Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[Trevor Marriott]

You

I think it’s very strange. This case is discussed in terms of ‘what ifs’ and ‘maybe’s’ because there’s so much that we don’t know for certain. How can we possibly discuss the case if we have to dismiss every witness when a discrepancy arises? Has it been proven that Cadosch lied? It’s nowhere near that black and white of course. As we’ve said before, he might have toned down his statement after hearing about the Dr’s TOD. He might have felt pressured by the police. The Press might have exaggerated what he’d actually said. These are possibilities. You are and Trevor are at liberty to completely dismiss him. I don’t. I’ve even accepted the 1000-1 chance that Richardson might not have realised that a door can conceal a body. Given the choice between Richardson missing a mutilated corpse and Cadosch hearing what he said that he did, Cadosch wins by a country mile but I still don’t absolutely dismiss the former. This is because I think that we should assess all reasonable possibilities.

You will not achieve a situation where the murder of Annie Chapman is discussed and that witnesses are completely dismissed I'm
afraid. No matter how many times that you keep stating it.

You just dont comprehend do you

It is being pointed out to you the flaws in his statement, flaws which make what he says unsafe to totally rely on.

Unsafe is a million miles away from dismissing outright

Why do you not want to accept that his testimony is unsafe?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

I think it’s very strange. This case is discussed in terms of ‘what ifs’ and ‘maybe’s’ because there’s so much that we don’t know for certain. How can we possibly discuss the case if we have to dismiss every witness when a discrepancy arises? Has it been proven that Cadosch lied? It’s nowhere near that black and white of course. As we’ve said before, he might have toned down his statement after hearing about the Dr’s TOD. He might have felt pressured by the police. The Press might have exaggerated what he’d actually said. These are possibilities. You are and Trevor are at liberty to completely dismiss him. I don’t. I’ve even accepted the 1000-1 chance that Richardson might not have realised that a door can conceal a body. Given the choice between Richardson missing a mutilated corpse and Cadosch hearing what he said that he did, Cadosch wins by a country mile but I still don’t absolutely dismiss the former. This is because I think that we should assess all reasonable possibilities.

You will not achieve a situation where the murder of Annie Chapman is discussed and that witnesses are completely dismissed I'm
afraid. No matter how many times that you keep stating it.

Herlock, no case should be regarded as black and white only. But I think you are even more economic when ruling out the color black for witness application.

What I recommend is that we look upon the case in all itīs shades. I object against the idea that all witnesses should be looked upon as kosher once we have it in - yes! - black and white that they have given totally different versions of their stories. Instead, those witnesses should be regarded with a lot of scepticism, for that exact reason.

I know that you are quite aware that this is how things must be done. It has nothing to do with any certainty that the witness in question must have lied, but it accepts that no reliability can be ascribed to the witness once he or she has compromised him- or herself. It is common procedure and common sense.

Wheter Cadosch "may have toned down" his testimony, whether he was misunderstood or misinterpreted by the press is neither here nor there in the overall issue. He-is-neverthless-compromised. For good or for bad, we will never be able to prove either way.

There are realities you must face. We all must. And it does not help when you try to quantify the possibility that Richardson can have had the door hiding Annie Chapman to 1000-1. We cannot say. And jestering about it changes nothing.

Cadosch goofed up. That significantly worsens the case for the witness believers. In a corresponding degree, it helps the cause of those who side with Phillips. How hard can that be to understand...?

[The Rookie Detective]

From this thread, it seems that the majority of opinion favors believing either Cadosch was embellishing the truth to sound more important than he was or just outright lying to mislead the inquiry.

But WHY would he choose to do either of those?

Was he himself considered or even proven to be an unreliable character?

Just because his account doesn't necessarily fit in a conventional sense, is that enough to disregard him?

If his authenticity and credibility as a witness are to be challenged, then surely there must be a more considerable reason to do so than simply because his account doesn't tie in with Richardson and Co.


Is there a danger by doing so, that potential key witnesses are being missed simply because their respective accounts don't fit?


I can understand challenging a so called witness like Hutchinson, who either had a photographic memory, was embellishing the truth and exaggerating when he described the man he saw with MJK or was the ripper himself, but as for Cadosch... surely if he was embellishing the truth then he would have made more of an outlandish claim than just hearing the word "no"

The truth is more likely to come from examining the finer smaller seemingly insignificant details, as opposed to extreme detail.

If Cadosch was lying or exaggerating then i would have expected more of a detailed account, like...
"yes i saw the man, he was tall, had a big knife and looked foreign, i tried to apprehend him but he ran away like a coward"

But no... he just said he thought he heard someone say "no"


More of a truth than the Hutchinson story anyway.


TRD

[Fisherman]

From this thread, it seems that the majority of opinion favors believing either Cadosch was embellishing the truth to sound more important than he was or just outright lying to mislead the inquiry.

