Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by etenguy View Post

    Or the journalist was. I think it may be a bit of journalistic licence in summarising what Cadosch had said.
    The picture is a very consequent one, though. I think it sounds very much like Cadosch backpeddled so that he could not be accused of perjury.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    No, it does not.

    Furthermore, why didn't Cadosch see anything?
    The fence was about 5'6", quite possibly with gaps between the palings.
    Perhaps both Jack and Albert were shorties?

    I'm still wondering - could the door have been wide enough and have enough rotation for the door knob/handle edge to have touched the fence, when pushed open as far as possible?
    That would be more compatible with something touching the fence, than would Annie's largish frame crashing into it.

    Hypothetically, could someone have discovered the body prior to Davies, and pushed the door wide open to get a better view, said "No" (in disbelief), closed the door and fled the scene?
    That might explain why Cadosch saw nothing, and was unsure of the direction of the 'no' - it was spoken from partly inside #29, so the direction was ambiguous.
    Wouldn’t this have made a much harsher sound and one that would have been easier for Cadosch to have recognised ? Plus, wouldn’t he have noticed the open door over the top of the fence?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    As has been pointed out, Cadosch could not say from where the "no" came, so that parameter is off the table. The remaining one is the sudden touching of the fence, the "sort of fall", and to me, it does not sound anything like Chapmans body crashing into it. A cat chasing a rat, a bird flying too low, something leaning against the fence falling to the ground, a sudden gust of wind - or Cadosch either maiking it up or his fantasy playing a prank on him? Any one of those, perhaps?
    The problem is that you, and others, keep assuming (and again, very conveniently so) that the only suggestion for the noise was Annie falling against the fence. Whereas the noise could quite easily have been the killer brushing a shoulder or an elbow against the fence whilst performing the mutilations or whilst re-positioning himself. The gap between the ‘no’ and the noise might support this suggestion.

    Cats are very light and not known for there clumsiness Fish. Would Cadosch have really heard a cat brushing against a fence? Surely he’d have needed the hearing of an antelope? Wind? You can’t be serious Fish?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    That sounds much more like Chapman and her killer having a wrestling match, resulting in Chapman being thrown to the ground. I would even say that it seems to me as if Cadosch was trying to conjure up that exact picture.
    So one has to ask oneself what happened at the inquest...? Why did he not mention the scuffle, understanding as he must have, that this factor pointed very much to an overhearing of the killer subduing Chapman? And why did he change the fall to a "sort of fall", with no subsequent rustling of clothes, and no thud against the ground? Why did he describe it as one sequence, only to divide it up in two at the inquest? And, not least, why did he suddenly introduce the possibility that the "no" could have come from number 25 and not from 29?

    If I was to make a suggestion, hereīs one that readily offers itself up:

    Cadosch never heard either any "No" or any fall against the fence. He made it up for whatever reason (one such reason would be a desire for fifteen minutes of fame). He told porkies to the police on the 9:th, thinking that nobody would be likely to prove him a liar.
    Then the inquest began, Richardson went on the stand on the 13:th - and found himself in all sorts of trouble with the police, who - according to the Star - did not buy his story about being able to deny Chapmans presence in the yard at 4.45. Richardson was even put on the suspects list, and subjected to great pressure, and that all boiled down to how Phillips estimation, based on many parameters, made mincemeat of Richardsons story in the eyes of the police.

    And there was Albert, having fed the police a story that not even was Chapman alive at 4.45, she was supposedly alive and not kicking, but falling, at 5.20! So what to do? Well, one solution would be to detract the parts of the story that pointed to him being more or less sure of having overheard the murder, and instead offer a diluted version where the "No" need not have come from No 29 and where the fall turned into a sudden smallish thud that could have been anything.

    Call me cynical, but I think we may begin to see what it was that really went down. Itīs not as if I am going to be able to prove it, but this is the EXACT kind of thing I have always expected to be the case.
    eg Daily News 10 Sept
    "Albert Cadosch, who lodges next door, had occasion to go into the adjoining yard at the back at 5.25, and states that he heard a conversation on the other side of the palings, as if between two people. He caught the word "No," and fancied he subsequently heard a slight scuffle, with the noise of a falling against the palings, but thinking that his neighbours might probably be out in the yard, he took no further notice and went to his work."

    This is sounds like your trying to explain away the inconvenient Fish. This is Cadosch simply linking the noise to a scuffle. As we often read testimony transcribe with differences why should this one be dismissed. If Cadosch had heard about Phillips TOD estimate this might have induced a level of caution. Might not the police, believing Phillips, have been telling him that he must have been wrong? This might explain his additional caution at the Inquest. It’s noticeable that there’s no doubt mentioned about the origin of the ‘no.’

    The fact that he linked the ‘no’ to the noise show that his initial thought was that the ‘no’ came from number 29 and an initial impression I’d say is most likely to have been correct. Then if the police hit him with “well the doctors telling us she was already dead.” They succeed in putting doubts about the ‘no’ but he remains confident about the noise.

    Leave a comment:


  • etenguy
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    That sounds much more like Chapman and her killer having a wrestling match, resulting in Chapman being thrown to the ground. I would even say that it seems to me as if Cadosch was trying to conjure up that exact picture.
    Or the journalist was. I think it may be a bit of journalistic licence in summarising what Cadosch had said.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X