Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
    “Things that go 'Bump' in the night, Really shouldn't give one a fright. It's the holes in the ears that let in the fear, that and the absence of light.”

    I've had this experience, where it sounds like an intruder is lurking just outside, but on investigation there is no one there, and it's just the creak from the movement of objects due to temperature change.

    So Mr Cadosch, what did you see that morning? Nothing your Honour.
    And what did you hear? Nothing out of the ordinary your Honour.​

    Cadosch testify he heard the "No", "as I was going through the door". In all probability with the door closing behind him. He was also facing away from the source of the sound, which could have been from any of the occupants of the amphitheatre of residences, arising for work.

    Nothing out of the ordinary.
    You’re bending over backwards here I’m afraid George.

    Comment


    • Ok, Fishy’s post has no substance to respond to properly because as usual he’s simply cheerleading the comments of others. But…



      In the Stride murder we had Michael talking about PC Lamb being met by Eagle ‘just before 1.00. Fiver checked the different newspaper version on her and found that this only appeared in one out of six versions, so I checked the different newspaper versions of Cadosch’s testimony. And what do you know?


      In The Telegraph:

      ‘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.’


      This doesn’t make sense. He says “I should think it came from the yard of number 29,” then in the same sentence he says “I, however, cannot say on which side it came from.” Basically, according to the wording he said ‘I think it came from number 29 but I can’t say where it came from.’ Is this just an example of the journalist mis-hearing or misunderstanding what was said? Do we believe that he was talking gibberish or could Cadosch have just said ‘it came from number 29 however I don’t know which end of that yard?’

      What is strange is that just as The Telegraph is the only paper to mention Lamb saying ‘before 1.00,’ The Telegraph appears to be the only paper mentioning any doubt on Cadosch’s part about the word ‘no.’


      In The Times:

      ‘Albert Cadosch a carpenter, stated that he resided at No. 27, Hanbury-street. That was next door to No. 29. On Saturday, the 8th inst. he got up at about 5.15 and went out into the yard of his house. As he returned across the yard, to the back door of his house, he heard a voice say quite close to him, “No.” He believed it came from No. 29. He went into the house, and returned to the yard three or four minutes afterwards. He then heard a sort of a fall against the fence, which divided his yard from No. 29. Something seemed suddenly to touch the fence. He did not look to see what it was. He did not hear any other noise.’


      No doubts mentioned here.


      In The Daily News:

      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.

      No doubts mentioned here


      In The Echo:

      ‘About twenty-five minutes past five Albert Cadosch, living at No. 31, the next house on the left hand side, entered the yard adjoining that of No. 29. He states that he heard some talking on the other side of the palings, and he distinguished the word "No." There was then, he fancied, a slight scuffle, with the noise of something falling, but he took no notice, thinking that it was from his neighbours.’

      No doubts here


      In The Morning Advertiser:

      ‘The evidence which has been collected up to the present shows that the murder was committed shortly before half past five o'clock in the morning. 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’

      No doubts here


      In The Star:

      ‘About twenty-five minutes past five Albert Cadosch, living at No. 31, the next house on the left-hand side, entered the yard adjoining that of No. 29. He states that he heard some talking on the other side of the palings, and he distinguished the word "No." There was then, he fancied, a slight scuffle, with the noise of something falling, but he took no notice, thinking that it was from his neighbors’

      No doubts here.



      So out of six newspaper versions only one mentions Cadosch having any doubt as to where the ‘no’ came from and that particular version is very strangely worded indicating a possible error. Yes, two of them use the same wording so one could have been taken from the other.

      So why are we taking it as gospel that Cadosch had doubts about the ‘No’?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

        Whos calling Cadosch a liar? What's his honesty got to do with his testimony that he was uncertain which side the No came from? By his own admission he was "unsure", for goodness sake its right there in black and white herlock. Your argument concerning the Cadosch "no" would get chucked out so fast in a court of law they be laughing at you on the way out for even tying to pull that nonsense.

