Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Re #102



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.



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!

How is ‘steps’ ambiguous? There were only the steps by the door. If you are implying the cellar doors then these were behind a locked door and not visible. He was very obviously talking about the steps by the door.

You ask why the police didn’t object but there’s a fair bit that they might have objected to but didn’t. Why did no one pursue the knife story that on the face of it makes little sense for example?

How do we know that Chandler was correct in what he said. He might have been mistaken. After all he only ‘interviewed’ Richardson in the passageway during a difficult time and we don’t even know if he took notes? What if Richardson simply said something like “ I checked the cellar from the back steps and I couldn’t have missed a body had it been there.” Maybe he was reluctant to mention using a knife in case the police were suspicious of him and Chandler didn’t go into detail with him but just accepted that Richardson couldn’t have missed a body?

Was Chandler so reliable and trustworthy? He was demoted for drinking on duty not long after.

[Fisherman]

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.

Okay, thanks for that. I´ve been having trouble with the casebook site again; sorry for not having answered your post before. I only just saw it.

[Fisherman]

Re #102



He could see it from the steps? That's ambiguous - which step exactly?

Whichever step he and his mother spoke of.

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?

I am not the one being vague. Mrs Richardson and her son were the vague ones.

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.

No, he must not. Why is that so hard to understand? Even if his position allowed for seeing the body (and it needn´t have to with him on the second step), it remains a question of more than a single parameter. There is the issue of the light, the issue of what direction he looked in and so on.

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

See the above.

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?

Cadosch was there much later, and to my mind, and could not have heard Chapman. She was dead. So either he lies, or he has coincidentally had anothe scuffle and fall than Chapmans happening in the spot where Chapman was found dead. And the ones scuffling seem to have missed out on the body. Just how likely is that?

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.

It was said that he could see the lock from the steps, not the top steps. If you thibk it could not, then why did the Richardsosns claim that this was so?

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.

What must be weighed in is that he may have leant out from the top step, enabling him to see the lock. He need not have stood straight.

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.

Maybe. But maybe only. We have to deal in guesswork to a large degree.

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!

There is a drawing somewhere, that may well have been drawn in situ, and it looks much like arterial spray to me. The word "smear" does lend itself to another interpretation, but it´s a semantic issue. I think it would work well to say "I got the arterial spray on me, and was smeared with blood", for example.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

How is ‘steps’ ambiguous? There were only the steps by the door. If you are implying the cellar doors then these were behind a locked door and not visible. He was very obviously talking about the steps by the door.

It's obvious I am too. I just quoted JR talking about the middle step - the one he supposedly cut his boot on.

My position is simple; the top step is level with the wall and cellar door (that's what the pictures suggest to me) - that is no place to check the padlock. Richardson pushed the backdoor open a little, glanced at the the cellar door, found it to be okay, and left for work. The door closed automatically as he left, as he said.
The only issue is why he made up the boot cutting story, but ultimately, Richardson cannot help us determine when the murder occurred.
Regardless, how much do we care what time the murder occurred, other than in relation to judging Cross as a suspect?

You ask why the police didn’t object but there’s a fair bit that they might have objected to but didn’t. Why did no one pursue the knife story that on the face of it makes little sense for example?

Good point. I agree. Baxter makes it obvious that he is aware of the discrepancy in the knife story.
For me, it points to the fact that Richardson feels vulnerable in having visited the murder location but having no sense of the (possible) presence of the body.
Will he look silly? Will he appear to be hiding the truth of his knowledge of a woman being in the backyard - one that it may be thought he interacted with?
I think Richardson is scared, and the boot story is there to prove that he behaved innocently and did not see the victim.

How do we know that Chandler was correct in what he said. He might have been mistaken. After all he only ‘interviewed’ Richardson in the passageway during a difficult time and we don’t even know if he took notes? What if Richardson simply said something like “ I checked the cellar from the back steps and I couldn’t have missed a body had it been there.” Maybe he was reluctant to mention using a knife in case the police were suspicious of him and Chandler didn’t go into detail with him but just accepted that Richardson couldn’t have missed a body?

