Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’d also add that if we consider the circumstances of a statement for context then we should consider Inspector Chandler saying that Richardson didn’t mention sitting on the step.

This was from an ‘interview’ that took place in the passageway of number 29 probably before 6.30am? (I’ll stand correcting of course but wasn’t it before Phillips arrived?) A busy crime scene of a sensational murder with Chandler in charge of his biggest case. He had the Doctor due to arrive at any minute and no doubt much on his mind. This was certainly no in depth interview. Do we know if he even wrote anything down?

What did he want to know from Richardson? I’d say whether he was a suspect or not and whether Annie there at 4.45 when Richardson was there?

Are these two options anything like impossible or implausible?

That Chandler might have misheard ‘sat on the step’ for ‘stood on the step?’ Or that, on the spot and realising that he might have been considered a suspect, he panicked and decided to leave out the part that included a knife? And so in answer to Chandler he said something to the effect of that from the steps he could see the whole of the yard and couldn’t have missed the body. Later when the possibility of the body being hidden by the door could have been mentioned to him he mentions sitting on the step.

Could he have lied for another reason? Well yes, the ‘fifteen minutes of fame’ argument applies to all witnesses. (I’m too lazy to keep typing that so I’ll call it the FOF argument.) But in Richardson’s case there’s more against than for FOF. We can reasonably ask why would he, when he didn’t need to, put himself at the scene of a viscous knife crime with a knife?

Again before Trevor starts about testimony being unsafe to totally rely on that’s not what I’m doing here. I’m considering the circumstances and the context to arrive at possible explanations. By being black and white on witness statements were are potentially depriving ourselves of options.

How can we simply dismiss things that might well be correct? No one will go to the gallows if we in 2020 follow 2, 3 or 4 lines of thought. We don’t need to be that rigid in our thinking. This doesn’t stop anyone doubting witnesses but when we’re reliant on press versions of what was said then caution should work both ways.

[harry]

There was no conversation,Fisherman,and no brawl,so you have corrected nothing.A single word is what has been reported to have been heard,and a noise against the fence.There is nothing in Cadosch's reported information that puts two persons in the yard of 29 Hanbury street.It wasn't a dead person that was there at that time,but a live one who who made that one exclamation.A murder could of course have been in progress,but I tend to believe that came a short time later,under different circumstances.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The meaning is the exact same in both versions, though.

Is it? Then why all your frantic responses?

And both versions are adamant in pointing out that Phillips said that it was AT LEAST two hours. That detail scarce though it may seem, wins. The rest looses out.

At least two hours MINUS cooling due to blood loss and cold weather.
Other interpretations lose out, because they ignore Phillips suggesting it would be right to modify his estimate by taking these variables into account.

As a piece of advice, it is often good to take a look at how papers choose to condense matters. The purpose in doing so is to sift away unneccesary information.

On this occasion, it clearly was not unnecessary information. As evidence to that, witness your own response to it - panic!

The idea that "we must go by the principle the most detail wins" is a dangerous one at times since long and garbled sentences often have more detail than. short, succinct ones. And when it comes to deciding the matter, we must only go by the principle "at least" means "at least.

Dangerous for you maybe, not me, and Phillips' sentence in the ES is not garbled - its meaning is quite clear.
It is quite revealing that you seem to be advocating throwing away information, presumably when that information does not suit your agenda.

Hereīs a quickie for you: The Star reported on the 13:th on the matter, writing:

"Considerable doubt is being thrown on the evidence of John Richardson, who stated that he was almost on the exact spot where the body was found at a quarter to five on Saturday morning, and no signs of the murder were then apparent. It is now beginning to be believed that the woman was brought to the backyard in Hanbury-street some time earlier."

