Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you think that is compatible with the following, fine.

AC: ... 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.

However, this must also be considered...

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.

The smeared blood on the fence suggests Annie's already bleeding body has pressed against it.

As discussed in #39, this is a little odd though, as it suggests Annie was cut before she fell, and yet the only other blood at a distance from the body was the 6 or so small patches on the wall. Also, Annie seems to have been strangled. Also, there are bruises on her body...

Phillips: I noticed a bruise over the right temple. There was a bruise under the clavicle, and there were two distinct bruises, each the size of a man's thumb, on the fore part of the chest.

One or two of those bruises may have already existed, but the bruising on the chest sounds a lot like Stride...

Phillips: Over both shoulders, especially the right, from the front aspect under colar bones and in front of chest there is a bluish discolouration ...

This is surely not a coincidence.
How is this apparently two-handed pressure against chest (in both cases) compatible with the victim not crying out in pain?
How is he doing this and cutting the throat, and, in Chapman's case, strangling?
Doesn't the strangling make the pressure against the chest unnecessary, and what purpose does the chest pressure serve anyway?
If Chapman was cut before falling against the fence and smearing it with blood, where is the arterial spray?
If she is cut after falling, hasn't Jack first pulled her away from the fence to give himself room, and therefore why are there smears of blood on the fence, and, why is the blood on the wall at a higher level than the blood smears on the fence?

At the risk of sounding stupid (no doubt confirmed by Fish) I don’t understand how the above challenges the idea that the noise could have been the killer rather than Annie’s body?

I read today that someone reckoned that at the time the police suspected that Annie had been given chloroform.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

At the risk of sounding stupid (no doubt confirmed by Fish) I don’t understand how the above challenges the idea that the noise could have been the killer rather than Annie’s body?

A brush against a fence is hardly going to be memorable to someone like Albert Cadosch, who was thinking about work and did not even think to take a peek over the fence (to the evident frustration of Wynne Baxter).

You seem to want to account for what was heard, outside of the context of how the murder took place.
However, the latter determines the former.
Does your killer brushing the fence notion account for the smears of blood on the fence?
Did Jack get bloodied and leave the scene blood-stained?

To me, the mechanics of the murder is the primary question.
What explains the location of blood away from the body, the bruising on the body, the strangulation, and the lack of noise?
The Ripper seems so skilled and quiet, that I doubt he is going to clumsily start bumping into the fence as he goes, or get lots of blood on his hands and clothes.

On the other hand, a daytime murder and rip, coinciding with a first harvesting of an organs, would seem to indicate that Jack wants more light this time.
Is it significant then, that Dear Boss appears after this murder, rather than one of the priors, as though the letter and change of MO were linked?
Would that in turn gives us a clue as to the authorship of the letter and postcard?
Someone who is 'down on whores', and uses American terms like 'boss', and laughs at being called a doctor, perhaps?

I read today that someone reckoned that at the time the police suspected that Annie had been given chloroform.

Would that have been detectable?
How difficult would it have been to obtain some?

[harry]

Fisherman,
The fact that the evidence of Richardson,Long,and Cadosch was not discredited,is of major importance.They each individually saw or heard things,that collectively,in a circumstantial situation,gave the police a start in their investigation.Regardless of what the Star says,no information exists that the police had no confidence in the information given.The Star,like yourself,was notable in making claims,but unable to back up those claims.I'll ask again,which policeman made a negative remark on the evidence of those three witnesse's.(Yawn)
The fact that the evidence was given under oath in a court is important.Of course any one or all three could have lied,could have been at fault with memory,could have been wrong in detail.but that evidence stands until evidence surfaces that puts them at fault.None has. Your beliefs are as wortless as your theory of Cross did it,and as you have been told before,your obsessionis making a fool of you.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
The fact that the evidence of Richardson,Long,and Cadosch was not discredited,is of major importance.

You seem to have missed out on how it WAS discredited?

[Fisherman]

At the risk of sounding stupid (no doubt confirmed by Fish)

Must you be so hard on me...?