        "Oh sorry judge but he must be right, his an honest guy" .... gimmi a break .

        Your getting honesty confused with witness uncertainty and ambiguity

        Again….there was no witness uncertainty or ambiguity about the noise was there? If you said to me “I’m unsure about x but I’m certain about y” should I dismiss what you say about y because of what you say about x? Obviously not. You are blatantly clutching at straws to find any reason to denigrate a perfectly good witness just to prop up the Doctors estimation so that you can have the cover of darkness to defend your favoured theory. You should approach the evidence dispassionately. As I, and most others, do.

        .
        As ever Fishy you’re letting emotion take you further from reason. The police are investigating a murder in the yard of number 29. A neighbour with no reason to lie tells them that he hears a ‘no’ and then a noise against a fence that he was standing right next to and they would disregard his testimony (even if he wasn’t 100% certain about the source of the ‘no’?) I think we can all see who needs to get real. Is there any indication or evidence anywhere that might hint at the police disbelieving him? No.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          You’re bending over backwards here I’m afraid George.
          Oh thats just wonderful , George gets the old "you bending over backwards " line and that it, I get the long repetitive speech for the same opinion.
          Last edited by FISHY1118; 09-10-2023, 09:14 AM.
          'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
            Ok, Fishy’s post has no substance to respond to properly because as usual he’s simply cheerleading the comments of others. But…



            In the Stride murder we had Michael talking about PC Lamb being met by Eagle ‘just before 1.00. Fiver checked the different newspaper version on her and found that this only appeared in one out of six versions, so I checked the different newspaper versions of Cadosch’s testimony. And what do you know?


            In The Telegraph:

            ‘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.’


            This doesn’t make sense. He says “I should think it came from the yard of number 29,” then in the same sentence he says “I, however, cannot say on which side it came from.” Basically, according to the wording he said ‘I think it came from number 29 but I can’t say where it came from.’ Is this just an example of the journalist mis-hearing or misunderstanding what was said? Do we believe that he was talking gibberish or could Cadosch have just said ‘it came from number 29 however I don’t know which end of that yard?’

            What is strange is that just as The Telegraph is the only paper to mention Lamb saying ‘before 1.00,’ The Telegraph appears to be the only paper mentioning any doubt on Cadosch’s part about the word ‘no.’


            In The Times:

            ‘Albert Cadosch a carpenter, stated that he resided at No. 27, Hanbury-street. That was next door to No. 29. On Saturday, the 8th inst. he got up at about 5.15 and went out into the yard of his house. As he returned across the yard, to the back door of his house, he heard a voice say quite close to him, “No.” He believed it came from No. 29. He went into the house, and returned to the yard three or four minutes afterwards. He then heard a sort of a fall against the fence, which divided his yard from No. 29. Something seemed suddenly to touch the fence. He did not look to see what it was. He did not hear any other noise.’


            No doubts mentioned here.


            In The Daily News:

            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.

            No doubts mentioned here


            In The Echo:

            ‘About twenty-five minutes past five Albert Cadosch, living at No. 31, the next house on the left hand side, entered the yard adjoining that of No. 29. He states that he heard some talking on the other side of the palings, and he distinguished the word "No." There was then, he fancied, a slight scuffle, with the noise of something falling, but he took no notice, thinking that it was from his neighbours.’

            No doubts here


            In The Morning Advertiser:

            ‘The evidence which has been collected up to the present shows that the murder was committed shortly before half past five o'clock in the morning. 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’

            No doubts here


            In The Star:

            ‘About twenty-five minutes past five Albert Cadosch, living at No. 31, the next house on the left-hand side, entered the yard adjoining that of No. 29. He states that he heard some talking on the other side of the palings, and he distinguished the word "No." There was then, he fancied, a slight scuffle, with the noise of something falling, but he took no notice, thinking that it was from his neighbors’

            No doubts here.



            So out of six newspaper versions only one mentions Cadosch having any doubt as to where the ‘no’ came from and that particular version is very strangely worded indicating a possible error. Yes, two of them use the same wording so one could have been taken from the other.