Now, why would the police be of the opinion that Chapman was brought to the murder spot some time earlier than 4.45? Clearly, that time was only 15 minutes shy of the time Phillips said was the minimum, and if the doctor had generously opened up for being wrong on the point (as per you and a few others), then why donīt the police simply believe Richardson? Which is the reason? Had they aquired a copy of Bramble & Winterbottomīs Time Table for Whitechapel Murders? Had somebody stepped forward and said that he or she saw Chapman enter the yard at 4.00? Or something such?
Which could be the reason, NBFN?

While that question is interesting in its own right, our interpretation of Phillips' words regarding his ToD estimate, is not contingent on any doubts the police may have had regarding John Richardson, at the time that edition of the Star went to press.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

This is from the East London Observer from the 15:th of September 1888. I donīt know how it fares in the "The Most Detail Wins"-competition, but I think it is of interest nevertheless:

"One other important fact was the surgeon able to glean, which discounted the groundless stories of the murdered woman having been seen at five o'clock that morning, and that was that death had taken place fully two hours before the first discovery of the body - probably between three and four o'clock on the Saturday morning."

They really must have misunderstood the whole thing, eh?

Once again, stories of Chapman's sighting at 5am - groundless or not - have no impact on our understanding of Phillip's ToD estimate.

As for the most detail, wins principle, that applies to differences in quotes across newspapers. Edward Spooner example:

[DT] I did not meet any one as I was hastening through Berner-street.

[DN] I did not meet any one as I was hastening to Berner-street except Mr. Harris, who was coming out of his house in Tiger Bay, having heard the police whistle.

The Daily News reporter did not hallucinate Spooner mentioning Mr Harris, and similar detail appears in the MA and Times.

[Kattrup]

While that question is interesting in its own right, our interpretation of Phillips' words regarding his ToD estimate, is not contingent on any doubts the police may have had regarding John Richardson, at the time that edition of the Star went to press.

How is it interesting? There's no mention of the police. As you know, journalists frequently make exaggerated claims and simplistic analyses. So The Star claiming that someone (who?) is beginning to doubt Richardson is hardly interesting.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

How is it interesting? There's no mention of the police. As you know, journalists frequently make exaggerated claims and simplistic analyses. So The Star claiming that someone (who?) is beginning to doubt Richardson is hardly interesting.

My guess is that the 'considerable doubt' was due to the police being aware of Phillips' ToD estimate, prior to George testifying.
I think that more likely than the Star just being provocative, although the report does lack detail, including any mention of police, as you said.
Perhaps the police had another clue or lead that came to nothing?

Perhaps I should have said 'somewhat interesting', but I didn't want to just dismiss this out of hand.
My essential point is that nothing else in the investigation should be allowed to colour the meaning of what Phillips said about ToD, regardless of how accurate his estimate may have been.

[Fisherman]

As you dismiss Cadosch because of the existence of a more detailed statement then I’d suggest that we can now dismiss Phillips on the same grounds.

Yes, you would, wouldnīt you?

[Fisherman]

As for the ‘statements’ in The Daily News of September 10th and The Morning Advertiser and The Manchester Guardian it’s plain to see that these aren’t directly quoted words from Cadosch. They are the words of a journalist who no doubt spoke to Cadosch and then wrote up the article later on with all the possibilities of error and all of the temptations of embellishment. Therefore it’s the journalists accuracy that should be called into question.

And so so the reality is that Cadosch heard a ‘no’ which his very first impression told him came from the yard of number 29 ( and reason tells us that someone is far less likely to have mistaken a word from several yards away for one emanating from within 6 feet or so. The argument that the ‘no’ could have come from a distance away is feeble at best) He then heard the sound of something brushing against the fence of number 29 (not number 25 or number 31) Something that he had absolutely no doubt of.

He did hear something. Annie and her killer.

Time to pack it up and go home, Herlock. Once again, it matters not if Albert himself was the origin of the discrepancies (and he in all probability was), they are nevertheless there, and so we cannot shpa a version we like and go by that. We must instead accept - and itīs high time! - that his testimony is unreliable. Wheter itīs "Damn Cadosch!" or "Damn those journalists who ascribed the same wrong things to old Albert!" is neither here nor there.

