Four little words

[Fisherman]

lynn cates:

Hello Christer. Thanks for starting this thread.

"We know that there were people who came forward out of curiosity, trying to get themselves their fifteen minutes of fame. Did Long and Cadosh belong to this category?"

Doubt it. Surely they would have made up something a bit more definitive.

You are pulling my leg, right? How could they be more definitive, using four words and a thud only - and managing to give the whole story nevertheless?

Please recall that it takes time to strangle someone. And both Polly and Annie were strangled, unlike Kate.

Itīs a point, admittedly. I fail to see that it would have taken four minutes to strangle Chapman, though...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Perhaps a bit different, and if we are specifically mentioning 'will you' that would indicate someone of a higher socio-economic background. That is the very reason I believe it was a follow-up to something else. If not, we'd be looking for someone not from that area, or educated elsewhere.

Mike

"Hello there, step off my foot, will you!"
"Yes"

...sort of?

Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

To say Long and Cadosch contradict each other because they're a few minutes off in their timing is perhaps not accurate. Why not suppose they were honest in what they saw, but one was a few minutes off in his/her timing? Phillips himself said that his estimated time of death was a guess and if it conflicts with more reliable witnesses testimony, then that testimony takes precedence.

If I had to choose between the two I'd say no doubt Cadosch is the more reliable witness, because he wanted no part in the investigation. He was not curious, did not want to participate in the inquest, and complained about having to miss work and asked for more pay. He was also not physically well at the time, having just had surgery, hence the multiple trips to the WC. I'm sure he wished he hadn't heard anything. There are far more problems with Long and the potential is there that she spotted an entirely different woman with a man who was no murderer. But I don't know that's the case.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

outcome

Hello Michael. Thanks

"If Christer jumped off a bridge..."

Then Lechmere's support would drop by 50%?

Seriously, when one's argument makes specific use of a person . . .

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

story

Hello Christer. Thanks.

"You are pulling my leg, right? How could they be more definitive, using four words and a thud only - and managing to give the whole story nevertheless?"

Umm, whole story? What whole story?

Cheers.
LC

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

it seems odd that the Ripper would engage in small talk, given the blitz style attack apparent in the other murders

I don't see too much evidence of a "blitz style attack", to be honest. On the contrary, it could be argued that other sightings of the probable ripper, most notably Lawende's, indicate that he did engage in "small talk" with his victims.

Regards,
Ben

[harry]

As Long had not noticed the couples arrival,perhaps they had been standing there for some time.So why there?Had the building itself some significance.Was the yard a predetermined destination.If so,the 'Will you"'
might be a request that they go there at that time,into the yard that is.The 'No' possibly an exclamation of fear or resent at something she surmised he intended to do.There most certainly had to be a knowledge of the yard,and discussion of it's use prior to entry.

[CPenney]

Thatīs true. And Cadosh only says that he heard a voice say "No". But two points need to be made, the first being that - as I said - it seems odd that the Ripper would engage in small talk, given the blitz style attack apparent in the other murders, combined with the open windows in the yard. He would not want to draw attention, presumably. Which brings me to my second point - if Cadosh had said that the person yelled "No", he would need to explain why nobody else heard it.
Exclamation mark or no exclamation mark, it does not sit well with me at all.

What evidence is there that the Ripper hadn't engaged in small talk with the preceding victim (Nichols)? Clearly Chapman's killer had spoken to her in order to get her to accompany him into the back of 29 Hanbury Street. I think it would be more strange if they had agreed a transaction and then he completely clammed up once they'd gotten into the yard.

[Fisherman]

Tom_Wescott:

To say Long and Cadosch contradict each other because they're a few minutes off in their timing is perhaps not accurate.

On the contrary - it is absolutely accurate to say that. Whether they had their timings wrong or not would be another question.

Phillips himself said that his estimated time of death was a guess and if it conflicts with more reliable witnesses testimony, then that testimony takes precedence.

... which is why we need to ask ourselves just how reliable that testimony was. And one of the things pointing against it, is of course the timeline presented.

If I had to choose between the two I'd say no doubt Cadosch is the more reliable witness, because he wanted no part in the investigation. He was not curious, did not want to participate in the inquest, and complained about having to miss work and asked for more pay. He was also not physically well at the time, having just had surgery, hence the multiple trips to the WC. I'm sure he wished he hadn't heard anything. There are far more problems with Long and the potential is there that she spotted an entirely different woman with a man who was no murderer. But I don't know that's the case.

None of us do, Tom. All we have to go by is our own perception of the matter. And in Longīs case, we need to look at what she said:
"I knew the time, because I heard the brewer's clock strike half-past five just before I got to the street."

So she does not restrict herself to saying just that the clock struck - it specifically struck the half hour. After that, we may suggest that she heard wrong, but the fact of the matter is that she does not allow for it in her testimony.

