Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE]. This ignores the 5' in Swanson's report, which is probably a closer estimate than your eyeballing of 20th century photos [QUOTE]

You couldn’t have illustrated your thinking better. Thanks.

How do we discover the height of the fence? Do we.....

a) Listen to the men that lived both sides of the fence and saw it every day and who had no reason to lie about it. I might even mention that one of them was a carpenter and very used to measuring wood.

or

b) Take heed of a man who never stepped foot in that yard?


Of course....we go with Swanson.....what was I thinking?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

I’m losing the will to live. So you’re now suggesting that Cadosch saw the ripper but kept it to himself? I’m losing track as I thought, with your efforts to discredit Richardson, you were convinced that Phillips was right and that Annie was already dead? Remind me again about the brothel and the Freemasons (or did I add that bit)

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I’m losing the will to live. So you’re now suggesting that Cadosch saw the ripper but kept it to himself? I’m losing track as I thought, with your efforts to discredit Richardson, you were convinced that Phillips was right and that Annie was already dead? Remind me again about the brothel and the Freemasons (or did I add that bit)

Hang in there Herlock.

Not sure about those Freemasons, but I can tell you a bit about the brothel...

John Richardson was the bouncer.

The Madam charged basement prices.

After September 8, 29 Hanbury St became known locally as Madam Richardson's House of Horrors.

[Fisherman]

"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."

There it is!! I was asked a couple of weeks ago about whether there was really any evidence of Richardson having a cold, and I knew I had seen it somewhere but just couldnīt find it. I believe it may have been Joshua Rogan who asked about it, so if you're out there, Joshua: Found it!

[Fisherman]

Hereīs the Morning Advertiser of the 15:th:

"On the question of the hour at which the crime was committed, about which there was a difference between the evidence of the man Richardson and the opinion of Dr. Phillips, Mr. Cadoche, who lives in the next house to No. 29, Hanbury-street, has repeated a statement which he made last Saturday, and which appears to have an important bearing on the matter. He says that he went to the back of his premises at half-past five a.m., and as he passed the wooden partition he heard a woman say "No, no." On returning he heard a scuffle, and then some one fell heavily against the fence. He heard no cry for help, and so he went into his house."

Albert is at it again, it would seem, and this time AFTER his bleak appearance at the inquest! Once more, we return to the scuffle, a doubled "No, no!" and a heavy fall against the fence.

Heīs quite the star witness, Albert. Itīs a pity he had such a lacklustre performance at the inquest.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"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."

There it is!! I was asked a couple of weeks ago about whether there was really any evidence of Richardson having a cold, and I knew I had seen it somewhere but just couldnīt find it. I believe it may have been Joshua Rogan who asked about it, so if you're out there, Joshua: Found it!

No mention of him being blind or with learning difficulties though Fish?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hereīs the Morning Advertiser of the 15:th:

"On the question of the hour at which the crime was committed, about which there was a difference between the evidence of the man Richardson and the opinion of Dr. Phillips, Mr. Cadoche, who lives in the next house to No. 29, Hanbury-street, has repeated a statement which he made last Saturday, and which appears to have an important bearing on the matter. He says that he went to the back of his premises at half-past five a.m., and as he passed the wooden partition he heard a woman say "No, no." On returning he heard a scuffle, and then some one fell heavily against the fence. He heard no cry for help, and so he went into his house."

Albert is at it again, it would seem, and this time AFTER his bleak appearance at the inquest! Once more, we return to the scuffle, a doubled "No, no!" and a heavy fall against the fence.

Heīs quite the star witness, Albert. Itīs a pity he had such a lacklustre performance at the inquest.

And there’s no chance of Press error or exaggeration of course Fish? Perhaps they’d mistakenly spoken to a delusional Mr Cadosen who wasn’t aware of the script?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hang in there Herlock.

Not sure about those Freemasons, but I can tell you a bit about the brothel...

John Richardson was the bouncer.

The Madam charged basement prices.

After September 8, 29 Hanbury St became known locally as Madam Richardson's House of Horrors.

So Annie Chapman who, like the other poor women at the time charged a pittance to sell themselves, rather than finding some doorway that they could have used for free, goes to use Mrs Richardson’s luxury bordello- basement and gave up a part of her fee as commission? Maybe Mary Kelly was Lapdancing there at the time? Maybe number 29 was known as The Pink Pussycat by locals but no one mentioned it?

[Joshua Rogan]

Albert is at it again, it would seem, and this time AFTER his bleak appearance at the inquest!

Cadosch didn't appear at the inquest until the 19th, so the 15th is still before his evidence.

[Fisherman]

Cadosch didn't appear at the inquest until the 19th, so the 15th is still before his evidence.

Right you are - my bad! I mixed the dates up with Richardsons appearance.

Itīs nevertheless further evidence, a third source, of his more flamboyant story.

[Fisherman]

And there’s no chance of Press error or exaggeration of course Fish? Perhaps they’d mistakenly spoken to a delusional Mr Cadosen who wasn’t aware of the script?

Itīs another source telling us about the scuffle and the heavy fall and the woman going "No", so I think we can safely discard any suggestions of the press being to blame. It was not the press who exaggerated, it was Albie who diluted.

[Fisherman]

No mention of him being blind or with learning difficulties though Fish?

Iīll try again: Learning difficulties has nothing to do with noticing dead bodies or not. Itīs about attention, not intelligence. An idiot can do it and a genius can fail to do it. You need to take note of that.

You are correct that blind people can miss out on things, though. And boy, do I know it!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Iīll try again: Learning difficulties has nothing to do with noticing dead bodies or not. Itīs about attention, not intelligence. An idiot can do it and a genius can fail to do it. You need to take note of that.

You are correct that blind people can miss out on things, though. And boy, do I know it!

No Fish it’s not about not noticing something at the time it’s about the fact that when it’s pointed out to him about the door (or that he realised that it might be suspected that the body was concealed by the door) Richardson apparently couldn’t comprehend this possibility. There was no: “well I suppose that it’s possible that she might have been concealed behind the door.”

He was adamant that this could not have occurred. Was he aware that a door can potentially block a view? (he was) Did he know the exact location of the body? (he did) Did he know how much floor space that the body took up? (he did) Did he say that he could see the whole yard? ( he did) Was there any reason why he’d want to put himself at the scene with a knife if he wasn’t actually there? (there wasn’t)

[Fisherman]

But many out here have claimed that Chapman could not have been obscured by the door - are they all mentally incapable ...?

[Herlock Sholmes]

But many out here have claimed that Chapman could not have been obscured by the door - are they all mentally incapable ...?

The point is that Richardson would have been aware that had he sat in a certain way, facing a certain way with the door at a certain angle the door could possibly have concealed a body. He understood that but dismissed it because he knew that those circumstances hadn’t occurred. That due to either how far that he initially opened the door and/or the position that he’d sat in combined with the position of the door that he’d have seen the body.

If he hadn’t seen the body later and had just been told that she’d been found in the yard then it’s possible that he might have ignored the possibility of the door thinking that she’d have been somewhere in front of him. But as we know, that wasn’t the case.

This is why I say that he’d have had to have been stupid to a remarkable degree to not have known that the body ‘might’ have been hidden by the door if that was the case.