But WHY would he choose to do either of those?

Was he himself considered or even proven to be an unreliable character?

Just because his account doesn't necessarily fit in a conventional sense, is that enough to disregard him?

If his authenticity and credibility as a witness are to be challenged, then surely there must be a more considerable reason to do so than simply because his account doesn't tie in with Richardson and Co.


Is there a danger by doing so, that potential key witnesses are being missed simply because their respective accounts don't fit?


I can understand challenging a so called witness like Hutchinson, who either had a photographic memory, was embellishing the truth and exaggerating when he described the man he saw with MJK or was the ripper himself, but as for Cadosch... surely if he was embellishing the truth then he would have made more of an outlandish claim than just hearing the word "no"

The truth is more likely to come from examining the finer smaller seemingly insignificant details, as opposed to extreme detail.

If Cadosch was lying or exaggerating then i would have expected more of a detailed account, like...
"yes i saw the man, he was tall, had a big knife and looked foreign, i tried to apprehend him but he ran away like a coward"

But no... he just said he thought he heard someone say "no"


More of a truth than the Hutchinson story anyway.


TRD

I completely disagree. Whereas Cadoschīs testimony is all over the place, Hutchinsons ditto was remarkably similar throughout and it was noted that he could not be shaken.

Cadosch was shaken, stirred and poured out all over the floor.

You ask about Cadosch: "Just because his account doesn't necessarily fit in a conventional sense, is that enough to disregard him? "

No, it is not any reason at all to disregard him. Then again, the reason I disregard him is that he gave totally differing versions of what he had supposedly overheard, not that his testimony is in any way unconventional.

If the unconventional addition is that he served up differing versions of his testimony, then Iīd say yes, that is reason enough to disregard him. Once again, not because it cannot hold a core of truth, but because we should not put our conception of the case at risk of being taken to the cleaners.

You need to keep these things apart.

[Herlock Sholmes]

How many potentially profitable avenues
of investigation might be lost if we took the conveniently blinkered attitude that’s being espoused here. Do we weigh up likelihood’s and probabilities - nope. We dismiss. And yes Trevor this is exactly what Fish is saying. That Cadosch should be dismissed. Not that we even consider the possibility that he was being truthful. No. It’s a case of finding an error or a discrepancy and then jumping up and down gleefully at being able to ‘dismiss ‘ an inconvenient witness.

Trevor you keep repeating ‘unsafe,’ ‘unsafe,’ but this is par for the course in a case where we can be certain of so little. For the millionth time I’m not saying that any witness is cast in stone. I’m saying that we can weigh them up based on our own particular judgment to form opinions. Why is this such a bad thing and why isn’t it preferable to just binning witnesses and evidence when there are discrepancies? We are not in court here. The same rules don’t apply.

Fish keeps talking about Cadosch and the different ‘versions.’ Does this mean that we should dismiss him? According to Fish Yes. Even though he might have been telling the inconvenient truth? Even though the discrepancy might have been down to others? No, we still bin him. Doubt = dismiss. Discrepancy = dismiss.

This argument is dead. If we keep dismissing imperfect witnesses then we need to move on to another interest.

And no matter how many times a variant of ‘Cadosch can be dismissed’ is repeated I can assure everyone that he will not be dismissed. By some yes but not all.

Its my opinion that Cadosch heard a ‘no’ and then a sound. And if he did I’d say that it was 95% certain that the ‘no’ came from number 29 and 99% certain that the sound came from number 29. It wasn’t a cat or a rat or a blind man. It was Annie and her killer. And until someone can prove that this wasn’t the case it’s the opinion I’ll keep.

[Trevor Marriott]

How many potentially profitable avenues
of investigation might be lost if we took the conveniently blinkered attitude that’s being espoused here. Do we weigh up likelihood’s and probabilities - nope. We dismiss. And yes Trevor this is exactly what Fish is saying. That Cadosch should be dismissed. Not that we even consider the possibility that he was being truthful. No. It’s a case of finding an error or a discrepancy and then jumping up and down gleefully at being able to ‘dismiss ‘ an inconvenient witness.

Trevor you keep repeating ‘unsafe,’ ‘unsafe,’ but this is par for the course in a case where we can be certain of so little. For the millionth time I’m not saying that any witness is cast in stone. I’m saying that we can weigh them up based on our own particular judgment to form opinions. Why is this such a bad thing and why isn’t it preferable to just binning witnesses and evidence when there are discrepancies? We are not in court here. The same rules don’t apply.

Fish keeps talking about Cadosch and the different ‘versions.’ Does this mean that we should dismiss him? According to Fish Yes. Even though he might have been telling the inconvenient truth? Even though the discrepancy might have been down to others? No, we still bin him. Doubt = dismiss. Discrepancy = dismiss.

