John Richardson

[FISHY1118]

''The drawings, as have been discussed before, are just that, drawings. If there were such large gaps it seems likely the police would have questioned Cadosche more closely about why he couldn't see anything through them. I believe there are photos that show the were no gaps in the fence, but I'm not sure if those photos were taken close enough to the time as to be reliable either.''


Hi Jeff , We cant say why the police didnt investigate this line of questioning with cadosch ,no one knows , but like most things JTR related and why police did or didnt do things is anyones guess, doesnt mean we should eliminate that which shows a problem with cadoschs testimony.

One might ask why the Artist would draw the scene with the gaps in the paleings if there were none there ?, they were contemporary drawings done at the time of the murder . If we are to except the Eddowes sketchers done at her murder scene and the morge where is the same exceptence with these sketchers ?

[JeffHamm]

''The drawings, as have been discussed before, are just that, drawings. If there were such large gaps it seems likely the police would have questioned Cadosche more closely about why he couldn't see anything through them. I believe there are photos that show the were no gaps in the fence, but I'm not sure if those photos were taken close enough to the time as to be reliable either.''


Hi Jeff , We cant say why the police didnt investigate this line of questioning with cadosch ,no one knows , but like most things JTR related and why police did or didnt do things is anyones guess, doesnt mean we should eliminate that which shows a problem with cadoschs testimony.

One might ask why the Artist would draw the scene with the gaps in the paleings if there were none there ?, they were contemporary drawings done at the time of the murder . If we are to except the Eddowes sketchers done at her murder scene and the morge where is the same exceptence with these sketchers ?

Hi Fishy,

The sketches of Eddowes' crime scene were done by the police to record evidence, the drawings were done by the press to illustrate a news story. Notice that the fences are different in the two sketches, so at least one of them must not be accurate. One possible reason they may have included gaps in the fence if there weren't any is simply to aid in illustrating it as a fence. But as you say, why they did or did not do something is anyone's guess.

Obviously, as you say, the drawings could be seen as indicating there were gaps in the fence, which in turn would require questioning Cadosche along those lines. And while that is an interesting possibility, the lack of any mention of gaps in the fence in any testimony or police report, combined with the lack of anyone noting at the time that Cadosche should have been able to see into the yard through the fence (rather than look over it), tends to indicate that the illustrations are not entirely accurate in that regard in my opinion. Yours is free to vary.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

The sketches of Eddowes' crime scene were done by the police to record evidence, the drawings were done by the press to illustrate a news story. Notice that the fences are different in the two sketches, so at least one of them must not be accurate. One possible reason they may have included gaps in the fence if there weren't any is simply to aid in illustrating it as a fence. But as you say, why they did or did not do something is anyone's guess.

Obviously, as you say, the drawings could be seen as indicating there were gaps in the fence, which in turn would require questioning Cadosche along those lines. And while that is an interesting possibility, the lack of any mention of gaps in the fence in any testimony or police report, combined with the lack of anyone noting at the time that Cadosche should have been able to see into the yard through the fence (rather than look over it), tends to indicate that the illustrations are not entirely accurate in that regard in my opinion. Yours is free to vary.

- Jeff

Yes but the two different sketchers both show the gaps in the palings tho dont they ? So both artist responsible for them must have seen gaps as to draw them . Its still open for interpretation.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

As this earlier post would suggest .

A much simple explaination would be that Cadosch was wrong , the 'NO'' he heard came from somewhwere else ,and the noise was not Chapman hitting the fence .

Longs time was just as likely correct at 5.30 am according to the clock she heard chime ,she just got the i.d wrong.

I dont see any problem with this senario playing out when one carefully reads the above Echo Sept 20th newspapaer report above. IMO

I agree.

For Long to have been wrong about the time, she has to have made two mistakes: to mistake the quarter-past chime for the half-past chime and to have lost track of time that morning.

There is nothing in her testimony to suggest that her trip to the market was anything other than a routine one and that her noticing the 5.30 a.m. chime was to be expected around that time.

For Long to have been right in her identification of Chapman, too many other things need to have been wrong.

It is evident from Cadoche's testimony that he noticed no conflict between his own timing at home and that of the clock he passed.

