Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[Bridewell]

How do you feel about the fact that the East London Observer wrote, on the 15:th of September, that "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."

Here, we are informed about the time gap Phillips shot for when he said it was probably more than two hours. He puts the LIKELY time of death to 3-4 AM, some 2,5-3,5 hours before he examined Chapman.
If we choose the middle of that road, 3.30 AM, we find a gap of three hours.
A dead body will give away body warmth for up towards four hours, so extensive damage and a chilly morning is quite in line with a small remainder or warmth being present under the intestines. The rest of the body was all cold to the touch.

The time amount needed to be cut away from that verdict to reach an hour only is staggering. Two thirds of it has to go - and it takes us to a stage when a dead body is typically all warm to the touch.
If that does not worry you, then it should.
When we couple it with the knowledge that rigor typically sets in 2-4 hours after death, and later in cold conditions, it should worry you even more.
Lastly, once we know that Phillips judged the blood at the site to be "well clotted", we have three parameters that are all in line with an early TOD. Add the digestion of the food and you have four parameters.

In Stewart Evans "Scotland Yard Investigates", the author writes that Phillips should have taken the rectal temperature. And that he should have established the ambient temperature too, becasue if you donīt, the value of having taken the rectal temperature is nullified.

He somehow seems to think that it was of the essence to get the exact temperatures established, while I am of the meaning that much as it would have improved the working ground, it does. ot mean that Phillips could not tell a completely warm body from a completely cold one.
That point seems to go lost in the learned discussions about how Phillips was unable to be exact.
The fact is he never needed to.

Evans elucidates how hard it is to establish TOD by telling us that Bond and Phillips differed 3-4 hours in their verdict on Kelly. That, he adds, does not instill any faith in Phillips. What we are not told, however, is that Kelly had been dead beyond the time when body heat could be felt by the hand. She had taken on room temperature, and that is a stage that goes on until the body is removed from the room. She would be at the same temperature to the hand the next day too, if she was left lying there.

What there weas to determine from was basically only rigor in Kellys case. And rigor sets in after 2-4 hours, typically, and is fully developed after 8-12 hours. So both doctors were within the span allowed for, and had to guess much of the rest.

It is an example that is not very healthy to dismiss a doctors professional capacities from.

In Chapmans case, there was body heat, and so she was within the four hour span, reasonably at the end of it.

There was onsetting rigor, and that rigor should have set in 2-4 hours after death, making the time span 2.30 - 4.30 AM. Quite likely, the cold conditions could have pushed it further afield.

By the side of Kate Eddowes forty minutes after she died, there was a pool of liquid blood serum. Beside Annie Chapman, there was well clotted blood. To know it was well clotted, Phillips will have felt it.

All of this is why the five o clock observation of Chapman drinking at a pub was dubbed groundless and thrown out.

Add another fifty per cent of time, worsening the case hugely, and you reach Albert Cadosch at 5.30.

Albert Cadosch, who desperatley backpedalled from his two original versions of the developments in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street at the inquest, when it was well known that John Richardson was disbeleived by the police who reasoned that Chapman would have arrived earlier than 4.45 to the murder spot.

4.45 is three quarters of an hour BEFORE Cadoschīs sideshow.

There is not a chance in heaven or hell that Annie Chapman died at 5.30, grew cold in a jiffy, developed rigor twice as fast or more than she should have, had her food digested to a degree that tallied with a TOD at 3-4 AM and had her blood drying up at her side quicker that you can say bazinga.

I thought Iīd make that clear once again, since it seems to be unneccesarily hard to scrub from the floor.

We are, I believe, in full agreement here. The initial account given by Cadosch has him visiting the midden at 5.25am then again at 5.28am after passing a fence which was 5' high. By the date of the inquest the times had mysteriously gone back to 5.15am and 3-4 minutes thereafter and the fence had grown 6" taller. Quite how it is possible for a self-styled "Journeyman Carpenter" to be unable to accurately judge the height of the fence at his father's address I'm not sure. I don't doubt that he made two visits to the back yard because his unspecified urinary tract ailment is, I gather, one which has afflicted other family members before and since but I'm sceptical about the rest of his account. I also think that Mrs Long's identification of Annie Chapman was sincere but mistaken.

[harry]

But was it the carpenter or the reporting of what he said,that causes the discrepencies.Leaving aside the timings as given,were there a set of circumstances that allows for both Long and Cadosch to have spoken the truth.There are three incidents that appear to have been accepted at that time.The first is Richardson's claim there was no body there when he visited the yard.The second is Cadosch's claim he heard an exclamation of 'No',and Long's reporting of seeing a man and woman outside 21 as she(Long) passed.There were no eye witness accounts that disprove those three witnesses,on those statements,and my opinion is that all three were correct.