            So why are we taking it as gospel that Cadosch had doubts about the ‘No’?
            Maybe because he himself said so.!
            Last edited by FISHY1118; 09-10-2023, 08:57 AM.
            'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

            Comment


            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

              Oh thats just wonderful , George gets the old "you bending over backwards " line and that it, I get the long repetitive speech with all the nasty trimmings for the same opinion.
              Don’t try it Fishy. It’s exactly the same tactic that you always try. You slip in ‘nasty trimmings’ as a pathetic attempt to try and hint that I’ve said something nasty. You tried it in other threads and your trying it her.

              Same old Fishy. Give it a rest.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                Maybe because he himself said so.!
                And that about sums up your level of analysis.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  Don’t try it Fishy. It’s exactly the same tactic that you always try. You slip in ‘nasty trimmings’ as a pathetic attempt to try and hint that I’ve said something nasty. You tried it in other threads and your trying it her.

                  Same old Fishy. Give it a rest.
                  Ok il delete the nasty trimings bit on this post , but the rest stands as fact .
                  'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                  Comment


                  • A question. How sure are we that Mrs Darrell and Mrs Long are one and the same? When someone wrote Robert Baul (Nichols inquest) we all understood that to mean Robert Paul; obvious stuff. But how does Long and Darrell get confused?

                    In the three ‘Darrell’ reports that I’ve seen this morning she said:

                    Daily News 13th Sept

                    A woman named Mrs. Durrell made a statement yesterday to the effect that about half-past five o'clock on the morning of the murder of Mrs. Chapman she saw a man and woman conversing outside No. 29, Hanbury-street, the scene of the murder, and that they disappeared very suddenly. Mrs. Durrell was taken to the mortuary yesterday, and identified the body of Chapman as that of the woman whom she saw in Hanbury-street

                    So no mention of the description of the man and we have her mentioning them disappearing suddenly. Has anyone ever seen a report with the name Long where she said that the couple disappeared suddenly?

                    Also, in The Daily News of the 20th we get the inquest report where Elizabeth Long is listed.

                    I accept the possibility that she could have given different names at different times but I was wondering if this has been researched? What do we know of Long’s background and do we know if the name Darrell was in any way significant?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      And that about sums up your level of analysis.
                      The jokes on you , thats all that was needed to say . Cadosch said 'He couldnt be sure where the 'no' came from , these are his words ,you spent too much time wafflng on about newspaper reports that prove nothing to your argument .
                      'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                        Ok il delete the nasty trimings bit on this post , but the rest stands as fact .
                        What you ‘got’ Fishy was a post containing six newspaper reports of Cadosch’s inquest testimony. Only one out of six mentions any doubt about the word ‘no,’ which is significant in itself but even that version, as it’s worded, is complete gibberish. When you see gibberish it usually means a transcription error.

                        Now, you will want to try and brush that under the carpet, but it’s there in black and white. It points to Cadosch expressing no doubts about the ‘No.’

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                          The jokes on you , thats all that was needed to say . Cadosch said 'He couldnt be sure where the 'no' came from , these are his words ,you spent too much time wafflng on about newspaper reports that prove nothing to your argument .
                          How are you missing this Fishy???

                          In one version out of six…..and that one version is gibberish……read the post properly.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            What you ‘got’ Fishy was a post containing six newspaper reports of Cadosch’s inquest testimony. Only one out of six mentions any doubt about the word ‘no,’ which is significant in itself but even that version, as it’s worded, is complete gibberish. When you see gibberish it usually means a transcription error.