I don’t understand how the above challenges the idea that the noise could have been the killer rather than Annie’s body?

It was neither, Herlock. If it was. And it probably wasnīt.

I read today that someone reckoned that at the time the police suspected that Annie had been given chloroform.

Who? Dr Phillips made no such guess.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Who? Dr Phillips made no such guess.

I was looking through some old Ripperologists yesterday (from the days when they used to drop through the letterbox) and there was a small entry from John Morrison (the guy who first proposed James Kelly) He was recommending that readers send for a file for Ģ5. I think he called it the Johnson file and he said that it was at The Bodleian in Oxford. He said that it was mentioned in that.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

At the risk of sounding stupid (no doubt confirmed by Fish) I don’t understand how the above challenges the idea that the noise could have been the killer rather than Annie’s body?

I read today that someone reckoned that at the time the police suspected that Annie had been given chloroform.

Apologies Herlock - sometimes when I quote and reply, I use the quote as a starting point for a bit of exploration of the subject, and not necessarily as a something to be rebutted. In future, I will try to may myself clearer in that regard. Keep up the good work!

Now in regards to chloroform, what I know now is why George McFly missed a day of school...

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It is worth contrasting the testimony of Cadosch, with that of James Kent.
The following also has relevance to the current Richardson thread.

WB: Had you heard any noise while you were at the end of your yard?
AC: No.
WB: Any rustling of clothes?
AC: No. I then went into the house ...
WB: Do you ever hear people in these yards?
AC: Now and then, but not often.

So apparently there is nothing wrong with Cadosch's hearing.

The following from the Morning Advertiser, Sep 13.

JK: I went to 29, Hanbury-street, and through the passage. I did not go into the yard, but stood at the top of the steps.
WB: You saw a woman?
JK: I did, lying in the yard at the bottom of the steps leading from the back door. She lay between the back-door steps and the partition between the yard and the next yard.
Inspector Chandler produced a plan of the yard, which the witness examined and pointed out the exact position of the body.
JK: Her clothes were thrown back, but her face was visible. Her apron seemed to be thrown back over her clothes. I could see from the feet up to the knees. I did not go down the steps, but went outside, going in twice again to look. I do not believe that any man went into the yard until Inspector Chandler came, I could not [?] see she was dead. She had a handkerchief of some kind round her throat, which seemed sucked into her throat. I saw no running blood, but her face and hands were smeared with blood, as if she had struggled. I did not notice any other injuries.
WB: What evidence was there of a struggle?
JK: I mean as if she had been on her back and used her hands to defend herself. Her hands were turned with the palms towards her face, as if she had fought for her throat. Her legs were wide apart.
WB: Did you notice any blood about her legs?
JK: There were similar marks of blood as about her face.
WB: Was there any blood about her clothes?
JK: I did not notice. I was too much frightened to notice very particularly.
WB: You spoke of some liquid having been thrown over her. Did you notice any water or anything?
JK: I could not tell what it was. It seemed as if her inside had been pulled from her and thrown at her. It was lying over her left shoulder.

A few points:

• The body was clearly visible from the top step - Kent could even see her face from there
• Their seemed to be clear signs of a struggle
• The position of the hands supports the idea of strangulation, but their bloodiness does not - ... her face and hands were smeared with blood ... Her hands were turned with the palms towards her face. This perhaps suggest she could have made a vocal sound, just prior to being cut.

So to the critical question; did Cadosch hear this struggle?

The following quote from the Macclesfield Courier and Herald, Sep 15.

A Press Association reporter has elicited that Mr. Cardoche [Cadosch], who lives in the next house to No. 29, Hanbury-street, where the murder was committed, went to the back of the premises at 5.30 a.m., and as he passed the wooden partition he heard a woman say: "No, no." On returning he heard a scuffle and then someone fall heavily against the fence. He heard no cry for help, and so he went into his house. Some surprise is felt that this statement was not made in evidence at the inquest.

