Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[Fisherman]

Deleted - the information was already there.

[The Rookie Detective]

Someone taking a-fence?


excuse the pun

[Herlock Sholmes]

Who do suppose people in this forum should take the most note of; a reporter on the scene in 1888, or a man in 2020 who's 'pretty certain' he's read otherwise?
Why do assume your vague recollections are of interest to anyone?

Or Cadosch himself who said 5 ft 6. Or Davies who said ...around 5ft. Likewise Swanson in his report. Then we have every single photograph ever taken which all show fences much higher than 4 feet. Or are we, yet again and because it’s convenient, assuming absolute idiocy from the police? That they wouldn’t have said “hold on you could have seen over the fence?”

Umm ... by the time Richardson got to the fence, Annie was on her back, and Jack was kneeling over her.
At this point, Jack effectively was as tall as Frodo and Bilbo.


What you've done here is slip in an implicit assumption - that both Annie and Jack were upright when Richardson is at/passing the fence the second time.
However, we all we know that Richardson is (supposedly) at the fence the second time, when he hears a fall against it.
That means Annie is on the ground, and Jack is probably down next to her - strangling her up to the point that he cuts her throat - as opposed to standing over her triumphantly, while she is still alive.

What about the first time when he heard the ‘no?’ Due to the gap in time this couldn’t have been at the point of Annie’s murder so they’d have been upright.

This is pretty simple stuff, so the question is; are you slipping in this assumption in a pathetic attempt to make me look stupid?

I’m not trying to make you look stupid. I’m disagreeing with you.

What do you mean 'obviously'?
He said he could see the body from the adjoining yard - there is no 'obviously' about it.

Very interesting how you've managed to avoid the issue of Richardson's height, vis-ā-vis the fence.

The point is that no one at the time, and certainly no police officer mentioned what would have been a very obvious and very pertinent fact. That Cadosch would have been able to see over the fence without making any specific effort. Whatever the position of Annie and her killer at whatever time they would have been upright at some point and the police would have had to have considered why he saw nothing over a four foot fence. This alone shows that the fence was of a height that to have looked over it Cadosch would have had to have made a determined effort.

Have a look in a mirror - you will see it there.

If you’re going to post your ideas for discussion then you have to be prepared that they might occasionally be disagreed with. I honestly can’t see why you feel insulted. My Frodo/Bilbo comment was meant as humour. It’s seems to me, I may be wrong of course, that you would struggle to find anyone that agreed that the fence might have been as low as 4 feet. The chances of the police not noticing or mentioning this must be as close to zero as possible.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I’m pretty certain that I’ve heard 5 ft 6 elsewhere.

Who do suppose people in this forum should take the most note of; a reporter on the scene in 1888, or a man in 2020 who's 'pretty certain' he's read otherwise?
Why do assume your vague recollections are of interest to anyone?

The fence couldn’t possibly have been 4 feet though. Logically the police would have known that it would have been impossible for two people to have remained unseen by Cadosch unless it was Frodo and Bilbo.

Umm ... by the time Richardson got to the fence, Annie was on her back, and Jack was kneeling over her.
At this point, Jack effectively was as tall as Frodo and Bilbo.

What you've done here is slip in an implicit assumption - that both Annie and Jack were upright when Richardson is at/passing the fence the second time.
However, we all we know that Richardson is (supposedly) at the fence the second time, when he hears a fall against it.
That means Annie is on the ground, and Jack is probably down next to her - strangling her up to the point that he cuts her throat - as opposed to standing over her triumphantly, while she is still alive.

This is pretty simple stuff, so the question is; are you slipping in this assumption in a pathetic attempt to make me look stupid?

After the murder he obviously looked over the fence.

What do you mean 'obviously'?
He said he could see the body from the adjoining yard - there is no 'obviously' about it.

Very interesting how you've managed to avoid the issue of Richardson's height, vis-ā-vis the fence.

Where is the issue?

Have a look in a mirror - you will see it there.