[Fisherman]

I’d also add that if we consider the circumstances of a statement for context then we should consider Inspector Chandler saying that Richardson didn’t mention sitting on the step.

This was from an ‘interview’ that took place in the passageway of number 29 probably before 6.30am? (I’ll stand correcting of course but wasn’t it before Phillips arrived?) A busy crime scene of a sensational murder with Chandler in charge of his biggest case. He had the Doctor due to arrive at any minute and no doubt much on his mind. This was certainly no in depth interview. Do we know if he even wrote anything down?

What did he want to know from Richardson? I’d say whether he was a suspect or not and whether Annie there at 4.45 when Richardson was there?

Are these two options anything like impossible or implausible?

That Chandler might have misheard ‘sat on the step’ for ‘stood on the step?’ Or that, on the spot and realising that he might have been considered a suspect, he panicked and decided to leave out the part that included a knife? And so in answer to Chandler he said something to the effect of that from the steps he could see the whole of the yard and couldn’t have missed the body. Later when the possibility of the body being hidden by the door could have been mentioned to him he mentions sitting on the step.

Could he have lied for another reason? Well yes, the ‘fifteen minutes of fame’ argument applies to all witnesses. (I’m too lazy to keep typing that so I’ll call it the FOF argument.) But in Richardson’s case there’s more against than for FOF. We can reasonably ask why would he, when he didn’t need to, put himself at the scene of a viscous knife crime with a knife?

Again before Trevor starts about testimony being unsafe to totally rely on that’s not what I’m doing here. I’m considering the circumstances and the context to arrive at possible explanations. By being black and white on witness statements were are potentially depriving ourselves of options.

How can we simply dismiss things that might well be correct? No one will go to the gallows if we in 2020 follow 2, 3 or 4 lines of thought. We don’t need to be that rigid in our thinking. This doesn’t stop anyone doubting witnesses but when we’re reliant on press versions of what was said then caution should work both ways.

Yes, if we amend things in retrospect and claim that just abut everything was misheard, we get a very different picture, thatīs true. It can take us anywhere we want to go.

[Fisherman]

There was no conversation,Fisherman,and no brawl,so you have corrected nothing.A single word is what has been reported to have been heard,and a noise against the fence.There is nothing in Cadosch's reported information that puts two persons in the yard of 29 Hanbury street.It wasn't a dead person that was there at that time,but a live one who who made that one exclamation.A murder could of course have been in progress,but I tend to believe that came a short time later,under different circumstances.

Ah, but you are forgetting what Cadosch INITIALLY was recorded to have said, Harry.

[Fisherman]

Is it? Then why all your frantic responses?

Yes, it is.

At least two hours MINUS cooling due to blood loss and cold weather.
Other interpretations lose out, because they ignore Phillips suggesting it would be right to modify his estimate by taking these variables into account.

Nope. Read the East London Observer. And trust me, not least!

On this occasion, it clearly was not unnecessary information. As evidence to that, witness your own response to it - panic!

Panic? I have no reson to panic. I just read the East London Observer.

Dangerous for you maybe, not me, and Phillips' sentence in the ES is not garbled - its meaning is quite clear.
It is quite revealing that you seem to be advocating throwing away information, presumably when that information does not suit your agenda.

Yes, the meaning is quite clear. What I throw away is not correct information, it is your misinterpretation of the information. Once again, read the East London Observer.

While that question is interesting in its own right, our interpretation of Phillips' words regarding his ToD estimate, is not contingent on any doubts the police may have had regarding John Richardson, at the time that edition of the Star went to press.

So no answer, eh? Again, read the E L O; "One other important fact was the surgeon able to glean, which discounted the groundless stories of the murdered woman having been seen at five o'clock that morning, and that was that death had taken place fully two hours before the first discovery of the body - probably between three and four o'clock on the Saturday morning."

