Four little words

[Fisherman]

I would like to get the different views on two of the Chapman witnesses - Cadosh and Long.

I am interested in the difference between what these witnesses said, as opposed to Phillipsītime of death for Chapman. Clearly, either the two or Phillips got it wrong. And of course, when there are two people on one side of the fence and just the one on the other, a majority decision often seems wise.

But the fact of the matter is that Cadosh and Long do not corroborate each other - they gainsay each other instead. To get them to work together, the timelines have to be fixed first.

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?

What I find interesting is how they manage to tell the whole story in just four words. Long offers three of them:
-Will you?
-Yes.
Cadosh fills in word number four:
-No!

People who want a little limelight in connection with cases like these donīt normally enter conversations that make no sense in relation to the known outcome.

If Long had said that the couple had said:
-What direction?
-Up Banbury.

... we would be left with something that had no connection at all to the murder. But luckily, Long manages to catch the exact three words that tell the whole story:

-Will you? (Go into the yard with me and do your prostitute thing?)
-Yes. (I will accompany you into the yard and do my prostitute thing.)

Very lucky, one must say - the whole story is told by the very few words that Long heard. The rest would possibly have been mere mumbo-jumbo.

However, is the wording not a tad strange? Do punters ask "Will you?" instead of ""How about it?"
And do prostitutes answer "Yes", instead of "Sure, Love, come along"?

Anyhow, we are truly lucky to have the scenario clad in as few words as possible, still effectively clinching the deal!

Over to Cadosch now. He had just the one word to offer:

-No!

And THAT told the rest of the story:

-No! (No, Mr Ripper, I do not want to be subjected to this!)

Once again we are lucky enough to have the whole scenario inside the yard handed down to us. In one word only!

The rest of the Cadosch contribution is a sound. And - believe it or not - that sound is the exact sound that confirms what was going on - something (somebody, that is) falls against the very fence where we know Chapman was found dead.

Can you believe it? Four words and a thud, and we get the whole story!

Myself, I canīt bring myself to believe it. I think they were both grabbing the opportunity to get on stage.

A further point - knowing the Ripper and the speed at which he worked in Buckīs Row and Mitre Square - would he linger on three or four minutes (the time space inbetween when Cadosh claimed to have heard the "No!" and the thud (he went into the back yard twice, the two incidents overheard on separate occasions), before killing Chapman?

Or did he engage in a conversation with Chapman on worldly matters, getting a "No!" as an answer to a question he posed, a suggestion he made - and then he waited four minutes before he slew her?

Just to add: My infatuation with Lechmere can be upheld regardless of whether Long/Cadosh or Phillips were right.

I just think that the testimony is too good to be true.

If we can keep Richardson out of the discussion for now, it would be good, I believe. Try and assess Cadosh and Long on their own merits only!

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Fish,

I disagree here. Those words tell the end of the discussion. What was said before that leads to these words. It sounds as if there had been some apprehension and he allayed her fears and asked again. "Will you" is the second attempt to see if she bought his suggestion. It could have been connected to movement in the house or a bit of traffic (police?) in the area, even if she had brought him there. I see nothing unnatural about this as a piece of dialogue.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Fish,

I disagree here. Those words tell the end of the discussion. What was said before that leads to these words. It sounds as if there had been some apprehension and he allayed her fears and asked again. "Will you" is the second attempt to see if she bought his suggestion. It could have been connected to movement in the house or a bit of traffic (police?) in the area, even if she had brought him there. I see nothing unnatural about this as a piece of dialogue.

Mike

Itīs not in any way impossible, no - that is correct. But it is extremely fortunate, is it not? Long said that the two were talking, but the only three words she managed to overhear was ... guess what?

Also, I think the conversation IS a bit strange. What you suggest would be along the lines of:

-How about we go into that yard and have sex, lady?
-What are you looking for, more specifically?
-Would you do a french routine for 5p?
-I could consider that.
-Will you?
-Yes.

It works this way - but I believe the normal case of a deal would not involve too much dancing about. It would be more direct, if Iīm correct.

But just as you say, it is not a case of any impossibility.

In the end, though, the elements involved in the Long/Cadosch deal, five tiny bits, are too spot on, too lucky to my taste. And way too inconsistent with Phillips. The package as such is just too much.

Thatīs just it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

I'd have to agree with Mike.

We needn't assume that the "Will You?" necessarily had anything directly to do with the impending transaction, nor should we conclude that these were the only words spoken by the couple. It's more likely that these were the only snippets of dialogue that Long could pick out.

I notice that you give Cadosch's "No" an exclamation mark, but how sure are we that he heard the word uttered exclamatorily? It would make quite a bit of difference to our interpretation of what it signifies. If it was a normal bog-standard "no", it could have been a continuation of the killer's mundane conversation, intended to lull Chapman into a false sense of security, i.e. "Ever walked 13 miles all the way from Romford, love?" "No".

Regards,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

I would like to get the different views on two of the Chapman witnesses - Cadosh and Long.

I am interested in the difference between what these witnesses said, as opposed to Phillipsītime of death for Chapman. Clearly, either the two or Phillips got it wrong. And of course, when there are two people on one side of the fence and just the one on the other, a majority decision often seems wise.