As I have pointed out before, the many timings given at the Eddowes inquest are all more or less in agreement with one another and only one witness at the Nichols inquest got the time wrong.

The unreliability of clocks is, in my opinion, exaggerated, and it is asking too much to expect one to accept that clocks were wrong and/or Long was wrong about the time in order to have Cadoche hearing the woman seen by Chapman being murdered.

... apart from the fact that it means having to find a 40-plus Jewish man who according to Long's testimony was not even standing in front of number 29 before he supposedly entered it.

It seems strange that anyone who trusts the nonsense written by Macnaghten and Swanson about Kosminski should at the same time favour someone about twice his age as a suspect - unless we are expected to dismiss such an age difference as due to the unreliability of witness testimony, in which case one wonders what reliability can be attached to Long's identification of Chapman.

[Dickere]

My understanding is that the chimes were the same tune, but the 1/4 hour chime played a relatively short bit of it, the 1/2 hour played a longer bit, and the 3/4 played longer again. The hour chimed the full tune and then would sound off the hour itself. So basically, the half hour chime was the same as the 1/4 hour chime and then a bit more was played.

- Jeff

That's exactly what happens with our village church here now, Jeff, spot on.

1/4 hour is ding ding ding ding, 1/2 hour plays it twice and so on. Then after playing it four times on the hour you get the number of dongs to show the hour concerned. Pretty normal stuff back then I'd guess.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That's exactly what happens with our village church here now, Jeff, spot on.

1/4 hour is ding ding ding ding, 1/2 hour plays it twice and so on. Then after playing it four times on the hour you get the number of dongs to show the hour concerned. Pretty normal stuff back then I'd guess.

In that case, why would Long have thought it was 5.30 when it was 5.15?

[JeffHamm]

I agree.

For Long to have been wrong about the time, she has to have made two mistakes: to mistake the quarter-past chime for the half-past chime and to have lost track of time that morning.

There is nothing in her testimony to suggest that her trip to the market was anything other than a routine one and that her noticing the 5.30 a.m. chime was to be expected around that time.

For Long to have been right in her identification of Chapman, too many other things need to have been wrong.

It is evident from Cadoche's testimony that he noticed no conflict between his own timing at home and that of the clock he passed.

As I have pointed out before, the many timings given at the Eddowes inquest are all more or less in agreement with one another and only one witness at the Nichols inquest got the time wrong.

The unreliability of clocks is, in my opinion, exaggerated, and it is asking too much to expect one to accept that clocks were wrong and/or Long was wrong about the time in order to have Cadoche hearing the woman seen by Chapman being murdered.

... apart from the fact that it means having to find a 40-plus Jewish man who according to Long's testimony was not even standing in front of number 29 before he supposedly entered it.

It seems strange that anyone who trusts the nonsense written by Macnaghten and Swanson about Kosminski should at the same time favour someone about twice his age as a suspect - unless we are expected to dismiss such an age difference as due to the unreliability of witness testimony, in which case one wonders what reliability can be attached to Long's identification of Chapman.

Hi PI,

With regards to Long, it's one mistake. It would be unlikely that she misidentified the chime as it rang, however, when she recalls the events of her morning that is when she could very easily have misremembered the time that was sounded. That's one error, not two, and it's exactly the type of thing that can be prone to error in witness testimony (i.e. I saw a blue car, when in fact the car was black. Unlikely the person mistook black for blue when they were looking at the car, but they later misrecall the colour).

You suggest her trip was routine, and she may have expected to hear the 5:30 chime. While we don't know that's the case, let's say it is. If she regularly passed at 5:30, that in fact could increase the likelihood that she will misremember the time as being 5:30 - it's the usual thing for her to pass at 5:30, so that could easily affect what time she recalls it being when she eventually goes to the police to give her statement. Particularly if it's a day or two later, when she's again passed that spot at 5:30.

And the issue with clocks reading different times, and the amount by which they could differ, is well documented and is ignored to one's peril.

I agree, though, that her suspect description is probably inaccurate. She only saw the person from behind, so beyond a general description of their clothing and relative height to Annie, I wouldn't put any faith in her description, particularly estimated age.