[Fisherman]

Ok Fish I slipped up with ‘infallible’ Sorry.

Thatīs fine - but it is this precise kind of thing that tends to inflame the discussion, so we shall both have to try and stay away from them.

But I still don’t think that just because of a discrepancy between 2 statements that it’s right to totally dismiss the witness.

How can we possibly do anything else? What possible chances are there to say that "Cadoschīs testimony tells us that Chapman died late"? None, Iīd say. What am I to do the next time you say it? Look away?

Especially when there’s a more than reasonable chance that the difference might have originated elsewhere. I can easily imagine a conversation between Cadosch and a pushy pressman where what he actually said was exaggerated. Applying caution...yes, but total dismissal...no. Imo of course.

Once again, there are TWO accounts where "pushy pressmen" both heard of a scuffle and a heavy fall against the fence, and so we cannot write it down to enterprising journalism. Very clearly, Cadosch bit off more than he could subsequently chew.

****

The fact that Chandler said that Richardson didn’t mention sitting on the step is often used as a reason to dismiss him for example. But why couldn’t Chandler have been mistaken? To dismiss Richardson it’s stated as reasonable that a man deliberately and falsely placed himself at the scene of a murder in possession of a knife. This is at the very least unlikely imo.

Of course Chandler could have been mistaken. We all can (Phillips included), but it was very clearly Chandlers view that Richardson had said nothing about the middle step sitting or the shoe cutting, and I think it is very likely that he would have remembered it if it was indeed mentioned. Donīt you agree?

Then there is the Cadosch business, and every little bit of dubious testimony on behalf of each of the threee witnesses lends itself well to providing a broader picture where none of them were reliable. And there are such dubious matters a plenty.
As I pointed out before, scores of men placed themselves in the Ripperīs role. That was not because it was logical but instead because they liked the sensation it evoked. Itīs called attention-seeking, and it is a defined pathology of itīs own. Not that I am certain in any way that this was what Richardson was up to, but dismissing the possibility as unreasonable or illogical is unwise if you ask me.

*****

I can only really see Phillips as any reason dismiss Long out of hand. Otherwise she might well have seen Annie. So even if we dismiss Cadosch entirely (and I certainly don’t) we are left with two.

I agree that Phillips is the single real reason to dismiss Long - but her saying that she did not pay any real attention to the couple is not a good thing for anybody relying on her identification of a dead woman four days on.

****

Discrepancies and doubts acknowledged I still go for the three.

Just donīt hang in there too long, Herlock - thereīs a time for everything.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is not many days since you admitted that it was wrong of you to imply that I would have said that Phillips was "infallible". We agreed as gentlemen that it was not a correct picture. What happened?

It does not make me happy when witnesses act the way Cadosch did. It makes me happy when witnesses are reasonably consistent. And if you think that a case like the Ripper case cannot generate three attention-seeking witnesses who tell porkies, then you need to think again. There were scores of people who tried to inject themselves into the investigation in various manners. It is the name of the game in high-profile cases, and the sooner we understand that, the lesser the risk we run of accepting everything we are told be every witness we listen to.

Ok Fish I slipped up with ‘infallible’ Sorry.

But I still don’t think that just because of a discrepancy between 2 statements that it’s right to totally dismiss the witness. Especially when there’s a more than reasonable chance that the difference might have originated elsewhere. I can easily imagine a conversation between Cadosch and a pushy pressman where what he actually said was exaggerated. Applying caution...yes, but total dismissal...no. Imo of course.

****

The fact that Chandler said that Richardson didn’t mention sitting on the step is often used as a reason to dismiss him for example. But why couldn’t Chandler have been mistaken? To dismiss Richardson it’s stated as reasonable that a man deliberately and falsely placed himself at the scene of a murder in possession of a knife. This is at the very least unlikely imo.

*****

I can only really see Phillips as any reason dismiss Long out of hand. Otherwise she might well have seen Annie. So even if we dismiss Cadosch entirely (and I certainly don’t) we are left with two.

