John Richardson

[GBinOz]

There are some who make the mistake of arguing that because a witness statement is unclear, and therefore might be wrong, that the witness must therefore be wrong and so their statement dismissed. That is just as much of an error as assuming the witness must be correct.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I don't think that I am making this mistake (you may disagree), as I am not saying that Cadosch is lying or mistaken, or dismissing his testimony. I'm just saying he has not heard anything out of the ordinary, and Cadosch agreed as he testified, (in effect) that the sounds were so within the ordinary that he didn't consider even a brief glance over the fence.

It has been argued that the configuration of Buck's Row would have made it an echo chamber, and I think the same can be said of the backyards in Hanbury St. In the latter case the observer (Cadosch) is in a doorway, has his back turned to the yard with a door (presumably closing behind him), not an optimum position for the determination of the source of a voice amongst a host of possible sources for the utterance of a "no".

With regard to the noise at the fence, as I was waking up this morning around 5:45am I heard a very loud noise from just outside. There was no serial killer there, it was just the sound of the movement in materials such as timber and a tin roof. At my first home there was a paling fence that frequently creaked loudly in this manner. Perhaps it was this phenomena to which Cadosch was referring in his comment about packing cases against the fence?

I just don't find Cadosch's evidence to be as persuasive for a presence behind the fence as do many.

Best regards, George

[Lewis C]

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’?

Good post, Herlock, it's useful to have several accounts together in one place. I have just one quibble: The Times account says, "He believed it came from No. 29." "Believed" expresses uncertainty, so by my count 2 express doubt, and 4 do not. Still, 4 is a majority, and regardless of whether he's unsure about the "no", he is sure about the noise against the fence.

I noticed something else in these accounts. I had thought that 5:20 was the accepted time for when Cadosch said that he first went into the yard, but only one of these accounts uses that time, while four of them use the time of 5:25. Using the time of 5:25 reduces the discrepancy between Cadosch's story and Long's story by 5 minutes, thereby strengthening the argument that it only requires a minor timing adjustment to accept both stories.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I don't think that I am making this mistake (you may disagree), as I am not saying that Cadosch is lying or mistaken, or dismissing his testimony. I'm just saying he has not heard anything out of the ordinary, and Cadosch agreed as he testified, (in effect) that the sounds were so within the ordinary that he didn't consider even a brief glance over the fence.

It has been argued that the configuration of Buck's Row would have made it an echo chamber, and I think the same can be said of the backyards in Hanbury St. In the latter case the observer (Cadosch) is in a doorway, has his back turned to the yard with a door (presumably closing behind him), not an optimum position for the determination of the source of a voice amongst a host of possible sources for the utterance of a "no".

With regard to the noise at the fence, as I was waking up this morning around 5:45am I heard a very loud noise from just outside. There was no serial killer there, it was just the sound of the movement in materials such as timber and a tin roof. At my first home there was a paling fence that frequently creaked loudly in this manner. Perhaps it was this phenomena to which Cadosch was referring in his comment about packing cases against the fence?

I just don't find Cadosch's evidence to be as persuasive for a presence behind the fence as do many.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

No, you've never dismissed any of the witnesses outright, you just present reasonable alternative explanations. As you say, you lean towards an earlier ToD, which is fine, but that also indicates you're not dismissing entirely the witness information. I don't entirely accept the witnesses without question either, and so in the end neither of us is weighting the witnesses as either 0 or 100.

And sure, you're examples are fine, and they reflect possible reasons why Cadosche could be wrong (or perhaps I should say, possible reasons why Cadosche's testimony might not be about JtR? might not be "case relevant" maybe?). However, having some possible explanations doesn't prove those explanations are the right ones because of course JtR brushing up against the fence, and either JtR or Annie saying "no", are also explanations that would result in his testimony. The important thing for us to remember is that both explanations can't be simultaneously true, but either "could be". This is why I argue that one cannot dismiss the witnesses entirely, but also why one shouldn't accept them entirely either. Hence, one looks at all the various combinations and permutations, as then one is looking at the outcomes with and without various bits of information.

Again, since neither of us is arguing that the witnesses must be correct, or must be wrong, we are both just offering possible explanations. Obviously, if there were no reasonable "non-JtR" explanation available, then the evaluation would be more conclusive than it is, but sadly that is not the case (or maybe, more interestingly that is not the case?)

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Herlock,

It makes perfect sense when the complete quote is examined:

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.

You will recall that in one of the Stride threads you were adamant that the Victorian phrase "I should think" meant the person was guessing or estimating. So in the above quote Cadosch is saying I'm sure it didn't come from our yard, and I'm guessing that it might have come from the No 29 side, but I can't really say which side it came from. He wasn't talking about ends, he was talking about sides.

