Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Exactly. One would not want anyone to be misled by the ill founded suggestions of an irresponsible journalist.

I didn’t realise that Victorian Journalist were such paragons?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I wouldn´t be so hard on irreponsible journalists if I were you - they seem to be the very lifeblood of those who speculate in the witnesses being right...

It’s equally irresponsible to assume that they couldn’t be guilty of elaboration.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Could it have been the Nottingham guild of tin foil hat makers, perhaps?

For all we know it could have been The Guild Of Swedish Journalists.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

My phones not letting me quote properly! The quotes within quotation marks and the emboldened ones are my comments the rest are from NBFN

Get a laptop

“There’s nothing mysterious about this. He was just checking on his way to work. You might as well say of John McCarthy “why did he send Bowyer to collect rent money from Kelly when he was quite capable of doing it himself?”

No, that's my argument; why didn't John delegate the cellar door checking to Thomas, not unlike John delegating the rent arrears collecting to Thomas.

“Added to the fact that she was so far in arrears that it might have required a threat of eviction from himself.
In that case, the visit to Room 13 would no longer be a semi-routine one, whereas the padlock checking always was.”

So the later is actually a better candidate for delegation than the case with Kelly.

But these are simply personal choices. Some people prefer to do things themselves rather than delegate. Perhaps he thought that if the task had been assigned as a regular duty of Thomas’s he might not have done it properly?

WB: You have been there at all hours of the night?
JR: Yes.
WB: Have you ever seen any strangers there?
JR: Yes, plenty, at all hours - both men and women. I have often turned them out. We have had them on our first floor as well, on the landing.
WB: Do you mean to say that they go there for an immoral purpose?
JR: Yes, they do.

Quit being naďve, people. John didn't go to #29 to check the padlock - several residents could have managed that trivial task, either alone or collectively.
John was really there to turf out unwanted people - he was effectively the part-time bouncer.

“This must have meant that he’d known that Kelly was dead?”

What?

I was simply saying that if your assuming a sinister motive for McCarthy delegating the task to Bowyer I can only think that you would be assuming that he’d known that Kelly was dead.

I've no idea how you worked out I might have some wacky theory about McCarthy being involved with the murder.
Besides, how could McCarthy have had anything to do with it when he would have been getting ready for the underground meeting of the Freemasons at 29 Hanbury St? Get with the program, Herlock!

“How do you know that it was Richardson that got it wrong? Maybe he had mentioned sitting on the step but Chandler got it wrong?”

We know Richardson was more likely to have been wrong, because he admitted to cutting his boot properly at work, with a decent knife, after stating that the table knife had done the job.

I don’t agree. That discrepancy was so obvious and apparently never resolved. No one appeared to flag this up at the time which suggests to me that an explanation might been made at the time but didn’t make it into print.

Pulls rabbit out of hat

By the way, why do I have to provide 100% certainty, but not you?

Im not claiming anything 100%

Right, so Chandler could very well be correct in his recollection, especially if he had been taking notes when speaking to Richardson.
In other words, doing his job.

[harry]

Phillip's evidence as to time of death was opinion.There is insufficent evidence to show it was expert opinion,normally the required level in a serious crime case.Of course the wording of his testimony stands,and cannot be ignored,but by the same token,the testimony of Richardson,Long,and Cadosch stands and cannot be altered or ignored.All in the eyes of the law were witnesses,of equal standing,and unless they had at the time, proved to have been lying,the witness Phillips's evidence cannot be classed as superior,nor should it.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

My initial hunch would be 'bone idleness' followed by a total lack of toss' given about it by Richardson.

But the real question is how are you factoring in this apron with Madame Richardson's high class massage parlour?

The theory:

Seemingly irrelevant subjects or details raised or provided by a witness, are not (somewhat paradoxically) irrelevant.

The Foreman said it would be desirable to know something more about a leather apron which the witness had casually referred to in her previous evidence as having been worn by her son and washed by her.

So either the foreman or someone in the jury was curious as to why Amelia had casually referred to the leather apron.