****

Discrepancies and doubts acknowledged I still go for the three.

[Herlock Sholmes]

My understanding is that the photos were taken after WW2, by which time the 1888 fence had long been replaced.
So how can the photos possibly be relevant in ascertaining the Star's claim of a 4' fence?

Can we infer the approx height of the fence from witness testimony?

The Foreman: What height are the palings?
Cadosch: About 5 ft. 6 in. to 6 ft. high.

So would that be about average male height, thus making it rather difficult to look over?

Richardson: I saw the body two or three minutes before the doctor came. I was then in the adjoining yard.

So Richardson can clearly see the body on the other side, which is almost tucked-up against the fence.
Let's assume JR is 5'10", and wearing 1" soles. His eyes would just be level with the top of the fence, at it's shortest points (according to AC's estimate).
Suppose though, that JR did not get one of the 'best spots'. A 6'4" JR has eyes level with tallest points.
In that case, he might just be able to see the body, on tippy-toes.
So how tall was the fence, really?

Assuming an approx 4' fence, I would suggest 3 possible scenarios for Albert Cadosch. He:

1. made up the whole story, for attention or notoriety
2. saw the whole thing, and fled to his place of work, incontinently
3. was on the other side of the fence

I’m pretty certain that I’ve heard 5 ft 6 elsewhere. The fence couldn’t possibly have been 4 feet though. Logically the police would have known that it would have been impossible for two people to have remained unseen by Cadosch unless it was Frodo and Bilbo. After the murder he obviously looked over the fence. Where is the issue?

[Fisherman]

Why is it acceptable in your eyes to say that Richardson ‘could’ have been mistaken no matter how unlikely it would have had to have been and yet with a variation in what Cadosch said (even though there could have been a perfectly reasonable explanation that we aren’t aware of) you thrown Cadosch out completely?

Herlock, we do not agree about how unlikely it would have been for Richardson to be mistaken. You say it is as close to an impossibility that we can come, and I say that he could very well have been mistaken. It all boils down to his position, the doorblades position and the level of light. Thatīs all there is to it.
You then pose this take of mine against how I dismiss Cadosch as a witness, and although I am not certain what youīre after, it seems to me that you want me to say that if Richardson could be right or wrong, then Cadosch could also have been right or wrong (right, not least).
If thatīs your point, then yes - and no.
Cadosch can have heard sounds from the backyard.
But he cannot have heard BOTH versions he spoke of.
And once we present two totally differering versions of something, we loose our credibility.
It does not mean that we are necessarily totally wrong - there may well be a core inside what we say that holds information that is relevant to an investigation. But the crux of the matter is that we have compromised ourselves by giving two totally different versions.
You say that both versions speak of a voice and a sound against a fence. But only one version speaks of two people present in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street and having a physical altercation, resulting in one of these two people falling to the ground at the precise spot where the victim was found dead.
Cadosch is extremely specific from the outset, and he more or less says "I overheard the murder, I heard Chapman and her killer fighting, I heard her call out and fall to the ground as the killer attacked and killed her". Then he dramatically backpedals at the inquest, effectively washing all the bits away that formerly pointed to him having been a genuine witness to the murder. And he did so in the aftermath of Richardson having been hauled over the coals by the police, suspected of not having been truthful in his story.
It may be that this is just an unlucky coincidence. And it may be that the two matters are connected. Regardless what applies, Albert Cadosch has squandered his credibility as a witness.

Name perfect witness ness in this case Fish? Do we summarily dismiss them all? On your criteria...yes.

How does the fact that witnesses are often unreliable to a smaller or larger extent have anything to do with how I rule Cadosch out as a trustworthy witness? Are you trying to paint a picture where my take on Cadosch is of no value since I rule out every witness, kneejerk style? Is that it?
If so, let me tell you that I donīt. But I am very wary of the risks involved with accepting what witnesses claim if their testimonies are in conflict with other parts of the case. And the three witnesses we speak of here are all in conflict with the medical evidence, plus they are in conflict with each other to a degree. That is more than enough to justify a deeper probing into their respective stories, and when that probing turns up material like the material relating to Cadosch, the time has come to realize that we are seemingly looking at false evidence. There can be no such thing as two truths competing with each other, and I have no doubt that Phillips rule out Cadosch and Long.
I could of course name a few witnesses that I think are good and truthful witnesses, but if I do, I sense that you would say "But you canīt prove that they did not lie too, can you?", so I abstain from that exercise. However, I assure you that I do think that there are both truthful and less truthful witnesses involved in the case. And as I have said before, I am in no way surprised, because in high profile cases, it is the order of the day, more or less.

No matter what questions are thrown up you cannot prove that Cadosch lied. And if you cannot prove that then it’s quite reasonable to state that he might have been telling the truth. Whatever variants he said that he heard things from number 29. I believe that he did and if that was so then they were without a shadow of a doubt connected to the murder.

As I said, no, I cannot prove that Caadosch lied. And you cannot prove that he told the truth(s). So that point is moot.

What is of interest is that I CAN prove that we have very different versions of what he said on record. And once I can, Iīm afraid it does not matter what you personally believe, Cadosch is nevertheless a compromised witness by his own doing.

****

The Doctor is not safe. This is the only thing that we know for a fact.

Ehhh - no. What we know for a fact is that the four methods he used to establish the TOD all have their flaws, as has every method of establishing a TOD, historically and today. And that is precisely why every added parameter that is in line with a given estimation is of vital importance for strengthening a verdict.

There’s no point in repeating how much evidence has been thrown up from experts saying that the methods that Phillips used were unreliable. 2, 3, 4 parameters who cares. 4 concurring coin tosses aren’t reliable. You make it sound as if Phillips had 4 clocks which all read 4.32am as TOD.

"Who cares"...? Well, Iīd say that those interested in as accurate a picture as possible are the ones who care. Those who have already decided to go down a path, come what may, will of course not care, because caring would mean that they would have to change their minds.
And no, by the way, I donīt make it sound as if Phillips had four clocks saying 4.32. I simply say that he checked four different parameters and concluded that they all were in line with an early TOD.
I think our discussion would benefit a lot from not exaggerating like this. Stay with the facts, and you will be fine.

We aren’t going to agree on this Fish. I believe the mountain evidence that I was shown and I trust the person analysing that evidence. He says Phillips categorically could have been wrong and likely was.

"And likely was"? So he also examined Chapman and looked at these four parameters? Otherwise, how in the world could he say that Phillips was likely wrong? Because Victorian doctors who checked four parametes and found them all in line were generally wrong?
Or because he had been told that there were three very reliable witnesses all telling a story about a late TOD, perhaps?

*****

I see not a single solitary shred to make me think that Richardson didn’t sit on that step. He did. And when he said that he could possibly have missed the body this shows that he completely understood that you cannot see through doors. Annie wasn’t there.

I know that you canīt see any other side of it, Herlock. We all know that out here.

*****

Its also possible that Long (or even a combination of Long and Cadosch) was a bit out in her timing. An error in timing is vastly more believable than missing a corpse.

That depends on the circumstances, Herlock. And you do not have to adjust Longs timing, because there is no longer any Cadosch to adjust it against. He is out. Long is on her own now.

*****

Fish you quite at liberty to paint a picture of a situation where three witnesses are dismissed and where Phillips cannot have been wrong if it makes you happy but this doesn’t make it a fact. Three witness within 45 minutes or less of each other all liars or idiots. I just don’t accept it.

Witnesses over the infallible Phillips still for me.

It is not many days since you admitted that it was wrong of you to imply that I would have said that Phillips was "infallible". We agreed as gentlemen that it was not a correct picture. What happened?