Of the six reports of the inquest, five were in the narrative form and only The Telegraph reported the actual questions and answers, which is less open to reporter interpretation than the narrative.

And you will note that Casebook always uses The Telegraph's reports of inquests.

Cheers, George

Hi George

Everyone seems to keep quoting from newspaper articles and we know they are unsafe to rely on and as can be seen they even conflict with each other.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think you're saying that you favor an earlier time of death because it seems to fit JtR's MO better than a later one, that if the later time of death were true, it would be the only time JtR killed someone outside after dawn. I actually think that's one of the better arguments for an early time of death, though IMO, the witness testimony outweighs that consideration.

This is a fair point Lewis but I think that we have to be cautious when trying to second guess how a serial killer would or wouldn’t behave. To begin with we don’t know the killers circumstances or what he’d been doing previous to the murder. As an example, a lot of men to work as and when they could get it so what if the killer had got work at night and he was heading home when he came across Chapman. Who knows what circumstances might trigger an urge to kill.

Then desperation plays a part. He was ‘desperate’ to kill and Chapman was ‘desperate’ for money. The prostitute would take the client to a spot. Now to us the yard seems a risky spot (especially at that time) but if the killer raised that issue Chapman might have said “No, I’ve used this spot lots of times and no one ever comes here.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi George

Everyone seems to keep quoting from newspaper articles and we know they are unsafe to rely on and as can be seen they even conflict with each other.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But we shouldn’t dismiss them out of hand.

[Hair Bear]

Hi Jeff,

I don't think that I am making this mistake (you may disagree), as I am not saying that Cadosch is lying or mistaken, or dismissing his testimony. I'm just saying he has not heard anything out of the ordinary, and Cadosch agreed as he testified, (in effect) that the sounds were so within the ordinary that he didn't consider even a brief glance over the fence.

It has been argued that the configuration of Buck's Row would have made it an echo chamber, and I think the same can be said of the backyards in Hanbury St. In the latter case the observer (Cadosch) is in a doorway, has his back turned to the yard with a door (presumably closing behind him), not an optimum position for the determination of the source of a voice amongst a host of possible sources for the utterance of a "no".

With regard to the noise at the fence, as I was waking up this morning around 5:45am I heard a very loud noise from just outside. There was no serial killer there, it was just the sound of the movement in materials such as timber and a tin roof. At my first home there was a paling fence that frequently creaked loudly in this manner. Perhaps it was this phenomena to which Cadosch was referring in his comment about packing cases against the fence?

I just don't find Cadosch's evidence to be as persuasive for a presence behind the fence as do many.

Best regards, George

"I heard a very loud noise from just outside. There was no serial killer there"

You know that for a fact? (joke)

"I'm just saying he has not heard anything out of the ordinary, and Cadosch agreed as he testified, (in effect) that the sounds were so within the ordinary that he didn't consider even a brief glance over the fence."

Yes and no...

[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.

[Elamarna]

Hi George

Everyone seems to keep quoting from newspaper articles and we know they are unsafe to rely on and as can be seen they even conflict with each other.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What else would you suggest we use Trevor?
Imagination? ESP?

We use what we have, we know the issues with the press reporting of inquests( they are on the whole far more reliable than general reporting, but still far from pefect) and good researchers take such into account, they don't say, can't trust any of them, so anything goes.


Steve

[FISHY1118]

It is unfortunately an ambiguous statement, which hinges on what one assumes Cadosche was referring to in the "which side" from the 2nd part.:

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.

If he means he cannot be sure of which side of him (i.e. from the backyard of #29, or the house to the other side of him), then he's re-affirming that his "I should think" phrase is an indication that he's not sure it came from No. 29.

On the other hand, if he means he's not sure of which side of the yard of No. 29 it came from (so not sure if the people talking were up against the fence, or somewhere else in the yard), then he's indicating that his "I should think" is being used in a more confident way with respect to the conversation being in the backyard of #29. With regards to the crime, it is less important where in the backyard of #29 the conversation was being held so long as it was in the backyard of #29.

Without us being able to question him, we cannot assert that he is either sure or unsure that the conversation was from #29 (well we can, but we would be wrong to do so). As such, it would be an error to conclude the voices must have come from #29, and it would also be an error to conclude the voices did not.

Note, however, there is no ambiguity with regards to the noise against the fence.

There are some who make the mistake of arguing that because a witness statement is unclear, and therefore might be wrong, that the witness must therefore be wrong and so their statement dismissed. That is just as much of an error as assuming the witness must be correct.

