Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[Fisherman]

"Establishing the identity of" and saying "that's her" at the mortuary are somewhat different.

Indeed. What is established is true. Simply saying "thatīs her" is an effort to establish an identity that can be anything from terrible to correct.

[Fisherman]

The following from the Evening Standard, Oct 12, although similar appeared in other papers.

A woman named Durrell, who minds carts on market morning in Spitalfields market, stated yesterday that, about half past five o'clock on Saturday morning, she was passing the front door of No. 29 Hanbury street, when she saw a man and a woman standing on the pavement. She heard the man say, "Will you?" and the woman replied, "Yes." They then disappeared. Mrs. Durrell does not think she could identify the couple.

How can Long's mortuary identification be taken seriously?

She also said that she generally did not take much notice of couples in doorways, or something to that effect.

Long has been taken seriously mainly because it has been suggested that Cadosch corroborated her. If there had been no Cadosch, she would have been somebody who said she couldnīt identify the couple she saw and who was in total conflict with the medical evidence. What would happen to her testimony in such a situation is easy to understand.
It is only on account of Cadosch that she was - for a while - regarded as interesting.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Every single photograph shows a fence of around that height.
Wrong century. Wrong fence.

So you know the date of all of the photographs? And just after the murders these dirt poor people decided that they needed more privacy from the actions of serial killers that they had a new, higher fence put in? Perhaps they contacted Alan Titchmarsh’s grandfather?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. If Cadosch could have seen a person over the fence without making a special effort the police would have noticed and mentioned this blindingly obvious fact. And it’s nothing to do with bodies on the ground. If Annie and her killer had been there then they’d have been standing at some point.

That blindingly obvious fact was nulled by Cadosch - he was thinking about work - otherwise he would have been curious.

Or, as he said, he assumed that the neighbour were in their yard. If you hear something from the other side of a fence is your first thought “that’s probably a woman being murdered?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. The police would have said “but you would have seen anybody if they’d been there.” But they didn’t.

Would Chandler have said that? He didn't even notice the basement padlock was obscured by the building, when standing on the house steps.

We can make anything fit if we use the ‘unbelievable stupidity’ argument. The police didn’t notice that the fence was so low even Norman Wisdom could have seen over it? That they failed to notice that Richardson couldn’t have seen the lock ( or does that show that they knew that he’d sat on the steps?) And no one noticed that the knife testimony made no sense.

Im just surprised that they went to the right yard.

[Fisherman]

Or, as he said, he assumed that the neighbour were in their yard. If you hear something from the other side of a fence is your first thought “that’s probably a woman being murdered?

If there is a scuffle, a woman saying "No!" and an ensuing heavy fall against the fence that divides me from her, Iīd say my first thought would be that somebody was being physically abused. Then again, Iīm an old cynic.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Because a person of average height couldn’t see another person of average height if they were both standing at ground level.

How tall was Richardson? He could see over it, no problem.
Have you locked yourself in to supposing he was much taller than average, without evidence?

Your simplistic faith in witnesses is not winning the argument, and the point TM made about the lone daytime murder, was a pertinent one.
It might be time to take a metaphorical journey into that basement...

You are saying that he could see over the fence with no evidence to back this up purely to lessen witness credibility. The two people that would know above all others (Cadosch and Davis) said 5’6”. That should be end of.

Saying that Cadosch could see over it ‘no problem’ is utterly baseless conspiracy theorist thinking. Perhaps it’s you that should go back to that basement, there might be some Freemasons down there?

[Herlock Sholmes]

If there is a scuffle, a woman saying "No!" and an ensuing heavy fall against the fence that divides me from her, Iīd say my first thought would be that somebody was being physically abused. Then again, Iīm an old cynic.

And if that was the case how many people would have wanted to avoid getting involved in what would probably have been a domestic ? Even the police tended to take that attitude.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Indeed. What is established is true. Simply saying "thatīs her" is an effort to establish an identity that can be anything from terrible to correct.

And as far as I’m aware no one has said that she must have been correct. She may have been mistaken. All that can be said is that we cannot prove that she was mistaken unless we say that Phillips can’t have been wrong of course.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

So we have Cadosch living at one side of the fence and Davis living on the other at the time. Both say that the fence was 5’6”. But you, in 2020, are telling them that they were wrong. Ok

No, I'm saying Davis got his bedside table.