It does not make me happy when witnesses act the way Cadosch did. It makes me happy when witnesses are reasonably consistent. And if you think that a case like the Ripper case cannot generate three attention-seeking witnesses who tell porkies, then you need to think again. There were scores of people who tried to inject themselves into the investigation in various manners. It is the name of the game in high-profile cases, and the sooner we understand that, the lesser the risk we run of accepting everything we are told be every witness we listen to.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hey Christer, did you read the Star, Sep 8 edition that I linked to in #137?
It seems you were right and I was wrong, about the blood on the fence...

There is no blood except in the yard corner, and a huge splash on the fence, like the spurt from an artery.

So the blood on the fence was no mere smear from bodily contact.
He probably semi-strangled her to the ground and then positioned her on her left side, to direct the blood spray away from himself.
Then turned her onto her back and did the rest. In this scenario, she may not have come into contact with the fence, at all.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The fence wasn’t 4 feet though. If I remember correctly it was five and a half feet. None of the photos show a fence of anything near four feet.

My understanding is that the photos were taken after WW2, by which time the 1888 fence had long been replaced.
So how can the photos possibly be relevant in ascertaining the Star's claim of a 4' fence?

Can we infer the approx height of the fence from witness testimony?

The Foreman: What height are the palings?
Cadosch: About 5 ft. 6 in. to 6 ft. high.

So would that be about average male height, thus making it rather difficult to look over?

Richardson: I saw the body two or three minutes before the doctor came. I was then in the adjoining yard.

So Richardson can clearly see the body on the other side, which is almost tucked-up against the fence.
Let's assume JR is 5'10", and wearing 1" soles. His eyes would just be level with the top of the fence, at it's shortest points (according to AC's estimate).
Suppose though, that JR did not get one of the 'best spots'. A 6'4" JR has eyes level with tallest points.
In that case, he might just be able to see the body, on tippy-toes.
So how tall was the fence, really?

Assuming an approx 4' fence, I would suggest 3 possible scenarios for Albert Cadosch. He:

1. made up the whole story, for attention or notoriety
2. saw the whole thing, and fled to his place of work, incontinently
3. was on the other side of the fence

[Scott Nelson]

"Cadosch - The Other Side of the Fence" in Ripperologist 85 (November 2007) by Gavin Bromley for a detailed analysis.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It would not be slightly later, it would be very significantly later. It would become the only daylight murder. That in itself is not in any way any reason to dismiss the witnesses, however - of course not! But there are other eminent reasons to do so.

Why is it acceptable in your eyes to say that Richardson ‘could’ have been mistaken no matter how unlikely it would have had to have been and yet with a variation in what Cadosch said (even though there could have been a perfectly reasonable explanation that we aren’t aware of) you thrown Cadosch out completely?

Name perfect witness ness in this case Fish? Do we summarily dismiss them all? On your criteria...yes.

No matter what questions are thrown up you cannot prove that Cadosch lied. And if you cannot prove that then it’s quite reasonable to state that he might have been telling the truth. Whatever variants he said that he heard things from number 29. I believe that he did and if that was so then they were without a shadow of a doubt connected to the murder.

****

The Doctor is not safe. This is the only thing that we know for a fact. There’s no point in repeating how much evidence has been thrown up from experts saying that the methods that Phillips used were unreliable. 2, 3, 4 parameters who cares. 4 concurring coin tosses aren’t reliable. You make it sound as if Phillips had 4 clocks which all read 4.32am as TOD.

We aren’t going to agree on this Fish. I believe the mountain evidence that I was shown and I trust the person analysing that evidence. He says Phillips categorically could have been wrong and likely was.

*****

I see not a single solitary shred to make me think that Richardson didn’t sit on that step. He did. And when he said that he could possibly have missed the body this shows that he completely understood that you cannot see through doors. Annie wasn’t there.

*****

Its also possible that Long (or even a combination of Long and Cadosch) was a bit out in her timing. An error in timing is vastly more believable than missing a corpse.