And Cadosch? In Gavin Bromleyīs excellent essay, he points to Cadosch being the more reliable witness of the two, just like you do. But he also points to inconsistencies between his early testimony and the one given at the inquest, just as he points out the uncertainty about where the voice saying "No" came from.

Maybe it is something that has arrived with my getting on agewise, but I find the older I get, the less I am willing to invest in what ANY witness said about this whole affair. So many people were so eager to have a say, the police was flooded with material, most of it useless and significant parts of it outright false, plus the witnesses are so very often uncorroborated. And that goes for Long and Cadosch too - it is not until we help them by moving the goalposts that they seemingly verify each other. And letīs face it - when they served their versions, they both knew at what time Chapman had been found and under which circumstances.


The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,



I don't see too much evidence of a "blitz style attack", to be honest. On the contrary, it could be argued that other sightings of the probable ripper, most notably Lawende's, indicate that he did engage in "small talk" with his victims.

Regards,
Ben

Surely all of us see evidence of a blitz style attack? Otherwise, how did he keep it silent and with no resistance?

But I see what you mean - you donīt see any need for him to get going from second one. And that is true - he would have manouvred around until he had the stage set the way he wanted to.

But would he not have had that the moment he stepped into the yard with Chapman? If she led the way, he could have jumped her the second she walked down the stairs into the yard. And that is what he seems to have done, judging by where she lay.

But nothing is certain here, of course, and all things can be suggested.

The best,
Fisherman

PS. Just noticed that the "No" has an exclamation mark to it in the Cadosch presentation here on Casebook too.DS.

[Ben]

But would he not have had that the moment he stepped into the yard with Chapman? If she led the way, he could have jumped her the second she walked down the stairs into the yard.

I think that would have been a bit previous.

"Jumping" on her implies a rather wild and unfocused method of attack, and would not have been a very effective means of ensuring her silence. Better to strike when she was standing still, rather than walking down the passage or negotiating steps in the dark, preferably as she stood against the fence lifting up her skirts, with him facing.

PS. Just noticed that the "No" has an exclamation mark to it in the Cadosch presentation here on Casebook too.DS.

It would be interesting to see if any original, primary sources give Cadosch's "no" an exclamation mark. From what I can see, he never even indicated that the "no" and fence-thud occurred in quick succession.

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

I think that would have been a bit previous.

"Jumping" on her implies a rather wild and unfocused method of attack, and would not have been a very effective means of ensuring her silence. Better to strike when she was standing still, rather than walking down the passage or negotiating steps in the dark, preferably as she stood against the fence lifting up her skirts, with him facing.

I was not meaning jumping literally, Ben - I just mean that he would be quick when the time had come.
Your suggestion has a thing or two going for it, and it also tallies with where she was found.
The bit I fancy about striking when she was heading down the stairs is that he would be able to do so without Chapman being able to see it coming.

Itīs anybodyīs choice - but Chapmans.

It would be interesting to see if any original, primary sources give Cadosch's "no" an exclamation mark. From what I can see, he never even indicated that the "no" and fence-thud occurred in quick succession.

He didnīt - we must allow for around four minutes inbetween the events, give or take the odd minute. And that has me wondering - would he take the risk that someone overheard the chit-chatting through the open windows? Ths is why I donīt easily take to the suggestion.

My own take is that Long wanted fifteen minutes of fame, that Cadosch was much the same, and that the Ripper killed Chapman swiftly and silenty at around the time when Phillips suggested. Detract two- three hours from his examination time and youīll be there.

Richardson, I donīt know. He may have just pulled the door slightly open, or he may not even have been there, but was reluctant to tell about it.

Heīs up against three witnesses, but I favour Phillips just the same. Being outnumbered is not equal to being wrong, as you know.

The best,
Fisherman

[Damaso Marte]

I believe it's been theorized that what Cadosch heard was not the victim falling against the fence, but rather the killer bumping against the fence while ripping.

[Tom_Wescott]

I believe it's been theorized that what Cadosch heard was not the victim falling against the fence, but rather the killer bumping against the fence while ripping.

Many things have been theorized, but given that Chapman's arterial spray hit the fence tells me that if it was him bumping the fence, it was before his ripping. Possibly the struggle while he strangled her?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

It would be interesting to see if any original, primary sources give Cadosch's "no" an exclamation mark. From what I can see, he never even indicated that the "no" and fence-thud occurred in quick succession.

Actually, he stated the opposite. He made a trip to the WC, heard two voices talking, heard the word 'no'. He goes back inside, comes back out, and hears a bump against the fence. At least that's how I recall it. If Schwartz had closed his eyes and provided only auditory evidence, it would be identical to this...two people quietly talking, followed by a woman saying 'no' not very loudly.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott