John Richardson

[GBinOz]

This could have meant, and I think that it does as it’s the only interpretation that makes sense, that he just couldn’t do a sufficiently good job with his own knife. That he could cut enough off. I know that we disagree on this point.

A question George - If the repair to the boot wasn’t on the inside how could it have been causing him discomfort?

Hi Herlock,

I wouldn't be reluctant to accept that he may have managed to remove some leather before abandoning the task, although a search of the yard of sufficient thoroughness to have found a spring from his (or his son's) footware might perhaps have been expected to have found the leather as well.

I see that I didn't express that statement as clearly as I might have. I meant that I don't believe the offending leather was in the region inside the boot around the actual foot area. This would have required him to take off the boot and see inside, or fit his other hand inside to feel, while trying to manoeuvre the knife, all with minimal light. I think the subject leather would have been higher, above the ankle, and accessible by loosening and removal of some portion of the laces, but still on the inside of the leather, such as under the strip of leather used for the lace holes. That is more likely to be a small task he thought might be accomplished in the prevailing conditions. As you say, if it wasn't on the inside it would hardly provide him with any cause for concern.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

looking at the photos of the fence in the rear of 29 Hanbury Stree it seems that the original fence has been replaced because there are other photos in existence which show a completely different fence, a fence that has gaps between panels in which case Cadosh could not have failed to notice anyone in that yard up against the fence.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

If only it were that easy - something that can be agreed upon by all. I have seen sketches depicting a fence with gaps, but not a photo. Can you provide a link?

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Lastly, if you believe Cadosche heard timber falling against the fence, what exactly would make this noise (at a time when nobody was in the yard)?

Hi Hair Bear,

I believe I indulged in some speculation on such possibilities in my post #3442.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I wouldn't be reluctant to accept that he may have managed to remove some leather before abandoning the task, although a search of the yard of sufficient thoroughness to have found a spring from his (or his son's) footware might perhaps have been expected to have found the leather as well.

I see that I didn't express that statement as clearly as I might have. I meant that I don't believe the offending leather was in the region inside the boot around the actual foot area. This would have required him to take off the boot and see inside, or fit his other hand inside to feel, while trying to manoeuvre the knife, all with minimal light. I think the subject leather would have been higher, above the ankle, and accessible by loosening and removal of some portion of the laces, but still on the inside of the leather, such as under the strip of leather used for the lace holes. That is more likely to be a small task he thought might be accomplished in the prevailing conditions. As you say, if it wasn't on the inside it would hardly provide him with any cause for concern.

Cheers, George

Thanks for the clarification George.

[Hair Bear]

Hi Hair Bear,

I believe I indulged in some speculation on such possibilities in my post #3442.

Cheers, George

Ah right, I thought in "2" and "3" you were simply indulging in such far-fetched possibilities that number "1" is the only viable option, sorry.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

If only it were that easy - something that can be agreed upon by all. I have seen sketches depicting a fence with gaps, but not a photo. Can you provide a link?

Cheers, George

The sketches are important as it seems they were drawn at the time and they clearly show gaps between the panels.

From the pic I have attached which is not dissimilar to the sketches of the fence. But the fence shown in most of the rear yard images is different to the original fence because there are no gaps between the panels.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

The sketches are important as it seems they were drawn at the time and they clearly show gaps between the panels.

From the pic I have attached which is not dissimilar to the sketches of the fence. But the fence shown in most of the rear yard images is different to the original fence because there are no gaps between the panels.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There are no gaps in that fence.

Trevor we’ve been over this point and it’s such an obvious one. Why would the police at the time have asked why Cadosche hadn’t looked over the fence if he’d been able to have seen through it? If he could have seen through it he couldn’t have failed to have missed seeing the killer and someone would have made this point but not one person did. There just can’t have been gaps all along the fence. It’s impossible and should be dismissed outright.

[Hair Bear]

This sketch is taken from the Star of 10th September 1888. You can see that the fence appears to be in good nick with no gaps.

[JeffHamm]

This sketch is taken from the Star of 10th September 1888. You can see that the fence appears to be in good nick with no gaps.

Hi Hair Bear,

Yah, this is the thing with newspaper sketches, they depict the gist of the scene to convey to the readership the general layout of the murder location but specific details are open to the artist's interpretation. While they are better than nothing, probably the best way for us to view them is to imagine them "out of focus"; we can see the structure of things, but not the fine details. If we do that, the various sketches are all fairly similar. Once we start to zoom in on details, well, they all differ, which tells us that most of them must be wrong, and probably all of them are in some way.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

There are no gaps in that fence.