Of course, Long doesn't have to have made a mistake about the time, and I'm not saying she must have. I'm just arguing that misremembering the chime as the 5:30 rather than the 5:15 would easily reconcile her testimony with the time line that emerges based upon the other witnesses and so that possibility has to be considered (it cannot be dismissed).

And, sure, maybe Long, Cadoche, and Richardson all made separate, independent mistakes, that just so happen to form a fairly coherent story that all point to the murder falling within the time window associated with the medical estimate for the ToD (actually, that last bit isn't really all that impressive as the time window spans from before she left the lodging house until after she was found dead, so it's not much help in narrowing things down). It was just a lucky coincidence that Richardson had lost a legging spring in the location he says he sat down to work on his boot as that would appear to corroborate his made up story - a story he makes up that puts a knife in his hand at a knife-murder scene because, well, who wouldn't do that. And despite Davies seeing the body when he opened the back door, Richardson was somehow unable to do so. And the outter door, found open at 6:00 when Davies went out to find help, just happened to be left open by, presumably you would argue for Richardson. All of that could happen as none of it violates any known physical law of the universe. However, it requires such a large set of coincidences to line up in order to make a false story appear coherent that it is my view this alternative is simply far less likely than Long making a single error (either a memory error of the time, or a mis-identification error), and the rest of the testimony is taken as reasonably accurate as stated. The alternative basically says that all of the witnesses are either making things up, or were just completely unaware of their surroundings.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Yes but the two different sketchers both show the gaps in the palings tho dont they ? So both artist responsible for them must have seen gaps as to draw them . Its still open for interpretation.

Hi Fishy,

I didn't say it wasn't open to interpretation. And just because two artists drew gaps doesn't mean there had to be gaps. Rather, both may have chosen to include gaps for a similar reason related to the purpose of the illustration (go with a news story). Including gaps makes it more easily recognized as being a wooden fence with vertical boards and so better conveys to the reader the layout of the scene. It is not an illustration being made by the police to record the crime scene, but illustrations to convey the scene to the public while the read the news. Given the intended use of the illustrations, we have to be careful about reading too much into them, just like we have to be careful about reading too much into the news stories themselves - the papers got things wrong, and even made some things up entirely. So again, unless we can find corroboration for such large gaps in more trustworthy sources, I remain very sceptical about their presence simply because if they were there then there's a lot of expected flow on in questioning of Cadosche that would be expected to have occurred and yet did not.

Obviously, you put more faith in the accuracy of the drawings and despite the fences being different in other details you accept that the presence of gaps in the drawings means there must have been gaps in the actual fence. I'm obviously not convinced that one leads conclusively to the other, and I'm just outlining my own reasons for thinking that. As you say, it's open for interpretation, and the above reflects my own interpretation.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Well, Jeff, when one talks of what's likely and what's unlikely, how likely is it that Cadoche heard Chapman say no to the Whitechapel Murderer and about five minutes later, her being murdered and pushed against the fence?

And how likely is that five minute interval, when considering that it was starting to get light?

And how likely is it that the murderer would overlook water with which to wash his hands at such an hour?

[JeffHamm]

Well, Jeff, when one talks of what's likely and what's unlikely, how likely is it that Cadoche heard Chapman say no to the Whitechapel Murderer and about five minutes later, her being murdered and pushed against the fence?

And how likely is that five minute interval, when considering that it was starting to get light?

And how likely is it that the murderer would overlook water with which to wash his hands at such an hour?

That's impossible to answer given we don't know who JtR was, however, given Cadosche testisfies that he did hear someone say "No" (does he actually specify it was a woman who said "no", if not, we can't presume it was Chapman - it could have been JtR, for example), and later does hear sounds against the fence, it appears that no matter how likely or unlikely we think things are it appears that is what he did. Also, nothing in Cadosche's statement indicates the "no" that he did hear was said with any form of distress (in fact, I suspect it wasn't given his curiosity wasn't aroused - if it sounded anything like a distressed "no", then it seems more likely he would have glanced over to see what was going on even if he had no intention of getting involved). Anyway, given Cadosche then goes inside, it is entirely reasonable to consider the idea that JtR may now think the chance of interruption is much lower - the neighbour has left after all - and so JtR might very well have been very surprised when Cadosche returns a 2nd time but is now into his attack and is trapped, shifting his position to avoid being seen over the fence perhaps (resulting in the noise Cadosche hears - although of course there are other possibilities for that).