                            Now, you will want to try and brush that under the carpet, but it’s there in black and white. It points to Cadosch expressing no doubts about the ‘No.’
                            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.
                            The Coroner: Did you look to see what it was? - No.
                            [Coroner] Had you heard any noise while you were at the end of your yard? - No.
                            [Coroner] Any rustling of clothes? - No. I then went into the house, and from there into the street to go to my work. It was about two minutes after half-past five as I passed Spitalfields Church.
                            [Coroner] Do you ever hear people in these yards? - Now and then, but not often.
                            By a Juryman: I informed the police the same night after I returned from my work.
                            The Foreman: What height are the palings? - About 5 ft. 6 in. to 6 ft. high.
                            [Coroner] And you had not the curiosity to look over? - No, I had not.
                            [Coroner] It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? - They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings. I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over.
                            The Foreman of the Jury: It's a pity you did not.


                            Pay close attentinon to this this version Herlock, not surprizingly it contains the the Coroner and the jury Foreman , can you show me where the other five versions contain the same. ?

                            I think youll want to take your broom and carpet and move on regarding the Cadosch ''NO''
                            Last edited by FISHY1118; 09-10-2023, 09:28 AM.
                            'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                              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.
                              The Coroner: Did you look to see what it was? - No.
                              [Coroner] Had you heard any noise while you were at the end of your yard? - No.
                              [Coroner] Any rustling of clothes? - No. I then went into the house, and from there into the street to go to my work. It was about two minutes after half-past five as I passed Spitalfields Church.
                              [Coroner] Do you ever hear people in these yards? - Now and then, but not often.
                              By a Juryman: I informed the police the same night after I returned from my work.
                              The Foreman: What height are the palings? - About 5 ft. 6 in. to 6 ft. high.
                              [Coroner] And you had not the curiosity to look over? - No, I had not.
                              [Coroner] It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? - They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings. I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over.
                              The Foreman of the Jury: It's a pity you did not.


                              Pay close attentinon to this this version Herlock, not surprizingly it contains the the Coroner and the jury Foreman , can you show me where the other five versions contain the same. ?

                              I think youll want to take your broom and carpet and move on regarding the Cadosch ''NO''
                              Are you being serious? Six newspapers all reporting inquest proceedings and you’re quibbling over the way that The Telegraph version is the only one that counts because it’s set out using the word Coroner. They’re reporting the same inquest!

                              You’re doing exactly what Michael did. You’re jumping on the one you like and ignoring the five that you don’t. Unless you think Evan’s and Skinner don’t know what they’re talking about, they use The Times in their Sourcebook (which I’m guessing you don’t have….possibly the most respected book in the whole case) and The Times version mentions nothing about Cadosch having doubts.

                              Also….read what we was supposed to have said:

                              but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from​

                              You are supporting a version that makes no sense. How can you accept a version where he says - it came from number 29 but I don’t know where it came from??? Disengage the emotion and read.

                              So you accept one version, reject five, and in doing so you are accepting the only one that’s gibberish.

                              Well done.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                Are you being serious? Six newspapers all reporting inquest proceedings and you’re quibbling over the way that The Telegraph version is the only one that counts because it’s set out using the word Coroner. They’re reporting the same inquest!

                                You’re doing exactly what Michael did. You’re jumping on the one you like and ignoring the five that you don’t. Unless you think Evan’s and Skinner don’t know what they’re talking about they use The Times in their Sourcebook (which I’m guessing you don’t have?) and The Times version mentions nothing about Cadosch having doubts.

                                Also….read what we was supposed to have said:

                                but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from​

                                You are supporting a version that makes no sense. How can you accept a version where he says - it came from number 29 but I don’t know where it came from???

                                So you accept one version, reject five, and in doing so you are accepting the only one that’s gibberish.

                                Well done.
                                You must be kidding right ? how you manage to wriggle out of that one it Houdini like , the Daily Telegraph ''quotes'' the Coroner and the Foreman , the other newspapaers do not . So in your world the daily telegraph just made the conversation up between the coroner and cadoach up just for the hell of it ?

                                Well done for trying to dismiss inquest testimony to suit you theory


                                Let me fix this quote for you as you have a habit of getting things mixed up ''it came from number 29 but I don’t know where it came from???​​​​​​​''[Wrong ]


                                [ Correct] 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.

                                Big difference.
                                'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X