Seriously speaking, I did some research and found you a bit of good news. ELO, Oct 15:

Mary Hardman ... was soon replaced by John Richardson, a tall, stout man, with a very pale face - the result, doubtless, of the early hours he keeps as a market porter - a brown moustache, and dark brown hair. He was shabbily dressed in a ragged coat, and dark brown trousers. He was another motionless witness, giving his evidence quietly - as quietly, at all events, as was consistent with a severe cold and a very hoarse voice. The Coroner was very severe on him over the story of the knife with which he had cut a piece of leather off his boot before five o'clock on Friday morning, on the stone steps near which the body was found. He wanted to know why he had the knife, why he should put a table knife in his pocket, and altogether made the witness look very uneasy and very uncomfortable. His discomfort was increased when, at the suggestion of the Coroner, he was sent off in charge of Inspector Chandler to find the knife with which he had cut the leather off his boot.

So Richardson was a tall chap (at least according to one reporter).
The issue with the fence is really about Cadosch, however. JR could see over it - he was tall. What about Cadosch, though?
I can't find a reference to his height, but we can think about the fence in relation to hypothetical heights.
You're adamant the fence was 5'6", due to Davis and Cadosch.
This ignores the 5' in Swanson's report, which is probably a closer estimate than your eyeballing of 20th century photos.
So if we assume for now the fence was 5', how tall would a man need to be to see over it, without tip-toeing?
The distance between eye level and top of head is about 5". So a shortish 1880's man in boots is going to have eyes level with the top of a 5' fence.
So we don't necessarily need a 5'6" fence to prevent Cadosch seeing the Ripper.

Having said all that, it could be irrelevant anyway. Echo, Sep 20:

A further consultation of the detectives engaged in the case was held this morning, and an officer again visited the back-yard of No. 29, Hanbury-street, and made a careful inspection of the palings leading from that house to No. 27, where resides the young man Cadosh, who stated at the inquest that he heard sounds proceed from the spot where the body lay at a quarter-past five on the morning of the murder. An examination of the fence shows that immediately over the place in the yard there is an aperture in the palings by which the dead body could have been plainly visible, while anyone moving in the yard might easily have been seen.




Cadosch not only remembered the sound against the fence, he also remembered what it sounded like (a fall against it).
He was conscious of the sound, and that it because the sound was unusual.
The brain's attention is drawn to things that look and sound unusual and/or dangerous.
If he were consciously aware of the sound, his more evolutionarily primitive brain areas certainly would have been interested, and therefore he would have looked, without thinking.
The chances of him not looking would be London to a brick.
Cadosch looked and Cadosch saw. He probably has the dubious honour of being the only person to ever see the Ripper at work.

[Trevor Marriott]

Here is Dr Biggs professional opinion on rigor mortis

How long rigor mortis takes to develop varies greatly from person to person, and perhaps, more importantly, the assessment of how stiff someone is also varies from person to person! Very often we will be told that “paramedics found the body to be in a state of rigor mortis, therefore death must have been several hours ago”. In reality, people not used to examining for signs of rigor may find a dead body heavy and difficult to lift interpret it as being “stiff” and draw all sorts of incorrect conclusions. A big, heavy muscular person will exhibit more pronounced stiffness than a skinny person, and so on. The process occurs gradually over many hours so there isn’t really a “time of onset”. Subtle early onset signs may be missed (meaning that rigor has started, but has been recorded as being absent). Similarly, a body that has fully established rigor mortis (or in which stiffness may already be passing away due to early decomposition) may have been dead for many hours or even some days, yet be interpreted as “freshly dead” due to “rigor mortis” being diagnosed at the time of body discovery. For all these reasons, a description of a body being found in a state of rigor mortis has to be interpreted with caution.