*****

Fish you quite at liberty to paint a picture of a situation where three witnesses are dismissed and where Phillips cannot have been wrong if it makes you happy but this doesn’t make it a fact. Three witness within 45 minutes or less of each other all liars or idiots. I just don’t accept it.

Witnesses over the infallible Phillips still for me.

[Fisherman]

Cadosch cannot be dismissed as a witness. This isn’t a court case. We know that discrepancies occur in transcription, in press exaggeration, in one person mishearing another, in misinterpretation. Cadosch heard something from number 29 and he said this under oath at the Inquest whatever variants allegedly occurred earlier. Both variants are Cadosch saying that he heard a voice and a noise.

Cadosch could and should be dismissed as a witness, Iīm afraid. You are welcome to try and use him to make any kind of case, but I can tell you straight off the bat that it is not going to work. And that is as it should be - the glaring differences, shouting out that Cadosch originally looked for attention, are not in any way compatible with any sort of reliability. Thatīs just how it works, and I suspect you are well aware of it.

****

Phillips can safely be dismissed as near to useless. We know that he could have been mistaken. Basically it’s no better than - he could have been right or he could have been wrong. Could he have been out by fifty minutes to an hour? Yes. Phillips can be sidelined. There’s no point in talking about parameters if all of the methods used for working out those results were unsafe. And experts tell us that those methods were unsafe.

Now you are getting things totally mixed up. It is not a pissing contest, Herlock. Four parameters, all of them in sync, tells us that Phillips is almost certain to be correct about how Chapman had been dead for a long time. You should not let Cadoschīs dismissal cloud your judgment! Look at it this way: witness identification is a very haphazard matter. If somebody testifies to the effect that a robber wore a black cap, it means very little. But if four witnesses all say the same, that the cap was black, then the four witnesses corroborate and strengthen each other enormously. Itīs the same with Phillips parameters. But NOT with the three witnesses, since we know that one of them called the cap white before the inquest and black at the inquest.

*****

Richardson cannot be dismissed. We are being asked to believe that he missed a corpse in that yard. I’d say that 999 times out of a 1000 the corpse would have been seen and seen very easily. Alternatively we are being asked to believe that Richardson willingly and knowingly not only lied to place himself at the scene of an horrific murder but that he also lied to place himself at the scene with s knife! I don’t accept this for a second. As far as I’m concerned there’s nothing to doubt that Richardson sat on that step and was absolutely correct when he said that he couldn’t possibly have missed that corpse had it been there. He didn’t see it because it wasn’t there.

No, Richardson cannot be dismissed. Neither can the suggestion that he may have been in the yard and missed Chapman. Neither can the suggestion that he did not tell the truth about his position in the yard. Neither can the suggestion that he was not in the yard at all. He is in conflict with the one source that we may rely on to a significant degree, namely Phillips.

*****

Whether Long was paying much attention or not she still identified the woman that she saw at close quarters. Yes she could have been wrong or she could have been one of an inconveniently gathered trio of attention seekers but how far do we stretch this?
And yet it appears to be, for some, a wild stretch of the imagination that Long could have been a mere 15 minutes out? Or even that both she and Cadosch were 7 or 8 minutes out? If that was a possibility (and I’d say that it was immeasurably more likely than Richardson missing the corpse) then we would have three complimenting witness all pointing to Annie still being alive later.

Yes, whether Long payed attention or not, she ID:d Chapman. And how do we look at identifications when the witness has professed not to have payed much attention? Exactly - we entertain reasonable doubt. She was adamant that she could not have been 15 minutes out, just as adamant that Cadosch was. And truth be told, over-adamant witnesses that go against the medical evidence are generally speaking not very good witnesses.
So yes, if we accept Cadosch as a witness (and I donīt), if we think Long saw Chapman (which I think she couldnīt possibly have) and that Richardson was a kosher witness (and I entertain no such idea at all), then we get a picture that points towards a TOD at 5.30-ish.
The one problem is that this cannot have happened, Herlock. Phillips tells us that in as clear a wording as anybody could hope for. The fact that the witnesss triumvirate has all sorts of unreliability and dodgyness about them is exactly what we should expect. And embrace, if we want to understand what really happened, if you ask me.