We need to use the witness statements to try and understand what JtR did, as some would argue that could help inform us as to the type of person we might be looking for (that's the underlying idea for behavioural profiling, but personally, I'm quite sceptical of that approach as it is very poorly researched - makes for good movies and TV though). Even the spatial analysis approach (geographical profiling), while it has more objective empirical support, is associated with very wide error-margins and so should not be over interpreted (and it's often misinterpreted as to what is being captured by the profile anyway).

It's highly improbable that someone is going to murder and disembowel someone, so we already know JtR engages in very improbable behaviours. We also don't know he did overlook the water, he could have wet a piece of cloth (either one he had with him, or one he found amongst Chapman's possessions) and used that to wipe his hands as he left rather than stick around even longer to wash his hands right there. If so, there wouldn't necessarily be any blood visible in the water.

There are all sorts of ways to explain the unknown, and things like the above are just some of the ways. In the end, though, the witnesses and the medical testimony all converge on a ToD of 5:25 ish as being possible, with no modifications beyond taking into account the error associated with such information. That isn't proof that the murder had to be at/around 5:25, of course, but it does mean that the evidence we have is all consistent with a murder at/around 5:25, and that there is no objective reason to simply dismiss any of the evidence.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Well, Jeff, whoever said no and however it was said, the problem remains of explaining what was going on during the intervening five minutes.

The murderer was evidently not in the habit of hanging around.

You say that the murderer may have been emboldened by the sight or sound of Cadoche returning indoors, but why?

For all he knew, Cadoche was on his way to number 29 to see what was going on there.

And if the murderer could see or hear Cadoche, what makes you think Cadoche would not have been able to sense the presence of the murderer?

[JeffHamm]

Well, Jeff, whoever said no and however it was said, the problem remains of explaining what was going on during the intervening five minutes.

Without any information on that time frame, however, there's no way to solve that problem. We know that upon his return Cadosche hears a noise against the fence, and this tends to point to JtR being at some stage of engaging in his murder and mutilation. There was more light, and the injuries less extensive than in the Eddowes case, so it follows he probably needed less time. In the Eddowes case, doctors of the day, and modern medical opinion (from some, as with all opinions they vary), suggested 3-5 minutes or so would be required. So, one possibility to be considered is that when Cadosche returned, JtR simply ceased his activities, shifted closer to the fence to avoid detection and bumped into it, and when Cadosche went to the loo JtR fled at that point.

The murderer was evidently not in the habit of hanging around.

Indeed, which is in part what suggests the above possibility. However, given Stride and Eddowes were both possibily spotted with a man prior to their murders (by Schwartz and Lawende, etc), if either or both of those sightings are valid sightings of JtR, then being detected prior to murdering doesn't seem to be enough to dissuade him.

You say that the murderer may have been emboldened by the sight or sound of Cadoche returning indoors, but why?

? Because he went inside and hadn't spotted him, and so he would feel empowered as a result, might be why. Again, we can't know what is going on inside the head of JtR at any given time, but it's not hard to imagine why having a potential witness fail to notice him and then leave the area wouldn't result in him feeling over confident and make the area appear suitable to his needs.

For all he knew, Cadoche was on his way to number 29 to see what was going on there.

I doubt he would think that given Cadoche did not show so much interest as to even look over the fence. And, given he appears to have then gone on to murder and mutilate Annie, it seems quite clear he didn't think that.

And if the murderer could see or hear Cadoche, what makes you think Cadoche would not have been able to sense the presence of the murderer?