This argument is dead. If we keep dismissing imperfect witnesses then we need to move on to another interest.

And no matter how many times a variant of ‘Cadosch can be dismissed’ is repeated I can assure everyone that he will not be dismissed. By some yes but not all.

Its my opinion that Cadosch heard a ‘no’ and then a sound. And if he did I’d say that it was 95% certain that the ‘no’ came from number 29 and 99% certain that the sound came from number 29. It wasn’t a cat or a rat or a blind man. It was Annie and her killer. And until someone can prove that this wasn’t the case it’s the opinion I’ll keep.

But you cant prove your case simply because the supporting witness testimony you seek to rely on is unsafe

So it is best left for each individual to make up their own minds as to who they believe

My preferred choice is to believe Phillips simply because there is no other evidence to support any victim being murdered at that time of the morning, in a location which might have resulted in him being seen, discovered, or even apprehended. and the fact that the supporting witness testimony to point to a later time is unsafe.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But you cant prove your case simply because the supporting witness testimony you seek to rely on is unsafe


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No matter how many times I say that I’m not relying on any witness statement you still keep repeating it. I give up.

[Fisherman]

How many potentially profitable avenues
of investigation might be lost if we took the conveniently blinkered attitude that’s being espoused here.

The point is that we canīt say. Maybe they are less than the amount of potentially disastrous avenues we would open up if we accept the witnesses, no questions asked? If, as I believe, the witnesses were all wrong and/or lying, then we would face the risk of getting the TOD for Chapman wildly wrong and start to think that she was killed at around 5.20 - 5.30. And if this really was not the case, if she instead died around 3-4 AM, we would be considering the wrong people for her murder, those who were there much later than when she died.

Does that answer your question?

[Fisherman]

Fish keeps talking about Cadosch and the different ‘versions.’ Does this mean that we should dismiss him?

Truth be told, we are not the ones dismissing him. He took care of that himself.

[Trevor Marriott]

No matter how many times I say that I’m not relying on any witness statement you still keep repeating it. I give up.

well, what are you relying on to prop up your misguided beliefs in the evidence of Cadosch, Richardson and Mrs Long? You either accept all three or reject all three but you cannot from an evidential point of view accept all three because they conflict with each other, and that conflict makes them all unsafe because we have nothing to show which of them is 100% accurate to rely on, so we have an evidential impasse and this topic can be discussed from now until the cows come home but nothing is going to change that.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

well, what are you relying on to prop up your misguided beliefs in the evidence of Cadosch, Richardson and Mrs Long? You either accept all three or reject all three but you cannot from an evidential point of view accept all three because they conflict with each other, and that conflict makes them all unsafe because we have nothing to show which of them is 100% accurate to rely on, so we have an evidential impasse and this topic can be discussed from now until the cows come home but nothing is going to change that.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But we’re not talking in terms of 100% because we can’t. About anything in this case. We are talking about likelihood’s and possibilities.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The point is that we canīt say. Maybe they are less than the amount of potentially disastrous avenues we would open up if we accept the witnesses, no questions asked? If, as I believe, the witnesses were all wrong and/or lying, then we would face the risk of getting the TOD for Chapman wildly wrong and start to think that she was killed at around 5.20 - 5.30. And if this really was not the case, if she instead died around 3-4 AM, we would be considering the wrong people for her murder, those who were there much later than when she died.

Does that answer your question?

But as we can be certain of very little the possibility also exists that by dismissing witnesses we could arrive at an incorrect TOD.

[Fisherman]

But as we can be certain of very little the possibility also exists that by dismissing witnesses we could arrive at an incorrect TOD.

You may have noticed that the first sentence of my post stated that we cannot say whether we loose out on the productive paths of investigation you spoke of? None of us can be a hundred per cent certain if any of the witnesses - or all of them - gave evidence that was truthful to a smaller or lesser degree. Certainly, the evidence Albert Cadosch gave at the inquest was of so vague a character that it allowed for the voice he claimed to have heard to have come from another back yard than that of no 29. And consequently, it could have been uttered by somebody else than Chapman. Likewise, the sound of something briefly touching the fence must not have been the sound of the killer or Chapman touching it. It could have been a cat, as hs been suggested.
There was nothing in what Cadosch said at the inquest that must have represented him overhearing the murder, and therefore both options are left open:
1. He overheard the. order, or
2. He overheard something else than the murder.

In stark contrast to this, what he claimed to have heard in his original interview could not have been anything else but the murder, could it? The discussion, coming from the part of the yard where the murder took place, the ensuing scuffle, the woman saying "No!" and the ominous heavy fall, first against the fence and then down to the ground with a thump. At the exact spot where Chapman was found.
That cannot be interpreted as anything else but Cadosch saying that he overheard the murder in great detail.