Trevor we’ve been over this point and it’s such an obvious one. Why would the police at the time have asked why Cadosche hadn’t looked over the fence if he’d been able to have seen through it? If he could have seen through it he couldn’t have failed to have missed seeing the killer and someone would have made this point but not one person did. There just can’t have been gaps all along the fence. It’s impossible and should be dismissed outright.

Well, there are several sketches which were clearly made at the time surely they can't all be wrong?

"Albert Cadosch [Cadoche] deposedWhile 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.

That would have been his opportunity to say I couldn't see through it or over it !!!!!!!!!!

I also make mention of Cadosh`s testimony as reported in the Times where he states that the fence was 5`6ins only in height with it being only that height I would suggest he would have been able to see the heads of anyone in the backyard of 29 especially if they were up close to the fence.

He also states that another reason for him not looking over or through the fence was that he knew the residents of 29 to be early risers

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Hi Trevor,

Well, there are several sketches which were clearly made at the time surely they can't all be wrong?

"Albert Cadosch [Cadoche] deposedWhile 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.

That would have been his opportunity to say I couldn't see through it or over it !!!!!!!!!!

But he would only have included such a detail if he looked in that direction at all. His answer indicates that he didn't look, and given he was on his way to the loo and getting ready to go to work his attention can reasonably be expected to be focused on getting to the loo and so looking at the far end of his yard at his destination. While he heard some things that indicated there were people next door, it is also clear nothing about that activity was at that time of sufficient interest to distract him from that goal.

Basically, his testimony seems to indicate that he didn't even look in the direction of #29 at all. And if that reading is correct, then whether or not there were gaps is entirely moot.

I also make mention of Cadosh`s testimony as reported in the Times where he states that the fence was 5`6ins only in height with it being only that height I would suggest he would have been able to see the heads of anyone in the backyard of 29 especially if they were up close to the fence.

He also states that another reason for him not looking over or through the fence was that he knew the residents of 29 to be early risers

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well, according to the victims page, Annie was only around 5' tall, so her head would be below a 5'6" fence.

While admittedly less solid, Long's description of the man she saw includes "He appeared to me to be a little taller than the deceased.", and if she did see Annie and JtR, then for his head to be above a 5'6" fence he would have to be more than 6" taller than Annie, which seems a bit more than "a little taller". Unfortunately, as we both known, we cannot be sure that Long did see Annie, her confidence notwithstanding, and moreover witness descriptions can be quite off the mark.

Those caveats aside, there are statements that we have to consider that would be consistent with Cadosch being unable to see their heads over a 5'6" fence; he certainly would not have been able to see Annie's head (provided her height at 5', as listed on the victim's page, is correct), and if Long did see Annie and JtR, and her description of the height is accurate (both questionable "if's"), then it would suggest that Cadoche would also not be able to see JtR's head either as the fence was taller than both. If we believe that Cadosch did glance in the direction of the fence, then the fact he didn't see them, could be considered a weak support for the validity of Long's sighting.

Of course, the above doesn't really matter all that much, given that by the sounds of it Cadosch didn't even seem to so much as glance in the direction of #29, and if he didn't look he couldn't see.

And yes, since he knew the people of #29 were early rises, that too just goes to further explain why hearing some activity in the yard would be mundane to him at the time, and not worthy of taking a look, given he had to go to the loo after all.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,



But he would only have included such a detail if he looked in that direction at all. His answer indicates that he didn't look, and given he was on his way to the loo and getting ready to go to work his attention can reasonably be expected to be focused on getting to the loo and so looking at the far end of his yard at his destination. While he heard some things that indicated there were people next door, it is also clear nothing about that activity was at that time of sufficient interest to distract him from that goal.

Basically, his testimony seems to indicate that he didn't even look in the direction of #29 at all. And if that reading is correct, then whether or not there were gaps is entirely moot.



Well, according to the victims page, Annie was only around 5' tall, so her head would be below a 5'6" fence.

While admittedly less solid, Long's description of the man she saw includes "He appeared to me to be a little taller than the deceased.", and if she did see Annie and JtR, then for his head to be above a 5'6" fence he would have to be more than 6" taller than Annie, which seems a bit more than "a little taller". Unfortunately, as we both known, we cannot be sure that Long did see Annie, her confidence notwithstanding, and moreover witness descriptions can be quite off the mark.