[Coroner] Did you say anything about a leather apron? - Yes, my son wears one when he works in the cellar.
The Coroner: It is rather a dangerous thing to wear, is it not?
Witness: Yes. On Thursday, Sept. 6, I found my son's leather apron in the cellar mildewed. He had not used it for a month. I took it and put it under the tap in the yard, and left it there. It was found there on Saturday morning by the police, who took charge of it. The apron had remained there from Thursday to Saturday.
[Coroner] Was this tap used? - Yes, by all of us in the house. The apron was on the stones.

So she retrieved the mildewed apron from the cellar, and left it under the tap. This information is irrelevant to the inquest, and so the theory says that it is relevant.
If you don't like the theory, at least wonder why someone would place a molding apron under a tap, and leave it there.

Chandler: There was a leather apron, lying in the yard, saturated with water. It was about two feet from the water tap.

Here's another example...

WB: Have you ever washed your son's apron?
AR: Yes, sir; I washed it last Thursday, because I found it in the cellar mildewed. He had not used it for a month. We are so slack. I put it under the tap in the yard and left it there till Saturday morning, when the police took it away. There was a pan of beautiful clean water under the tap on Saturday morning about half-past seven, after the body was moved. It could not have been disturbed. It was in the same position as on Friday night.

A beautifully clean pan of water that could not have been disturbed overnight?
Was she asked about the pan of water near the tap? No - there is no apparent relevance - therefore, the opposite is probably true.

It would seem the Ripper rinsed his bloodied hands in the water pan, before leaving.
So how could the pan end up with clean water in it, by the time Chandler arrived?

Baxter: You spoke of some liquid having been thrown over her. Did you notice any water or anything?
James Kent: I could not tell what it was.

Baxter: Could you see she was dead?
James Kent: Yes; she had some kind of handkerchief round her neck which seemed "soaked" into her throat. Her face and hands were smeared with blood, as if she had struggled. She looked as if she had been sprinkled with water or something. I did not touch her.

[DJA]

Considerable doubt is being thrown on the evidence of NotBlamedForNothing

Yep.

He's all at sea on this one.

[Fisherman]

It’s equally irresponsible to assume that they couldn’t be guilty of elaboration.

I cannot for the life of me see where anybody suggests that they couldn´t. Can you?

The problem, however, is that we have not one, not two BUT THREE sources that all speak of a scuffle (they all use that exact word), a heavy fall against the fence and a woman saying "No" or "No, no".

If, as you fear, these journalists and papers all separately decided to frame Albert Cadosch and exagerrate what he said, wouldn´t you say that it is of that they all came up with the exact same wording and the exact same scenario? If they were as elaborative and inventive as you lead on, would they not be likely to come up with different scenarios and wordings? Why is it that one paper does not suggest that the woman cried "Please no!", another that she said "Don´t kill me!" and the third that she gave up a bloodcurdling scream? If they want to exaggerate, then why not do it proper?

I´d like to hear your explanation for this total consistency inbetween the alleged exaggerations, Herlock. You see, in my world, we can rule out any such suggestio. when we have three concurring sources. Apparently this is not so in YOOUR world, and I am dying to hear how you reason about it.

[Fisherman]

For all we know it could have been The Guild Of Swedish Journalists.

No, it could not. It could only have been the British police. What your ingenious Danish friend has noticed is that the word police is actually not part of the quotation I made. What he does not mention is that it is of course out of the question that it was anybody else. The quotation is embedded in news about what the police thought and said, and it is headed "Police Meet and are Mysterious", and there can be no realistic doubt about the source.

But this is the level of discussion you are ready and willing to stoop to. Me, I avoid it; I haven´t got any experience of such antics, and so I will quickly be outgunned by those who master the discipline to perfection.

Unless you want to press the idea further that it WAS the Nottingham guild of tin foil hats, I suggest we try to elevate the level of this discussion somewhat. Then again, you seem to loose out on all levels...?

