Of course it is because you very conveniently base all of your judgments on Phillips.

There is nothing at all convenient with basing my take on Phillis. He had FOUR parameters that were ALL in sync with an early TOD. If anything, it is convenient in the extreme to just surmise that they all misfired - and with the exact same result! They ALL - misleadingly - pointed to an early TOD, at least two hours removed. But no, letŽs not care about that, letŽs just say that they were all unrelaibe and coincidentally happened to show the same result.

It has been shown, by experts in the field, that the methods that he was using were UNRELIABLE. You adopt a mocking tone as ever Fish but it’s this absolute certainty in Phillips which deserves mockery.

Show me one expert who says it was to be expected that the four parameters would all get it wrong in the exact same way, and your raving about "experts" suddenly gets interesting. I have no wish to once again go over all the misinterpretations you made last time, providing faulty material, totally and painfully misunderstanding the information and then bragging about how you had proven me wrong. ItŽs too sad an experience to put a thinking person through twice. I deserve better.

In a case that occurred 130 years ago and where we are so reliant on the press and where there are quite naturally things that we don’t have conclusive explanations for it’s very easy to draw convenient conclusions. (Did Mizen tell the truth or Lechmere and Paul - naturally it’s Mizen for you)

No, not naturally. After having looked at all the evidence and assessed it, itŽs Mizen for me. After NOT having looked at all the evidence and after having misassessed it, itŽs Lechmere for you.

To doubt that Richardson wasn’t on that step is pretty laughable.

Why? It seems you have a very different kind of humor than many out here.

That he could have missed the body is unlikely in the extreme without accepting the ludicrous.

You have no problem whining over how I am "mocking you", but you think it is a good idea to claim that it is "ludicrous" to accept physical laws?

I don’t think that Cadosch lied for a minute.

Nor do I. I think he lied for much longer than so.

The ‘15 minutes of fame’ argument is the ultimate get out clause I’m afraid.

So get out.

Your adherence to the falsehood of Phillips infallibility detracts massively from the already unlikely suggestion that Richardson, Cadosch and Long all lied or were mistaken (stupidly so in Richardson’s case)

Wrong again. I donŽt think that Phillips was infallible, do I? I think he was thorough, since he knew quite well that one parameter only could be fallible. So he checked FOUR parameters (that we know of), and they were all in line. The one thing that is not in line is your ability to understand this. You so desperately want to believe in the most fallible commodity of them all, amateur witnesses in a high profile murder case that you cannot see the simplest of logic. ThatŽs your problem, and if you want it, you can have it. Just donŽt disrespect that people disagree.

Witnesses over doctors dodgy TOD.

As if the witnesses were not dodgy. Dear me. Can you show me one (1) single case where all four parameters were in sync the way they are in this case - and nevertheless wrong? IŽll answer for you, and you wonŽt need any more "experts":
NO!

[Herlock Sholmes]

You do get angry when you’re disagreed with Fish. I’ll leave you to it for the time being. You were proven wrong time and time again on the other thread yet you kept on using misinformation and you kept on wriggling as always.

I trust the person that was researching for me over you any day in the week so if he tells me that you were categorically wrong then that’s good enough for me. Your bias is written larger than the childish NO.

[Fisherman]

You do get angry when you’re disagreed with Fish.

Yes, IŽd say you are very much better at staying cool, calm and composed.

I’ll leave you to it for the time being. You were proven wrong time and time again on the other thread yet you kept on using misinformation and you kept on wriggling as always.

Show me and the boards one example of me misinforming, please. You really should not lie about these things, itŽs unbecoming.

I trust the person that was researching for me over you any day in the week so if he tells me that you were categorically wrong then that’s good enough for me. Your bias is written larger than the childish NO.

Yes, I am very envious of how you are never biased. Why is it just me...?

You are wrong. Again. Ask that researcher if he or she has an example of a doctor getting four parameters in line - and being wrong. You seem to avoid that question?

[The Baron]

I wonder what the odds are of three such vital witnesses on the same issue, who’s testimony could have such an important effect on our interpretation of the case, could all have been liars or mistaken.


I know which version I tend to favour.

This is one for you Herlock, and only because you deserve it!


"IN 1984 KIRK BLOODSWORTH was convicted of the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl and sentenced to the gas chamber—an outcome that rested largely on the testimony of five eyewitnesses. After Bloodsworth served nine years in prison, DNA testing proved him to be innocent"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/

Read it, and see for yourself why we need science, even if it was in its early stage.


I will leave you for now, pondering hopelessly how you can counter this one!


Five eyewitnesses Herlock, count them, one, two, three, four, ... FIVE!





The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is one for you Herlock, and only because you deserve it!


"IN 1984 KIRK BLOODSWORTH was convicted of the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl and sentenced to the gas chamber—an outcome that rested largely on the testimony of five eyewitnesses. After Bloodsworth served nine years in prison, DNA testing proved him to be innocent"


https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-eyes-have-it/


Read it, and see for yourself why we need science, even if it was in its early stage.


I will leave you for now, pondering hopelessly how you can counter this one!


Five eyewitnesses Herlock, count them, one, two, three, four, ... FIVE!