But we don't know the height of the killer so my suggestion cannot be dismissed outright !!!!!!

Those caveats aside, there are statements that we have to consider that would be consistent with Cadosch being unable to see their heads over a 5'6" fence; he certainly would not have been able to see Annie's head (provided her height at 5', as listed on the victim's page, is correct), and if Long did see Annie and JtR, and her description of the height is accurate (both questionable "if's"), then it would suggest that Cadoche would also not be able to see JtR's head either as the fence was taller than both. If we believe that Cadosch did glance in the direction of the fence, then the fact he didn't see them, could be considered a weak support for the validity of Long's sighting.

Of course, the above doesn't really matter all that much, given that by the sounds of it Cadosch didn't even seem to so much as glance in the direction of #29, and if he didn't look he couldn't see.

And yes, since he knew the people of #29 were early rises, that too just goes to further explain why hearing some activity in the yard would be mundane to him at the time, and not worthy of taking a look, given he had to go to the loo after all.

- Jeff

The point is that it is suggested that Cadosch`s account supports a later time of death which in my opinion is clearly unsafe in any event by reason of conflicts with other witnesses' testimony.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Hi Trevor,

I agree we don't know the height of her killer, and I didn't dismiss your point. Rather just presented the other side of the argument, because we don't know the height of the killer we don't know his head would be visible over the fence. The one, albeit weak, bit of information we have points to the latter - but I fully acknowledge that Long's testimony should be viewed with caution for a multitude of reasons that have been discussed before.

The point is that it is suggested that Cadosch`s account supports a later time of death which in my opinion is clearly unsafe in any event by reason of conflicts with other witnesses' testimony.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Cadosche's testimony doesn't conflict with other witnesses' testimony once one takes into account the margins of error associated with witness statements of time. As you yourself point out, witness testimony must be viewed with caution, and that means not looking at the details as if they are carved in stone, but only as approximations. As such, Long and Cadosche's reported times have to be evaluated as sufficiently close that the apparent discrepancy is (or perhaps maybe is a better way to put it) nothing more than the expected inaccuracy of witnesses for such details. Note, that doesn't mean I'm saying Long did see Annie and JtR, but rather that the difference in times reported by Cadosche and Long is unsafe to use as a reason to dismiss either of their testimony.

Beyond that, Cadosche testifies of activity in the yard of #29, activity that points against there being a mutilated body present at that time. I know some have suggested things like "someone found the body and was stealing from it", but that doesn't explain why they didn't just snatch up her things arranged at her feet for one. And also, sudden discovery of a mutilated corpse is not the sort of thing that would lead anyone other than a very disturbed individual to think "hmm, let's rummage about for a coin or two" - that sort of behaviour seems more the killer's sort of thing.

Nothing in this case is "safe", really, so if we use "safe" as our criterion than everything goes out the window and we are left with nothing upon which to build any explanation. And an explanation built upon nothing is worse than an explanation that has a foundation, even if it is shaky.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi,

Just trying to put together a post with the various sketches we have.

Wickerman posted these on page 1:




and this, in particular the lower right hand portion:



And Fishy posted these on page 1 as well:






And Hair Bear included this one:




With regard to the "gap debate", of the 6 sketches, 2 show gaps between the upright boards of the fence, and 4 do not.

As the fence cannot both have and not have gaps, than clearly the sketches cannot be viewed as reliable evidence as there is no reason to favour one over another. Therefore, to the extent that Victorian Fence design is of interest, inferences about the design of the fence in the backyard of #29 will need to be drawn from other sources of information, as what ever inference is drawn can be supported by more than one sketch.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Hi Trevor,

I agree we don't know the height of her killer, and I didn't dismiss your point. Rather just presented the other side of the argument, because we don't know the height of the killer we don't know his head would be visible over the fence.

And also, sudden discovery of a mutilated corpse is not the sort of thing that would lead anyone other than a very disturbed individual to think "hmm, let's rummage about for a coin or two" - that sort of behaviour seems more the killer's sort of thing.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

The entire height equation changes when he reaches the steps. A quick glance over the fence while standing on the steps would reveal all there was to be seen, if he had the slightest notion that there was anything out of the ordinary to be seen, to which he testified in the negative.

Needs must when the devil drives. Poverty and alcohol addiction can be powerful motivators.

Best regards, George