So two 'no's, and a heavy fall against the fence, but no other noises.

Interesting that the same edition mentions this:

On the wall near where the woman's body was found were the words, "Five - fifteen more, and then I give myself up."

[Fisherman]

I was looking through some old Ripperologists yesterday (from the days when they used to drop through the letterbox) and there was a small entry from John Morrison (the guy who first proposed James Kelly) He was recommending that readers send for a file for Ģ5. I think he called it the Johnson file and he said that it was at The Bodleian in Oxford. He said that it was mentioned in that.

And did you send for the file?

[Fisherman]

It is worth contrasting the testimony of Cadosch, with that of James Kent.
The following also has relevance to the current Richardson thread.

WB: Had you heard any noise while you were at the end of your yard?
AC: No.
WB: Any rustling of clothes?
AC: No. I then went into the house ...
WB: Do you ever hear people in these yards?
AC: Now and then, but not often.

So apparently there is nothing wrong with Cadosch's hearing.

The following from the Morning Advertiser, Sep 13.

JK: I went to 29, Hanbury-street, and through the passage. I did not go into the yard, but stood at the top of the steps.
WB: You saw a woman?
JK: I did, lying in the yard at the bottom of the steps leading from the back door. She lay between the back-door steps and the partition between the yard and the next yard.
Inspector Chandler produced a plan of the yard, which the witness examined and pointed out the exact position of the body.
JK: Her clothes were thrown back, but her face was visible. Her apron seemed to be thrown back over her clothes. I could see from the feet up to the knees. I did not go down the steps, but went outside, going in twice again to look. I do not believe that any man went into the yard until Inspector Chandler came, I could not [?] see she was dead. She had a handkerchief of some kind round her throat, which seemed sucked into her throat. I saw no running blood, but her face and hands were smeared with blood, as if she had struggled. I did not notice any other injuries.
WB: What evidence was there of a struggle?
JK: I mean as if she had been on her back and used her hands to defend herself. Her hands were turned with the palms towards her face, as if she had fought for her throat. Her legs were wide apart.
WB: Did you notice any blood about her legs?
JK: There were similar marks of blood as about her face.
WB: Was there any blood about her clothes?
JK: I did not notice. I was too much frightened to notice very particularly.
WB: You spoke of some liquid having been thrown over her. Did you notice any water or anything?
JK: I could not tell what it was. It seemed as if her inside had been pulled from her and thrown at her. It was lying over her left shoulder.

A few points:

• The body was clearly visible from the top step - Kent could even see her face from there
• Their seemed to be clear signs of a struggle
• The position of the hands supports the idea of strangulation, but their bloodiness does not - ... her face and hands were smeared with blood ... Her hands were turned with the palms towards her face. This perhaps suggest she could have made a vocal sound, just prior to being cut.

So to the critical question; did Cadosch hear this struggle?

The following quote from the Macclesfield Courier and Herald, Sep 15.

A Press Association reporter has elicited that Mr. Cardoche [Cadosch], who lives in the next house to No. 29, Hanbury-street, where the murder was committed, went to the back of the premises at 5.30 a.m., and as he passed the wooden partition he heard a woman say: "No, no." On returning he heard a scuffle and then someone fall heavily against the fence. He heard no cry for help, and so he went into his house. Some surprise is felt that this statement was not made in evidence at the inquest.

So two 'no's, and a heavy fall against the fence, but no other noises.

Interesting that the same edition mentions this:

On the wall near where the woman's body was found were the words, "Five - fifteen more, and then I give myself up."

With the door fully open, anybody on the top step could easily see Annie Chapmanīs whole body, that was lying with the head roughy in line with the lowest step. To obscure the body from somebody standing on the top step, it takes for the door NOT to be fully open. It is not as if the position of the doorblade has no influence on the matter. When Chandler established that the door could well have hindered Richardson from seeing the body if he was on the top step, he knew quite well what he was saying.