Was Chandler so reliable and trustworthy? He was demoted for drinking on duty not long after.

We don't know how how reliable and trustworthy he is. That's true.
However, Baxter seems to have trusted him (by reading his tone and manner!), and therefore we have a discrepancy between what Chandler reports JR said on the day, and what JR testifies.
It's the discrepancy I'm interested in - I have no opinion on Chandler as such.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

There is a drawing somewhere, that may well have been drawn in situ, and it looks much like arterial spray to me. The word "smear" does lend itself to another interpretation, but it´s a semantic issue. I think it would work well to say "I got the arterial spray on me, and was smeared with blood", for example.

If you can find that drawing, I'd be interested in having a look at it.
Otherwise I don't have anything else to say about the Chapman murder at this stage.
All this stuff is interesting enough, but I want keep it in perspective. I need to learn more about some of the other murders, and maybe later on I will have something interesting to say about those...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Okay, thanks for that. I´ve been having trouble with the casebook site again; sorry for not having answered your post before. I only just saw it.

No problem Fish.

I just found that piece in issue #15. It was a letter from John Morrison. This is the relevant part:

“Might I suggest to all your Members that they should write to The Bodleian Library, Broad Street, Oxford and request all they have on The Whitechapel Murders in their Johnston File written at the time of the murders in 1888. The whole package costing around £5.00 (in 1998 of course) comprises 48 pages together with a few illustrations and much information that the average Ripperologist is unaware of, for example, at the time of Annie Chapman’s death it was suspected that she had been doped with chloroform etc.”

Possibly just a rumour?

[Fisherman]

No problem Fish.

I just found that piece in issue #15. It was a letter from John Morrison. This is the relevant part:

“Might I suggest to all your Members that they should write to The Bodleian Library, Broad Street, Oxford and request all they have on The Whitechapel Murders in their Johnston File written at the time of the murders in 1888. The whole package costing around £5.00 (in 1998 of course) comprises 48 pages together with a few illustrations and much information that the average Ripperologist is unaware of, for example, at the time of Annie Chapman’s death it was suspected that she had been doped with chloroform etc.”

Possibly just a rumour?

Well, I think somebody would have coughed up that fiver back in the day and found out. And if it was not just a rumor, my guess is we would have known. But thanks anyway for digging it out!

[Fisherman]

If you can find that drawing, I'd be interested in having a look at it.
Otherwise I don't have anything else to say about the Chapman murder at this stage.
All this stuff is interesting enough, but I want keep it in perspective. I need to learn more about some of the other murders, and maybe later on I will have something interesting to say about those...

I didn´t find the drawing I had in mind, but another one much like it. Use the link https://www.jack-the-ripper-tour.com...anbury-street/ and scroll down to the fifth picture.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I didn´t find the drawing I had in mind, but another one much like it. Use the link https://www.jack-the-ripper-tour.com...anbury-street/ and scroll down to the fifth picture.

Thanks. I see what you mean.
Phillips is recorded as saying 14" above ground - maybe he said from the ground to 14" above? Or maybe the picture is inaccurate.
As for the spots on the wall, perhaps that was due to the Ripper flicking his wrist, to get some of the blood off his knife.

[Fisherman]

Thanks. I see what you mean.
Phillips is recorded as saying 14" above ground - maybe he said from the ground to 14" above? Or maybe the picture is inaccurate.
As for the spots on the wall, perhaps that was due to the Ripper flicking his wrist, to get some of the blood off his knife.

It would be if that blood all ended up precisely at 14", wouldn´t it? Phillips would reasonably have meant that the specks reached up to a height of 14", methinks. The other picture is a bit clearer as I remember it, but the impression is much the same.

[Azarna]

Am I right in thinking that, at the time he was interviewed by the police, Albert Cadosch would have been aware that there had been a murder in the yard next door?

If someone is asked to remember an incident, such as "what did you hear when you went out to the toilet during the early hours?" they are probably less likely to speculate than if they already know of about a specific event that they could potentially have heard.