[Fisherman]

Phillip's evidence as to time of death was opinion.There is insufficent evidence to show it was expert opinion,normally the required level in a serious crime case.Of course the wording of his testimony stands,and cannot be ignored,but by the same token,the testimony of Richardson,Long,and Cadosch stands and cannot be altered or ignored.All in the eyes of the law were witnesses,of equal standing,and unless they had at the time, proved to have been lying,the witness Phillips's evidence cannot be classed as superior,nor should it.

If you call in a leading expert om matters medical to give an opinion, then what you get is an expert opinion. It is a very good example of what expert opinions are about.

I can´t believe that you need to have that explained to you.

No, wait, I was a bit rash there. I actually CAN believe that you need to have that explained to you.

[Fisherman]

Now that this thread has descended into the usual throwing of horse manure, meaningless sidetracking and recurring obfuscation of the real issue at hand, maybe the time has come to put an end to it?

Thoughts, suggestions?

[DJA]

Reckon we need John West.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Phillip's evidence as to time of death was opinion.There is insufficent evidence to show it was expert opinion,normally the required level in a serious crime case.Of course the wording of his testimony stands,and cannot be ignored,but by the same token,the testimony of Richardson,Long,and Cadosch stands and cannot be altered or ignored.All in the eyes of the law were witnesses,of equal standing,and unless they had at the time, proved to have been lying,the witness Phillips's evidence cannot be classed as superior,nor should it.

EL at the inquest...

They were talking pretty loudly. I overheard him say to her "Will you?" and she replied, "Yes." That is all I heard, and I heard this as I passed. I left them standing there, and I did not look back, so I cannot say where they went to.

Here's another account, in the Echo Sep 13...

The police have received some important information as to the hour at which the crime was committed, and the possible neighbourhood of the murderer.

A woman named Durrell has communicated with the authorities in reference to these points. She originally made a statement to the effect that at about half past five o'clock on the morning of the murder she saw a man and a woman conversing outside of No. 29 Hanbury street, the scene of the murder, and that they disappeared very suddenly. She was taken to the mortuary yesterday, and there she identified the body of Chapman as that of the woman whom she saw in Hanbury street. If this identification can be relied upon, it is obviously an important piece of evidence, as it fixes with precision the time at which the crime was committed, and corroborates the statement of John Richardson, who went into the yard at a quarter to five, and has consistently and persistently declared that the body was not then on the premises. Davis, the man who first saw the corpse, went into the yard shortly after six o'clock. Assuming, therefore, that the various witnesses have spoken the truth - which there is not the slightest reason to doubt - the murder must have been committed between half past five and six o'clock and the murderer must have walked through the streets in almost broad daylight without attracting attention, although he must have been at the time more or less stained with blood. This seems incredible, and it has certainly strengthened the belief of many of those engaged in the case that the murderer had not far to go to reach his lodgings.

By 'disappeared very suddenly', she means she wasn't really paying attention to the couple, and when she looked in their direction a second time, they had departed. The famous "Will you?" - "Yes" is just something she made up to add a bit of theatrical flair.

Apart from Long being impossible to take seriously, she also causes us to too easily suppose that Jack and Annie must have entered #29, together.

Mrs. Richardson: The only possible clue that I can think of is that Mr. Thompsons's wife met a man about a month ago lying on the stairs. This was about four o'clock in the morning. He looked like a Jew, and spoke with a foreign accent. When asked what he was doing there, he replied he was wanting to do a 'doss' before the market opened. He slept on the stairs that night, and I believe he has slept on the stairs on other nights. Mrs. Thompson is certain she could recognise the man again both by his personal appearance and peculiar voice.

If this is 'our man', it might half explain why Amelia heard no one come in, that morning.

[Trevor Marriott]

If you call in a leading expert om matters medical to give an opinion, then what you get is an expert opinion. It is a very good example of what expert opinions are about.

But when you call in a medical expert why is it that some choose to ignore that expert opinion?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

But when you call in a medical expert why is it that some choose to ignore that expert opinion?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I think we may both suggest an explanation to that one, Trevor.