I fail to understand how you could think I think the above? Cadosche did apparently "sense" the presence of someone in the yard, he hears someone say "no" on one occassion and hears something like a fall against the fence on the other. Both of those clearly indicate that Cadosche sensed someone was there. He didn't take much notice of that, probably because he was feeling poorly and also he had to get to work. It would be bizarre if hearing some fairly innocuous noises in the next yard made him think "Oh, there's a murderer next door", so given it is clear he sensed the presence of someone next door, it's also clear there's no reason at that time for him to jump to the conclusion that the person is a murderer in the act.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

There are all sorts of ways to explain the unknown, and things like the above are just some of the ways. In the end, though, the witnesses and the medical testimony all converge on a ToD of 5:25 ish as being possible, with no modifications beyond taking into account the error associated with such information. That isn't proof that the murder had to be at/around 5:25, of course, but it does mean that the evidence we have is all consistent with a murder at/around 5:25, and that there is no objective reason to simply dismiss any of the evidence.

- Jeff

I think objectively the murder could have begun as early as when Cadosche heard the voice, he guesses it was at 5:15 when he rose. He heard only a fence "touch" later. Just sayin.

From Casebook-Witness files.."Cadosch testified that on the morning of 8th September 1888, he got up at 5.15am and went into the yard, presumably to relieve himself. On going back to the house, he heard a voice say "No!" from behind the fence which divided the backyards of Nos.27 and 29 Hanbury Street. A few minutes later, he needed to use the yard again, whereupon he heard something touch the fence from the other side. His suspicions were not aroused as he had occasionally heard people in the yard of No.29 at that time of the morning. He did not hear the rustling of clothes and he did not look to see what was causing the noises."

[JeffHamm]

I think objectively the murder could have begun as early as when Cadosche heard the voice, he guesses it was at 5:15 when he rose. He heard only a fence "touch" later. Just sayin.

From Casebook-Witness files.."Cadosch testified that on the morning of 8th September 1888, he got up at 5.15am and went into the yard, presumably to relieve himself. On going back to the house, he heard a voice say "No!" from behind the fence which divided the backyards of Nos.27 and 29 Hanbury Street. A few minutes later, he needed to use the yard again, whereupon he heard something touch the fence from the other side. His suspicions were not aroused as he had occasionally heard people in the yard of No.29 at that time of the morning. He did not hear the rustling of clothes and he did not look to see what was causing the noises."

Hi Michael,

It could have started then, though in my opinion the information we have is not sufficient to state it any more strongly than that. Cadosche doesn't give us any information about how the "No" was said, but as his suspicions were not aroused, I think we can draw the conclusion with some confidence that it wasn't said with any sort of distress. As such, I tend to think the "No" was part of some sort of ongoing conversation prior to the onset of the attack. I suppose it is possible that she was rejecting some sort of offer or request, and this rejection is what JtR reacted to, but that is getting even deeper into speculation territory. I could be wrong, of course, just stating how things appear to me.

He also described the noise against the fence as if something fell against it, while the above summary just mentions the sudden touching part of his statement. Personally I favour the transcript formats as they more closely capture what the witness actually said, rather than summary reports which present the reporter's interpretation of what was said, but it is good to examine all of them, particularly as we may interpret the witness's statements differently from how someone of the time might due to subtle changes in language use. What is clear, though, is that there is no ambiguity in his testimony as to where that sound came from, while some have argued that he is not sure the "No" came from the backyard of #29. His phrasing about that, though, tends to read more like he wasn't sure of which side of the backyard of #29 the speaker was standing (i.e. right by the fence, or perhaps on the far side), but it can also be read as him having less conviction the speaker was in the back yard. I don't think, however, that can be applied to the noise against the fence, which by itself is sufficient to put a living person in the backyard of #29 at that time. I find it hard to accept that someone other than the killer could be that person, and then not report what they found. I also find it a stretch to suggest that the cause of the noise was something other than a person, like the sound of a crate shifting. There are no reports of crates against the fence when describing the crime scene after all.

From the press transcript of his testimony:

Albert Cadosch [Cadoche] deposed: I live at 27, Hanbury-street, and am a carpenter. 27 is next door to 29, Hanbury-street. On Saturday, Sept. 8, I got up about a quarter past five in the morning, and went into the yard. It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from. I went indoors, but returned to the yard about three or four minutes afterwards. While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

There still no way of knowing what Cadosch meant when he claimed what side the ''NO ''came from .

Its still an ambiguious and unclear statement imo.