Once we are asked to put trust in Albert Cadosch after this, it is the impossible that is being asked of us.

Letīs assume that Phillips had arrived at the conclusion that Chapman was very recently dead when he examined her. If this was so, then more confidence could be put in what Cadosch claimed. It would have made sense that he could have overheard the murder if he was in his back yard at 5.15 - 5.20.
The problematic thing would be that he didnīt own up to what he had formerly said when he took the stand at the inquest, and it would have caused me to loose much trust in him. I would also say, then as now, that the difference was so great inbetween his versions of the story that we would have to rule his testimony out. But I would do so with more of a feeling of a possible loss than I do now, when I know that Phillipsī verdict rules out that Cadosch could have overheard the murder at 5.15 - 5.20. The logical sequence that offers itself up by Richardsons dismissal as per the Star and Cadoschs knowledge that the medical evidence ruled his story out, lends itself quite well to making the asumption that this was why Albert backpedalled dramatically at the inquest, diluting away all links between what he said and a proven link to the murder. And therefore also absolving him of any potential accusations of perjury.

Given these matters, Albert Cadoscheīs testimony cannot be used to help establish a TOD for Chapman at around 5.20 - 5.30. It is inadmissible evidence, and it must be so. Any further claim to establish a TOD around 5.20 - 5.30 must rest on Elizabeth Long only. And it will remain in total conflict with the medical evidence, where the span between Longīs suggestion and Phillipsī estimation is way too dramatic to allow me to put any trust at all in Long. She even pushes the TOD a quarter of an hour FURTHER down the chronological line, telling us that Chapman would have died at around 5.35 at the earliest - less than an hour before Phillips examined a woman with onsetting rigor, with all her bodily warmth gone save a little remaining one under the intestines and with well clotted and dried up blood surrounding her.

At the very best, Long saw another couple outside no 29. I really hope this was so. But I am certain that she did not see Chapman speaking to somebody at that spot and time.

Does this mean that we must accept that Phillips was probably correct? Yes, it does, if we are comparing the exact timing of 5.35 to the much looser estimation of 4.30 or an hour or so before that. There is no learoom for Long to have been correct, the stretch is way too dramatic. Which is why it has been suggested that Phillips allowed for anything, more or less - it is the only way that his absolute NO can be turned into a POSSIBLY.
But Phillips never gave his okay to that kind of thinking. To begin with, even if we were to allow ourselves to start gnawing away on those two hours he said was the absolute minimum - NOT expected but only possibly allowed for - we must first gnaw away five minutes, making it 1.55. After that, we must gnaw away twelve (12) more five minute chunks of time to get to 1.35.
And all the while, what Phillips said was that the time actually probably needed to be altered - but in the OTHER direction!

We should not lament how this puts an end to any suggestions based on the idea that Chapman died at 5.35, because more or less ALL suggestions up until today have been suggestions working from that very idea. It is not due but instead very much overdue that we accept that Annie Chapmanīs death was in line with the other Whitechapel deaths, all occuring in darkness in the early morning hours. And that we now explore what that means, just as we have explored the options linked to a late TOD for so many years.

[Michael W Richards]

This is true, Michael.

However, if we assume "at least two hours, and probably more", to be 2― hours, the time of contact with fence sound to be the time of death - 5:25, and time of examination to be 6:30, then Phillips is estimating the murder to have occurred 150 minutes ago, whereas is was only 65.

65/150 = ~43%

So really Phillips must have been way off the mark, or what Cadosch heard was not what we think it was, and either Richardson did not tell the whole truth, or was incredibly unobservant.
If the former, makes you wonder about Caroline Maxwell...

I think what I take away from Phillips comments is this, he could not be certain when the death occurred. He believed that based on what his experience told him the body was in a state that was consistent with the death being about 2 hours prior to his arrival, however he acknowledges that because the body was almost drained of blood, and was cut wide open with internal organs removed, and because it was a "cool morning" ...he felt "it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood."

Lets be clear about this, Phillips had no experience quite like this to draw from. The body was in such a state that its inconceivable he would have had to make a similar TOD "estimate" in his entire career. He did add the line I highlighted though, which to me translates to...by the state of the remains I would presume a death a few hours prior to my examination of it, but that estimate may be incorrect due to this unusual state and the environmental conditions.

He is saying it could have been sooner than 2 hours if he didnt factor the conditions of this cold and the bloodless body correctly...which is perfectly understandable under those circumstances, and it shows him to be a man of honest appraisal, rather than speaking from ego.

[harry]

Most of what we are hearing about Cabosch is hearsay.What other persons said of him. What is important is that from the little he imparts,only one person can be placed in the yard of 29 at the time he(Cabosch) was in the adjoining yard.Accept those two pieces of information,then the truthfulness of Richardson,Long and Cadosch is more easily understood.