[Fisherman]

I agree. Probably nearer 5.20. That’s why she wasn’t there when Richardson sat on the step.

You are moving in the right direction! Just add a further 110 minutes and you will be there.

[Fisherman]

The word ‘usually’ can be taken to mean ‘not always.’

Yes, indeed! Not only COULD it be taken like that, it SHOULD be! There are exceptions to the rule, but the thing about those who choose to put their trust in the three witnesses is that not only must they accept exceptions to the rule when it comes to the rigor issue - they must accept exceptions to the rule in ALL the medical parameters offered by Phillips. And we are not talking about minor exceptions - we are talking about exceptions of huge proportions. A full two thirds of the time of death suggested by Phillips must be removed!

The suggestion is foolhardy, simple as that. And how that has been allowed to pass for so many years is one of the most astounding enigmas linked to the case.

[Fisherman]

We are, I believe, in full agreement here. The initial account given by Cadosch has him visiting the midden at 5.25am then again at 5.28am after passing a fence which was 5' high. By the date of the inquest the times had mysteriously gone back to 5.15am and 3-4 minutes thereafter and the fence had grown 6" taller. Quite how it is possible for a self-styled "Journeyman Carpenter" to be unable to accurately judge the height of the fence at his father's address I'm not sure. I don't doubt that he made two visits to the back yard because his unspecified urinary tract ailment is, I gather, one which has afflicted other family members before and since but I'm sceptical about the rest of his account. I also think that Mrs Long's identification of Annie Chapman was sincere but mistaken.

That is a sound and measured approach to the matter, and one that has me feeling a little less as if I was visiting a parallel universe, Colin. When discussing these matters and being the only proponent for Phillips being absolutely correct, it feels very strange to be surrounded by people who all tell me that I am making a totally weird call. In my world, THEY are the ones who engage in wishful thinking and who try to stretch the medical boundaries way beyond breaking point.

[Fisherman]

But was it the carpenter or the reporting of what he said,that causes the discrepencies.Leaving aside the timings as given,were there a set of circumstances that allows for both Long and Cadosch to have spoken the truth.There are three incidents that appear to have been accepted at that time.The first is Richardson's claim there was no body there when he visited the yard.The second is Cadosch's claim he heard an exclamation of 'No',and Long's reporting of seeing a man and woman outside 21 as she(Long) passed.There were no eye witness accounts that disprove those three witnesses,on those statements,and my opinion is that all three were correct.

Long disproves Cadosch and Cadosch disproves Long, so you are incorrect, Harry. As an aside, just as there are no further witnesses that disprove them, there are no further witnesses that prove them correct either. And they really cannot have been correct. The medical evidence does not allow for it, not even if we detract half of the time Phillips suggested. Thatīs how crazy the idea that Long and Cadosch were correct is.

[Trevor Marriott]

That is a sound and measured approach to the matter, and one that has me feeling a little less as if I was visiting a parallel universe, Colin. When discussing these matters and being the only proponent for Phillips being absolutely correct, it feels very strange to be surrounded by people who all tell me that I am making a totally weird call. In my world, THEY are the ones who engage in wishful thinking and who try to stretch the medical boundaries way beyond breaking point.

If it’s of any consequence I am of the same opinion that Phillips was right simply because the fact that the killer never killed before at that time of the morning and the evidence to support a later time is unsafe

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

If it’s of any consequence I am of the same opinion that Phillips was right simply because the fact that the killer never killed before at that time of the morning and the evidence to support a later time is unsafe

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

To me, the medical implications are much more important, actually. I am convinced that Phillips could not have been as wrong as he had to be to allow for the witnesses to be correct. But of course, I agree that a TOD around 3-4 AM, as suggested by Phillips, makes for a more logical sequence than a TOD at 5.30.

Looking at the overall picture, a TOD at 3-4 AM means that Phillips were correct in his estimations, based on four parameters, and that the killer kept to his chosen schedule as per the other three canonical Whitechapel murders. Everything is in line, and that cannot be a bad thing.

[harry]

How can Long disprove Cadosch,and Cadosch disprove long,when neither was witness to the others testimony?.There may well be a discrepancy around the times given,but that is not insurmountable.Phillips was not eyewitness to any of the three other persons mentioned,so he is in no position to prove any of them wrong.
What we have in so far as medical opinion is given, is the manner of death,not contested,and time of death,which is debateable.If there is no evidence to prove Long,Cadosch and Richardson correct, as Fisherman states,what evidence is there to prove Phillips was.Of course the law does not demand that those three,Richardson,Long and Cadosch, prove their claims,and their evidence would stand,until evidence surfaced that proved them wrong.None did.In the case of Phillips,he expessed an opinion which has never been shown to be true,and would require other medical opinion,to prove it's value.None has been forthcoming.