The Baron

Like yourself that quote is completely irrelevant. Witnesses can be wrong so what? There have been occasions where crowds of people have been wrong it doesn’t prove that these particular witnesses were wrong.

Should I take advice from the man that felt that Richardson had hair hanging over his one good eye and a body twisted to the right.......errr....nope.

[Fisherman]

ThereŽs of course also the Demjanjuk case, where another dead certain five witnesses were wrong:

"Professor Wagenaar, a psychologist, says in the introduction to his book that he will limit himself to the analysis of one identification, that of John Demjanjuk, an Ukrainian immigrated to the United States, as Ivan the Terrible, who killed thousands of people in the infamous Treblinka concentration camp.
Five people testified in court unanimously that they were sure that John was Ivan; none testified there that he was NOT Ivan. Nevertheless, Wagenaar dismounts those identifications one by one as unreliable. After a painstaking analysis, he comes to the surprising conclusion that John was probably not Ivan after all. At any rate, Wagenaar proves that because the testimonies of the witnesses were obtained in wrong and uncontrolled ways, they should be not admitted as veritable identifications but rather as after-the-facts concordances.
The court believed the witnesses above Wagenaar and condemned John to death; however, after this book was written, uncontestable evidence surfaced that proved Wagenaar's tentative conclusion: John was not Ivan, so the witnesses were all wrong even when they were so convinced on the contrary. Israel's Supreme Court admitted this later evidence and acquitted John."

Of course, identifying people is another thing than looking at backyards and missing out on dead bodies lying around, so it is hard to find an apt comparison. Somebody posted one case earlier that was a good parallel, where somebody had missed out on a person that should have been noticed.

The more relevant thing to ask is why it would be likelier to get four medical parameters wrong in the exact same fashion, all of them pointing to a TOD at least two hours away than it would be that three witnesses were wrong, three witnesses where we KNOW that the police mistrusted at least one of them, where we KNOW that this witness was recorded as saying A to Chandler and B to Baxter, where we KNOW that two contradicted each other in terms of chronology and where we KNOW that one altered his testimony in a massive way, diluting away every safe pointer to having overheard the murder?

In terms of quality, IŽd say that much as no mistake at all is or can be proven in the case of Phillips verdict, a significant number of goof-ups is already on record for the witnesses.

Maybe we should rest our cases there? Your case seems in dire need of a rest.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, I am very envious of how you are never biased. Why is it just me...?

You are wrong. Again. Ask that researcher if he or she has an example of a doctor getting four parameters in line - and being wrong. You seem to avoid that question?

I’m currently not able to contact him but I’ll be able to sometime in the near future.

One, two, three, four inaccurate parameters though? It’s like asking if I can find an example of someone that rolled 4 double sixes. Inaccurate is inaccurate is inaccurate.

Its impossible to debate with someone that repeatedly says that however unlikely that Richardson missed the corpse it’s not impossible and that we should at least accept the possibility and yet, in the case of Phillips (who we know was employing unreliable methods), you assume the position that he couldn’t have been wrong.

My neck aches from trying to debate with a man who is permanently on a high horse. You expect others to accept possibilities in the sake of ‘fairness’ but this obviously doesn’t include you.

I agree that this is going nowhere though.

[Herlock Sholmes]

ThereŽs of course also the Demjanjuk case, where another dead certain five witnesses were wrong:

"Professor Wagenaar, a psychologist, says in the introduction to his book that he will limit himself to the analysis of one identification, that of John Demjanjuk, an Ukrainian immigrated to the United States, as Ivan the Terrible, who killed thousands of people in the infamous Treblinka concentration camp.
Five people testified in court unanimously that they were sure that John was Ivan; none testified there that he was NOT Ivan. Nevertheless, Wagenaar dismounts those identifications one by one as unreliable. After a painstaking analysis, he comes to the surprising conclusion that John was probably not Ivan after all. At any rate, Wagenaar proves that because the testimonies of the witnesses were obtained in wrong and uncontrolled ways, they should be not admitted as veritable identifications but rather as after-the-facts concordances.
The court believed the witnesses above Wagenaar and condemned John to death; however, after this book was written, uncontestable evidence surfaced that proved Wagenaar's tentative conclusion: John was not Ivan, so the witnesses were all wrong even when they were so convinced on the contrary. Israel's Supreme Court admitted this later evidence and acquitted John."

Of course, identifying people is another thing than looking at backyards and missing out on dead bodies lying around, so it is hard to find an apt comparison. Somebody posted one case earlier that was a good parallel, where somebody had missed out on a person that should have been noticed.
The more relevant thing to ask why it would be likelier to get four medical parameters wrong in the exact same fashion, all of them pointing to a TOD at least two hours away than it would be that three witnesses where we KNOW that the police mistrusted at least one of them, where we KNOW that this witness was recorded as saying A to Chandler and B to Baxter, where we KNOW that two contradicted each other in terms of chronology and where we KNOW that one altered his testimony in a massive way, diluting away every safe pointer to having overheard the murder.

In terms of quality, IŽd say that much as no mistake at all is or can be proven in the case of Phillips verdict, a significant number of goof-ups is already on record for the witnesses.

Maybe we should rest our cases there? Your case seems in dire need of a rest.

Another pointless post. I’ve always accepted that witness can be mistaken. Unlike the infallible Dr Phillips