[Fisherman]

How is it interesting? There's no mention of the police. As you know, journalists frequently make exaggerated claims and simplistic analyses. So The Star claiming that someone (who?) is beginning to doubt Richardson is hardly interesting.

Taken together with the report from the inquest in the East London Observer, Iīd say we can change "interesting" for "decisive". But I recommend you donīt go down that path, because it makes mincemeat of your stance.

The three witnesses were very clearly ALWAYS looked upon as having produced groundless stories. Letīs revisit the old material, now that we know what kind of light has been shedded on the story. We begin with Swanson:

" ...hence the evidence of Mrs. Long which appeared to be so important to the Coroner, must be looked upon with some amount of doubt, which is to be regretted."

First point: What happened to Cadosch? Why does Swanson not say that Longs testimony cannot be taken lightly since it was backed up by what poor old Albert said? Because, of course, he no longer played any part in the drama at the stage when Swanson wrote his report (19:th of October). I donīt think that he as such played any vital role at any stage.

And what does Swanson say about how he feels about the testimony offered by Long? Does he say that it seemed important to him? No, he says that it seemed important to the coroner! It "appeared to be so important to the Coroner".

Appearances, appearances. Swanson flushes it down the drain, thatīs what he does. And VERY wisely so.

Time to let go of the old ideas about how everybody were confused by the difference between the witnesses and Phillips. The E L O very clearly tells us that Phillips gave NO learoom beyond the two hour line, and that the witnesses were from the ouytset exposed as having told groundless stories:

"One other important fact was the surgeon able to glean, which discounted the groundless storiesof the murdered woman having been seen at five o'clock that morning, and that was that death had taken place fully two hours before the first discovery of the body - probably between three and four o'clock on the Saturday morning."

There was no initial confusion. It is a latter day invention, amplified into an absolute absurdity by ripperological busy-bodies with no basic understanding of this part of the case. Sorry, but it must be said.

I am very happy about how we first found out about the versatility of Mr Cadosch and how we now have had it shown to us what the true sentiments were at the inquest. It is perfectly in line with what I have said throughout. The unfortunate wording Phillips was quoted on has been used against him for the longest, but that cannot be done any longer. When he said "at least" he MEANT at least, and he never budged a millimeter on it, as we may now see.

[Fisherman]

Once again, stories of Chapman's sighting at 5am - groundless or not - have no impact on our understanding of Phillip's ToD estimate.

As for the most detail, wins principle, that applies to differences in quotes across newspapers. Edward Spooner example:

[DT] I did not meet any one as I was hastening through Berner-street.

[DN] I did not meet any one as I was hastening to Berner-street except Mr. Harris, who was coming out of his house in Tiger Bay, having heard the police whistle.

The Daily News reporter did not hallucinate Spooner mentioning Mr Harris, and similar detail appears in the MA and Times.

The witnesses were thrown out, as per the E L O. Phillips never budged, we know that now.

Whether he was correct or not about the TOD is another matter. But the weighing together of four parameters tells us that he with near certainty was correct. And we can be absolutely sure that he could not have failed so monumentally as to allow for a TOD at 5.20 - 5.30.

Then again, I have said so for years, so itīs nothing new, is it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, if we amend things in retrospect and claim that just abut everything was misheard, we get a very different picture, thatīs true. It can take us anywhere we want to go.

No Fish it’s called taking a reasoned view. The chances that Richardson lied is significantly reduced because of the situation that he’d have been needlessly putting himself in. And the chances of him being mistaken and missing a mutilated corpse are incredibly remote anyway. This favours him being correct.

[Fisherman]

Reasoned? Why then do you think that the E L O wrote that the 5 AM observations (Richardson was 4.45) were written off? Because they were unreasoned? Come on, Herlock, find yourself a white flag, the war is over.