So saying one heard "a fall against the fence" might well be an interpretation of the sound, based on now knowing a woman died, and presumably fell or was pushed against the fence.

Rather than a more general "I heard a noice by the fence" or "I head a bump sound" - with no reason to interpret that sound as "a fall" specifically.

Which could mean that Cadosch heard a sound and is calling it "a fall" based on subsequent information, whereas the sound was caused by something else.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Am I right in thinking that, at the time he was interviewed by the police, Albert Cadosch would have been aware that there had been a murder in the yard next door?

If someone is asked to remember an incident, such as "what did you hear when you went out to the toilet during the early hours?" they are probably less likely to speculate than if they already know of about a specific event that they could potentially have heard.

So saying one heard "a fall against the fence" might well be an interpretation of the sound, based on now knowing a woman died, and presumably fell or was pushed against the fence.

Rather than a more general "I heard a noice by the fence" or "I head a bump sound" - with no reason to interpret that sound as "a fall" specifically.

Which could mean that Cadosch heard a sound and is calling it "a fall" based on subsequent information, whereas the sound was caused by something else.

Good question and points.

At the inquest, Cadosch said this about the people next door:

They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings. I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over.

Okay, so next door is in the habit putting large cases up against the fence.
So when hearing the sound against the fence that morning, why didn't Cadosch suppose it were the well known sound of these packing cases banging against the palings?
Maybe it sounded different that time - as he said, like a fall?
A fall of what though? A human perhaps?
It must have been something different that time, and sounded so - which he did notice, and thus described it the way he did.
In that case why not take a look over the fence?
Perhaps though, as you suggest, he only gave that description of a fall against the fence, after knowing what it most likely was?
In that case, his perception has been coloured and his testimony is of less value than it would have been otherwise.

[Herlock Sholmes]

How many people would look over a fence simply because they heard a sound coming from next door? Especially when the people next door ran a business which used the back door?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

How many people would look over a fence simply because they heard a sound coming from next door? Especially when the people next door ran a business which used the back door?

That depends - are we talking about normal people, or a boring and overly cautious person like yourself?
If the later, I'd say the chances of that person at least taking a peak, would be near enough to 100%.
For normal people, it would depend on how unusual that sound were - which was the point of my reply to the good post by Azarna.
We are dealing with probabilities here (at least I am) - it's not an either/or.
I am not saying that Richardson must have looked, in response to the sound, but I am saying that he is much more likely to look if the sound is that of a fall, and not that made by the packing cases contacting the fence.
However, this would only be true if Richardson had indeed heard something that sounded like a fall, and was not using that description due to the bias of knowing that a woman has been found murdered at the base of the fence on the other side.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That depends - are we talking about normal people, or a boring and overly cautious person like yourself?

It’s instructive that you appear to consider caution a defect. You also consider me boring because I prefer the real world.

If the later, I'd say the chances of that person at least taking a peak, would be near enough to 100%.

Id say nearer 1% or fewer. Of someone hears a sound from their neighbours yard no one would bother looking unless it was someone yelling “murder” or a shout of pain or fear.

For normal people, it would depend on how unusual that sound were - which was the point of my reply to the good post by Azarna.

The sound of something brushing/falling against a fence in the yard of a packing case business. Cadosch was aware of this fact so unless the noise was something way out of the ordinary (examples above) he’d have had zero reason to look over the fence and risk being called a ‘nosey b*#^*#d.’

We are dealing with probabilities here (at least I am) - it's not an either/or.
I am not saying that Richardson must have looked, in response to the sound, but I am saying that he is much more likely to look if the sound is that of a fall, and not that made by the packing cases contacting the fence.

Cadosch not Richardson. We can’t imply anything from the fact that he didn’t look over the fence.

However, this would only be true if Richardson had indeed heard something that sounded like a fall, and was not using that description due to the bias of knowing that a woman has been found murdered at the base of the fence on the other side.

Something we cannot know.