Yes, Cadosch gave a very vivid account of the scuffle, the heavy fall against the fence and down onto the ground with a thump, just at the place where Chapman was later found.
Then again, all of that vital and case-specific information had gone out the window when he testified under oath. For some peculiar reason.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

With the door fully open, anybody on the top step could easily see Annie Chapmanīs whole body, that was lying with the head roughy in line with the lowest step. To obscure the body from somebody standing on the top step, it takes for the door NOT to be fully open. It is not as if the position of the doorblade has no influence on the matter. When Chandler established that the door could well have hindered Richardson from seeing the body if he was on the top step, he knew quite well what he was saying.

In that case, I refer you back to this post on the Richardson thread.
A cursory glance might have had Richardson missing the body, but then why is he going out of his way to go to #29 Hanbury on market mornings, but not bothering to at least walk down to the cellar steps?
Furthermore, could JR actually see the cellar padlock, from that vantage point? These pictures raise doubts.
It's peculiar how JR takes the time to cut up a piece of carrot for a rabbit, but is also so casual about checking the cellar, which stores many valuable things and has been broken into. Except that at night time he does check it thoroughly - both visually and mechanically.
Richardson is a bit weird.

Yes, Cadosch gave a very vivid account of the scuffle, the heavy fall against the fence and down onto the ground with a thump, just at the place where Chapman was later found.
Then again, all of that vital and case-specific information had gone out the window when he testified under oath. For some peculiar reason.

But was it just at the place Chapman was later found at, or almost?...

James Kent: Her head was near the house, but no part of the body was against the wall.

She wasn't found against the fence, so was there a short trail of blood from the fence to the head/neck region?

Phillips: ... on the wooden fence there were smears of blood, corresponding to where the head of the deceased laid, and immediately above the part where the blood had mainly flowed from the neck, which was well clotted.

Sounds like there was.
In that case, was she cut before hitting the fence?
If yes, when did this happen?...

Phillips: My impression is that she was partially strangled.

Perhaps it went like this:

Partial strangulation whilst victim is standing > falls against fence > initial throat cut while slouched against fence > pulled away from fence, onto back > throat cut right around > cut open

But there is also this to consider...

Was there evidence of any struggle? - No; not about the body of the woman, but I am positive that a struggle took place in the yard.

That was from the MA. In the DT ...

[Coroner] Was there any evidence of any struggle? - No; not about the body of the woman. You do not forget the smearing of blood about the palings.

I presume the last sentence was spoken by Baxter.

Given Kent's testimony, I tentatively conclude that even after being partially suffocated, collapsing against a fence, and having her throat cut, Annie was still putting up a fight.
Yet Cadosch only hears the fall against the fence, and maybe a bit of a scuffle?

[Fisherman]

In that case, I refer you back to this post on the Richardson thread.
A cursory glance might have had Richardson missing the body, but then why is he going out of his way to go to #29 Hanbury on market mornings, but not bothering to at least walk down to the cellar steps?

Letīs begin by establishing that we do not know that he went out of his way to go to the backyard on markes mornings, we only know that he SAYS that he made it his business.

Furthermore, could JR actually see the cellar padlock, from that vantage point? These pictures raise doubts.

Since it was said that he could see it from the steps and since the police seems to have had no objections about it, I think it is a given. He could see it, alright.

It's peculiar how JR takes the time to cut up a piece of carrot for a rabbit, but is also so casual about checking the cellar, which stores many valuable things and has been broken into. Except that at night time he does check it thoroughly - both visually and mechanically.
Richardson is a bit weird.

Well, he did not cut the carrot when on the stpes of the backyard, and we donīt know how casual his checking was. If he could see the lock, he could see the lock, and no more checking had to be done. In the post you refer me back to, I think you make a valuable point when you suggest it may have been about embarrasment he did not admit to the body possibly being there. I reason much along the same line - if he was in the backyard at all.



But was it just at the place Chapman was later found at, or almost?...

Just, Iīd say. At least when we look at what Lloyds wrote. To my mind, there can be no sensibe doubt that he described the incident as if he had overheard the murder.