With all that in mind, there are circumstances in which rigor mortis can be observed sooner after death. If somebody has an illness or fever, this can speed up the rate of onset by exhausting the cellular supply of energy more quickly than usual, for example. Specifically within the context of “trauma”, if there has been a period of extreme exertion immediately before death (e.g. running/fighting for your life) then you can see how cellular energy stores may have been depleted before death, resulting in a more rapid onset of rigor mortis. This is the theory behind the phenomenon of so-called “cadaveric spasm”, which is usually included in forensic texts but is thought by most of us these days likely to be an artefact. The most quoted examples are usually dead soldiers found clutching their rifles on the battlefield, or drowned men “clutching straws” in their hands. A lock of hair (victim’s or assailant’s) may even be found “grasped” in the stiff hand of a dead person. This likely represents “standard” development of rigor mortis (with the fingers gradually stiffening around an object that just happens to lie within the hand over the course of several hours) rather than a sudden, “instant rigor mortis”. However, such a phenomenon can’t scientifically be excluded, so it remains in the literature.

So in summary, rigor mortis could possibly be detected by a trained observer within an hour (or even less) after death, but would not usually be expected to become apparent for a (small) number of hours. In extreme cases (e.g. severe physical exertion before death) this might be even quicker. Ignoring the likely artefact of so-called “cadaveric spasm”, if a body is genuinely stiff at the time of discovery, then it hasn’t died immediately before discovery. The exact time since death cannot be estimated with any degree of accuracy or certainty. (As an aside, if the victim is a malnourished, slight, alcoholic female then rigor mortis may be less pronounced than might be expected, and so detection of rigor mortis in such an individual may indicate a longer time has elapsed since death.)”

The last part specifically applies to Chapman and is an accurate description of how she was described by Dr Phillips when he carried out the original post mortem

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I think posters should read and digest fully what Dr Biggs has stated, and in my opinion this adds more weight to Dr Phillips being right about his estimated time off death.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I said...

How tall was Richardson? He could see over it, no problem.

Got this reply...

You are saying that he could see over the fence with no evidence to back this up purely to lessen witness credibility. The two people that would know above all others (Cadosch and Davis) said 5’6”. That should be end of.

Saying that Cadosch could see over it ‘no problem’ is utterly baseless conspiracy theorist thinking. Perhaps it’s you that should go back to that basement, there might be some Freemasons down there?

We need to be calm, and read posts carefully before replying.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

She also said that she generally did not take much notice of couples in doorways, or something to that effect.

Long has been taken seriously mainly because it has been suggested that Cadosch corroborated her. If there had been no Cadosch, she would have been somebody who said she couldnīt identify the couple she saw and who was in total conflict with the medical evidence. What would happen to her testimony in such a situation is easy to understand.
It is only on account of Cadosch that she was - for a while - regarded as interesting.

bingo!

If there is a scuffle, a woman saying "No!" and an ensuing heavy fall against the fence that divides me from her, Iīd say my first thought would be that somebody was being physically abused. Then again, Iīm an old cynic.

bingo!

[Fisherman]

I think posters should read and digest fully what Dr Biggs has stated, and in my opinion this adds more weight to Dr Phillips being right about his estimated time off death.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Overall, I agree. What is very obvious is that we speak of a phenomenon where there are and will always be exceptions to the rule. But I find it odd that, once we have four parameters in line with an early TOD, we should throw forward suggestions of how Chapman was an exception to the rule in each and every one of these four parameters.

Nobody would have even pondered that idea if it was not for the witnesses. And now that we see how they crumble when put to the test, it would be a healthy thing to do to realize that it calls upon us to accept that what Phillips found was not an incredible set of concurring deviations but instead the same old, same old.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I said...

How tall was Richardson? He could see over it, no problem.

Got this reply...



We need to be calm, and read posts carefully before replying.

It’s easy to misread when you’re overcome with wave after wave of the same old nonsense.

What you are continually trying to imply is that Cadosch could have seen a standing person in the yard of number 29 without doing anything like standing on tiptoes right next to the fence. To achieve this piece of blatant shoehorning you are trying to suggest that the fence was 4 feet high. This is obviously nonsense. Davis and Cadosch (the occupants!) both say 5ft 6”. But no, on you plough. You even resorting to showing a drawing!

Is it possible that the police failed to notice that Cadosch should have easily been able to see over a 4 foot fence? No it’s not. Not by any stretch of your imagination it’s not.

The fence was around 5’6” high. If Cadosch had seen the top of someone’s head over the fence he’d have said so and he didn’t because he couldn’t.

Why are you pursuing this point?