Often the information is unclear, and we have to examine all of the statements, and the various combinations (what if I include Cadoshe, what if I exclude him? What if I include Long, or exclude her? What if I include/exclude Richardson? What if I include/exclude Dr. Phillips? What about excluding any two of those? What about excluding 3 of them?). (note, when I say exclude here I mean that their testimony is not informative as to the crime ; ie. Long did not see Annie, though she may have seen someone; Cadosche did hear conversation and noises, but they are unrelated to the crime - so the conversation was not from #29, and the noise against the fence was something other than JtR brushing up against it, etc).

When we do that, the only pattern that results in a possible ToD at or before 4:30 am is the one pattern that excludes Richardson, Long, and Cadosche, leaving us only Dr. Phillips.

And the thing is, when we are left only with Dr. Phillips we still cannot conclude that the ToD must have been at or before 4:30 because estimates of ToD are not that accurate, we are left with evidence that allows for the ToD to be between 1:30 am and 7:30 am (but of course, Davies, at witness, statement that he discovered the body close to 6:00 am rules out some of that time window).

If any of the witness statements are accurate, then the ToD cannot have been at or prior to 4:30 am.

And while it is not definitive, it does mean that on the balance of probabilities, a ToD around 5:20-5:25 (or at least after 5:00), is far more likely than a ToD prior at or prior to 4:30, but it is not proven as a certainty.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff , you make some interesting points for sure, one in perticular about which side of the yard the the 'NO'came from, I.E was it the left hand side or right hand of 29 or was it the 25 side or 29 side. Ive brought this point up myself in the past, and if im right in reading your above post your of the belief like me there is no way of knowing what Cadosch meant unless he was asked to elaborate on that point by the Coroner during his inqust testimony.

In saying that, i believe one could argue the point either way and rightly so as to what Cadosch meant, to add support to any arguement for an earlier or later t.o.d.

If ive leant one thing from my time here, is that the Evidence in all the JtR murders can be, and is often interpreted by many people in many different ways .

Im sure your aware that i happen to support and earlier time of death in the Chapman case ,as my interpretation of the evidence in that perticular event suggest to me that was indeed possible. For that to be so the witnesses would have to be wrong and or mistaken,[they dont even need to have lied as some have suggested ,just wrong or mistaken would suffice] and yes Dr Phillips testimony would indeed need to be reasonably accurate in that the body was deceased for two hours probably more .

Now , as has been pointed out on many many occasions during this debate, that medical evidence of the Drs in Victorian times cant be relied upon to establish an accurate definitive time of death. [by modern day medical experts]. So has it also been shown by modern day experts who warn against and advise caution when using witness testimony, again to reach a definitive conclusion for obvious human error reasons what ever the circumstance ,in this case a later t.o.d


Now that its been shown that the both witnesses and Drs face the exactly same dilemma, we are left with [in Annie Chapmans case ] whether one supports one or the other when trying to establish an accurate t.o.d..

My main reason [just one i might add] for supporting Dr Phillips in the Chapman case is ,and dont get me wrong im fully aware of their limitation when it come to their ablitity to definitive give an accurate t.od ,but as Doctors even victorian times Doctors must surley be given there degree of expertise in their field to establish an reasonable accurate conlusion when ask to do so by a coroner . Guesswork is not a term i would use for any doctor at anypoint in time when giving a medical opinion as some have suggested.


Adding to that, ive mentioned and compared the ability and knowledge as Doctors of both Blackwell and Brown in the Eddowes and Stride murders, whos t.o.d medical opinion when asked to do so were within minutes of the actual Murders. As yet i havent seen one shread of documented evidence where by both Drs used any witnesses testimony [i.e police beat times ,or any other outside influences etc ] other than their own expert medical opinions when giving such important information.

IF one wants to argue that somehow they were influenced by witnesses times to assist their opinions, they should at least provide some evidence to support this and not just claim ifs, buts, and maybys, or they must have. etc.




So as you yourself suggested ,if we remove the witnesses in Eddowes and Strides cases ,were Brown and Blackwell right as a result of guessswork ? or were they right as Medical Doctors with their own ablity to determind how long a body has been dead for ? regardless of what methods they used and that may have available to them.

If we choose to Remove the witnesses from the Chapman murder, should we not view Phillips estimate and expert medical opinion in the same way?

Its my opinion that when assessing All the evidence ,even tho others may favour a later t.o.d overwhelmingly more than an earlier, i dont see it that way at all . An earlier t.o.d is equally on the cards for just some of the reasons ive mentioned above .

[Trevor Marriott]

What else would you suggest we use Trevor?
Imagination? ESP?