[harry]

Tevor,
As Chapman's death was early in the series,might it not be that the circumstances that morning were such that the killer,maybe through inexperience and/or an urge he couldn't control,took a chance,and later,on reflection,decided that darkness was a better proposistion.

[Trevor Marriott]

Nothing has changed. The witnesses should not and cannot be dismissed.

You keep using the term dismissed when referring to what is being said about the various witnesses and their testimony.

They are not being dismissed, but because of the conflicts there are between them all, their testimony is unsafe to totally rely on

Unsafe and dismissed are totally differnet ways to describe their testimony. We can argue over this testimony from now until forever but it is not going to change what we have to work with from 1888 and that is unsafe witness testimony.

We can all speculate about who we believe was correct but that is not going to change the witness testimony and each and every one is entitled to form their own opinion as to who they think was telling the truth.

But does it really matter as to what time Chapman was murdered the fact is she was, and as likley as not by the same killer who was responsible for the other murders. Perhaps it matters to Fish who is seeking to show that Lechmere could have been the killer by suggesting the earlier time.

Time to stop this sabre rattling between the two of you this thread has become repetetive with the same type of posts and arguments on a daily basis, it is becoming boring now, time to bring it to a close.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

You keep using the term dismissed when referring to what is being said about the various witnesses and their testimony.

They are not being dismissed, but because of the conflicts there are between them all, their testimony is unsafe to totally rely on

Unsafe and dismissed are totally differnet ways to describe their testimony. We can argue over this testimony from now until forever but it is not going to change what we have to work with from 1888 and that is unsafe witness testimony.

We can all speculate about who we believe was correct but that is not going to change the witness testimony and each and every one is entitled to form their own opinion as to who they think was telling the truth.

But does it really matter as to what time Chapman was murdered the fact is she was, and as likley as not by the same killer who was responsible for the other murders. Perhaps it matters to Fish who is seeking to show that Lechmere could have been the killer by suggesting the earlier time.

Time to stop this sabre rattling between the two of you this thread has become repetetive with the same type of posts and arguments on a daily basis, it is becoming boring now, time to bring it to a close.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I use the word ‘dismissed’ Trevor because this is exactly what Fish is saying. That Cadosch can be ‘dismissed,’ ‘discounted,’ ‘ignored.’ Whichever word you wish to use.

....

And we have that phrase yet again ‘unsafe to rely on.’

In what way am I ‘relying’ on any witness Trevor? I couldn’t count how many times I’ve agreed that witnesses have to be treated with caution. That we have to accept the possibility of attention-seekers telling porkies or exaggerating. Or of them being mistaken. And that we have to weigh up conflicting evidence.

So all that I’m saying Trevor; all that I’ve ever said is that we weigh up what we have. Using our own differing judgment and opinions. So we can say - if x is correct then... or if y is correct then.....Or is b likelier than c?

If there is a possibility that something might be true I don’t think that it should be chucked out because of discrepancies. Especially ones that might not even have originated from the witness. Things should only be dismissed if they can be fully disproven.

.....

All of that said I agree that we’re getting nowhere and unlikely ever to.

[Fisherman]

How can Long disprove Cadosch,and Cadosch disprove long,when neither was witness to the others testimony?.

But you know how, Harry: They got the timings backwards. And that may well be BECAUSE neither was witness to the others testimony.

Phillips was not eyewitness to any of the three other persons mentioned,so he is in no position to prove any of them wrong.

The medical evidence puts him in that exact position.

[Fisherman]

Perhaps it matters to Fish who is seeking to show that Lechmere could have been the killer by suggesting the earlier time.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I cannot change a single thing that happened, Trevor. Chapman was killed at 3-4 AM according to Phillips, not according to me. That is in line with when Lechmere walked to work, not according to me but according to what we know about the Nichols murder.

The facts are there. Surely I am not disallowed to point to them?

[Fisherman]

I use the word ‘dismissed’ Trevor because this is exactly what Fish is saying. That Cadosch can be ‘dismissed,’ ‘discounted,’ ‘ignored.’ Whichever word you wish to use.

If you prefer, I can say that he cannot be used in any way to defend the idea of a late TOD. Itīs much the same to me. He is inadmissible as evidence, quite simply.