James Kent: Her head was near the house, but no part of the body was against the wall.

Exactly so.

She wasn't found against the fence, so was there a short trail of blood from the fence to the head/neck region?

The blood on the fence seems to be arterial spray. Reasonably, there will have been some blood on the ground too, between the fence and Chapman.

Phillips: ... on the wooden fence there were smears of blood, corresponding to where the head of the deceased laid, and immediately above the part where the blood had mainly flowed from the neck, which was well clotted.

Sounds like there was.
In that case, was she cut before hitting the fence?
If yes, when did this happen?...

I donīt think she hit the fence at all. I think Cadosch made it up, because she was dead at 5.20.

Phillips: My impression is that she was partially strangled.

Perhaps it went like this:

Partial strangulation whilst victim is standing > falls against fence > initial throat cut while slouched against fence > pulled away from fence, onto back > throat cut right around > cut open

Yes, it could have happened like that. But not at 5.20

But there is also this to consider...

Was there evidence of any struggle? - No; not about the body of the woman, but I am positive that a struggle took place in the yard.

That was from the MA. In the DT ...

[Coroner] Was there any evidence of any struggle? - No; not about the body of the woman. You do not forget the smearing of blood about the palings.

I presume the last sentence was spoken by Baxter.

Given Kent's testimony, I tentatively conclude that even after being partially suffocated, collapsing against a fence, and having her throat cut, Annie was still putting up a fight.
Yet Cadosch only hears the fall against the fence, and maybe a bit of a scuffle?

Again, he heard nothing. He made it up, which is why it is illogical to a degree.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And did you send for the file?

No. This was a really old Ripperologist. I’ve had to pack them away (I’m decorating) as soon as I get chance I’ll see if I can dig it out. I’m pretty sure I know what folder it’s in. It was only a short piece but I’ll give you more info when I find it.

[harry]

Going by what Chandler said,is he (Chandler) stating a fact of what he( Chandler) personnly observed from the top of the steps,or is he refering to a situation of what he thinks Richardson might have seen?How would Chandler know the position of the door when Richardson stood there before sitting on the steps?Well he wouldn't,that is why Chandler uses the (if it/he was),which suggests Chandler was not sure of the situation.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Re #102

Furthermore, could JR actually see the cellar padlock, from that vantage point? These pictures raise doubts.

Since it was said that he could see it from the steps and since the police seems to have had no objections about it, I think it is a given. He could see it, alright.

He could see it from the steps? That's ambiguous - which step exactly?
By vaguely referring to 'the steps', you're glossing over the important issue - did Richardson sit on the middle step to tend to his boot?

JR: When I was on the doorstep I saw that the padlock on the cellar door was in its proper place.
WB: Did you sit on the top step?
JR: No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard.

So did JR stand on the middle step to check the padlock, and then sit down on that step to work on his boot?
If yes, then he must have seen the body.

So how could the police not have had objections to JR after he testified, given this?...

Chandler: Richardson only told me that he went to the top of the steps and looked down into the cellar. He said nothing about having sat on the top step.

Yet you have no doubts about Richardson, but think Cadosch was lying?

As for observing the padlock from the top step, I very much doubt it - the cellar door would likely not be perfectly flush with the wall - so it would be almost impossible to get a good view of it from the top step.
This is an important point - JR just makes a cursory glance at the cellar, probably just to see if the door is closed.
That's the sense I get when I read this...

Chandler: He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.

That is why he may have missed the body, assuming that Cadosch did not hear the murder.
Without his boot story, Richardson might suspect that he might become a suspect, because he would then be stating that he didn't see the body, after the doctor's estimated ToD.

The blood on the fence seems to be arterial spray. Reasonably, there will have been some blood on the ground too, between the fence and Chapman.

Does this sound like an arterial spray?...

Phillips: ... on the palings, about fourteen inches from the ground, near the head, were smears of blood.

The word 'smears' implies bodily contact.
14" above ground level, and only on the fence, is a very well directed arterial spray!