We use what we have, we know the issues with the press reporting of inquests( they are on the whole far more reliable than general reporting, but still far from pefect) and good researchers take such into account, they don't say, can't trust any of them, so anything goes.

Steve

But all we see constantly are researchers quoting from newspaper articles to back up their own theories, and it has been proven on numerous occasions that they don't always print the truth and that what they sometimes print is factually incorrect or an exaggeration of the truth, and when we see conflicting reports which one is the real truth

I fully appreciate the frustration of some who desperately seek the truth but the real truth is hard to come by 135 years later, and as it hasn't surfaced by now I doubt it will ever be found.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

But all we see constantly are researchers quoting from newspaper articles to back up their own theories, and it has been proven on numerous occasions that they don't always print the truth and that what they sometimes print is factually incorrect or an exaggeration of the truth, and when we see conflicting reports which one is the real truth

I fully appreciate the frustration of some who desperately seek the truth but the real truth is hard to come by 135 years later, and as it hasn't surfaced by now I doubt it will ever be found.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I agree, trying to tease out a picture is very difficult, but difficult does not mean impossible.

One real issue is how different people interpret the same article or document in very different ways.
We see that here every day.

However, those documents and press reports are all we have. So we use them.

Otherwise as I asked, what do we use?


Steve

[Lewis C]

This is a fair point Lewis but I think that we have to be cautious when trying to second guess how a serial killer would or wouldn’t behave. To begin with we don’t know the killers circumstances or what he’d been doing previous to the murder. As an example, a lot of men to work as and when they could get it so what if the killer had got work at night and he was heading home when he came across Chapman. Who knows what circumstances might trigger an urge to kill.

Then desperation plays a part. He was ‘desperate’ to kill and Chapman was ‘desperate’ for money. The prostitute would take the client to a spot. Now to us the yard seems a risky spot (especially at that time) but if the killer raised that issue Chapman might have said “No, I’ve used this spot lots of times and no one ever comes here.”

True, and while in seems that in general JtR preferred to strike pre-dawn, he may have have been willing to make exceptions. Also, the sample size of his murders is pretty small. I would leave Kelly out of this discussion because we don't know for sure when she was killed, and her being killed indoors makes her a different situation. Even if Stride is a Ripper murder, she was killed the same night as Eddowes, meaning that together they make one late night/early morning that JtR killed. So that means we can count Eddowes, Nichols, and I would say Tabram and maybe McKenzie, as times JtR struck pre-dawn. Three or four isn't a very big sample size, so that gives me reason to question generalizations that I would make based on the other murders.

[Herlock Sholmes]

My main reason [just one i might add] for supporting Dr Phillips in the Chapman case is ,and dont get me wrong im fully aware of their limitation when it come to their ablitity to definitive give an accurate t.od ,but as Doctors even victorian times Doctors must surley be given there degree of expertise in their field to establish an reasonable accurate conlusion when ask to do so by a coroner . Guesswork is not a term i would use for any doctor at anypoint in time when giving a medical opinion as some have suggested.

.

And all that’s being suggested is that Phillips lower estimate was out by a mere 50 minutes or so. Therefore you’re suggesting extreme accuracy. Phillips wasn’t an expert in Forensics. He was simply a Doctor. No more qualified to assess ToD than a G.P would be today.

Another point is on unreliability. Yes, witnesses can be unreliable but not all of them. Only some. Some are perfectly reliable. But that’s not the case with a Victorian Doctor because the experts tells us that the methods he employed for estimating ToD were always unreliable methods. They weren’t occasionally unreliable. Yes they could get it right…even spot on occasionally but you can get an accurate result from an unreliable method but you can’t rely on it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

IF one wants to argue that somehow they were influenced by witnesses times to assist their opinions, they should at least provide some evidence to support this and not just claim ifs, buts, and maybys, or they must have. etc.


.

Rather a ironic request coming from you Fishy. Perhaps I should just do exactly as you always do? So…..the evidence has been posted it’s on here it’s not my job to find it for you.

Or I could just say…..read David Barrat’s book for examples ……I’m not buying it for you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But all we see constantly are researchers quoting from newspaper articles to back up their own theories, and it has been proven on numerous occasions that they don't always print the truth and that what they sometimes print is factually incorrect or an exaggeration of the truth, and when we see conflicting reports which one is the real truth

I fully appreciate the frustration of some who desperately seek the truth but the real truth is hard to come by 135 years later, and as it hasn't surfaced by now I doubt it will ever be found.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So they shouldn’t read/assess newspaper reports, they should adopt your approach…they should dismiss all witnesses as unreliable, they should ignore all Police Officers as incompetent and all senior Police Officers as liars.

How’s that?