******

Unsafe Doctor vs 3 imperfect witnesses.

Nope. A safe enough doctor against three very unsafe witnesses. I only wish that these kinds of witnesses would not crop up in high profile cases, but they do. And the outcome is in this case that they had us confused for 130+ years. But no more, not for me.

Witnesses all day for me. That this murder was slightly later than the others is a ‘notable fact’ at best. More likely for some (I’m not saying you) an excuse to dismiss the witnessss.

It would not be slightly later, it would be very significantly later. It would become the only daylight murder. That in itself is not in any way any reason to dismiss the witnesses, however - of course not! But there are other eminent reasons to do so.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The fence wasn’t 4 feet though. If I remember correctly it was five and a half feet. None of the photos show a fence of anything near four feet.

Who are you gonna believe, The Star, or your lying eyes?

[Herlock Sholmes]

She SAID she walked straight past a woman she later ID:d as Annie. She also said that she did not take much notice of the couple, though, so her being able to positively identify a dead woman (death does funny things to how we look) four days later is decidedly odd.
We donīt have to compare her timings to Cadoschīs, for the simple reason that we have found that Cadosch cannot be used as a witness anymore.

As for other reasons to rule Long out than her identification of Chapman - who she had not paid much attention to - Phillips is the one and only reason we need. I have always been adamant about that, and I am not about to change my position now. His four parameter verdict sees Long off, as far as Iīm concerned. With gusto.

Once you think about it, it goes without saying that sooner or later, high profile cases WILL attract incorrect witnesses, regardless of whether they are lying or just mistaken, who seemingly corroborate each other. All one can hope for in such cases is that there is otyer evidence that dissolves the incorrect picture that otherwise wins the day. That is should happen in the Ripper case is not all that unexpected if you ask me.

Cadosch cannot be dismissed as a witness. This isn’t a court case. We know that discrepancies occur in transcription, in press exaggeration, in one person mishearing another, in misinterpretation. Cadosch heard something from number 29 and he said this under oath at the Inquest whatever variants allegedly occurred earlier. Both variants are Cadosch saying that he heard a voice and a noise.

****

Phillips can safely be dismissed as near to useless. We know that he could have been mistaken. Basically it’s no better than - he could have been right or he could have been wrong. Could he have been out by fifty minutes to an hour? Yes. Phillips can be sidelined. There’s no point in talking about parameters if all of the methods used for working out those results were unsafe. And experts tell us that those methods were unsafe.

*****

Richardson cannot be dismissed. We are being asked to believe that he missed a corpse in that yard. I’d say that 999 times out of a 1000 the corpse would have been seen and seen very easily. Alternatively we are being asked to believe that Richardson willingly and knowingly not only lied to place himself at the scene of an horrific murder but that he also lied to place himself at the scene with s knife! I don’t accept this for a second. As far as I’m concerned there’s nothing to doubt that Richardson sat on that step and was absolutely correct when he said that he couldn’t possibly have missed that corpse had it been there. He didn’t see it because it wasn’t there.

*****

Whether Long was paying much attention or not she still identified the woman that she saw at close quarters. Yes she could have been wrong or she could have been one of an inconveniently gathered trio of attention seekers but how far do we stretch this?
And yet it appears to be, for some, a wild stretch of the imagination that Long could have been a mere 15 minutes out? Or even that both she and Cadosch were 7 or 8 minutes out? If that was a possibility (and I’d say that it was immeasurably more likely than Richardson missing the corpse) then we would have three complimenting witness all pointing to Annie still being alive later.

******

Unsafe Doctor vs 3 imperfect witnesses.

Witnesses all day for me. That this murder was slightly later than the others is a ‘notable fact’ at best. More likely for some (I’m not saying you) an excuse to dismiss the witnessss.