But the fact of the matter is that Cadosh and Long do not corroborate each other - they gainsay each other instead. To get them to work together, the timelines have to be fixed first.

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?

What I find interesting is how they manage to tell the whole story in just four words. Long offers three of them:
-Will you?
-Yes.
Cadosh fills in word number four:
-No!

People who want a little limelight in connection with cases like these donīt normally enter conversations that make no sense in relation to the known outcome.

If Long had said that the couple had said:
-What direction?
-Up Banbury.

... we would be left with something that had no connection at all to the murder. But luckily, Long manages to catch the exact three words that tell the whole story:

-Will you? (Go into the yard with me and do your prostitute thing?)
-Yes. (I will accompany you into the yard and do my prostitute thing.)

Very lucky, one must say - the whole story is told by the very few words that Long heard. The rest would possibly have been mere mumbo-jumbo.

However, is the wording not a tad strange? Do punters ask "Will you?" instead of ""How about it?"
And do prostitutes answer "Yes", instead of "Sure, Love, come along"?

Anyhow, we are truly lucky to have the scenario clad in as few words as possible, still effectively clinching the deal!

Over to Cadosch now. He had just the one word to offer:

-No!

And THAT told the rest of the story:

-No! (No, Mr Ripper, I do not want to be subjected to this!)

Once again we are lucky enough to have the whole scenario inside the yard handed down to us. In one word only!

The rest of the Cadosch contribution is a sound. And - believe it or not - that sound is the exact sound that confirms what was going on - something (somebody, that is) falls against the very fence where we know Chapman was found dead.

Can you believe it? Four words and a thud, and we get the whole story!

Myself, I canīt bring myself to believe it. I think they were both grabbing the opportunity to get on stage.

A further point - knowing the Ripper and the speed at which he worked in Buckīs Row and Mitre Square - would he linger on three or four minutes (the time space inbetween when Cadosh claimed to have heard the "No!" and the thud (he went into the back yard twice, the two incidents overheard on separate occasions), before killing Chapman?

Or did he engage in a conversation with Chapman on worldly matters, getting a "No!" as an answer to a question he posed, a suggestion he made - and then he waited four minutes before he slew her?

Just to add: My infatuation with Lechmere can be upheld regardless of whether Long/Cadosh or Phillips were right.

I just think that the testimony is too good to be true.

If we can keep Richardson out of the discussion for now, it would be good, I believe. Try and assess Cadosh and Long on their own merits only!

The best,
Fisherman

hello mr fisherman
good and interesting post for a thread, and I see your point. however, if they were making it up or embellishing for attention or their 15 minutes of fame i would imagine their stories would be a little more "fluffy", along the lines of hutch (too much detail/info), packer (changing stories) or violenia (clear alterior motive) or a combination of these along with the posibilities of monetary gain. nothing so mundane as the descriptions they gave. I beleive them.

[Penhalion]

When evaluating the language, I believe we must also take into account that speech patterns in that period were noticeably different even in lower socio-economic situations. The language of the late Victorians would sound very formal and be constructed in ways that would seem a bit odd to most modern ears even for denizens of Whitechapel.

The fact that the Chapman conversation sounds a bit odd to us means nothing more than people spoke somewhat differently than we are used to.

[lynn cates]

chalk and cheese special

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.

"A further point - knowing the Ripper and the speed at which he worked in Buck's Row and Mitre Square . . ."

Huh?

". . . - would he linger on three or four minutes (the time space in between when Cadosh claimed to have heard the "No!" and the thud (he went into the back yard twice, the two incidents overheard on separate occasions), before killing Chapman?"

Well, perhaps not if it were a planned killing. But please to recall that it takes time to strangle someone. And both Polly and Annie were strangled, unlike Kate.

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

When evaluating the language, I believe we must also take into account that speech patterns in that period were noticeably different even in lower socio-economic situations. The language of the late Victorians would sound very formal and be constructed in ways that would seem a bit odd to most modern ears even for denizens of Whitechapel.

The fact that the Chapman conversation sounds a bit odd to us means nothing more than people spoke somewhat differently than we are used to.

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

[The Good Michael]

Well, perhaps not if it were a planned killing. But please to recall that it takes time to strangle someone. And both Polly and Annie were strangled, unlike Kate.

no need for this here, even though you have just intimated that JTR hadn't the time to strangle Eddowes. Still, that was unwarranted for this thread.

Mike

[lynn cates]

timing

Hello Michael. Thanks.

But Christer specifically included Kate in his timings (vide supra).

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

Hello Michael. Thanks.

But Christer specifically included Kate in his timings (vide supra).

Cheers.
LC

If Christer jumped off a bridge...

Mike

[Fisherman]

Ben:

We needn't assume that the "Will You?" necessarily had anything directly to do with the impending transaction, nor should we conclude that these were the only words spoken by the couple. It's more likely that these were the only snippets of dialogue that Long could pick out.

They were not the only words - Long makes it clear that they were the only two words she could make out, though.

I notice that you give Cadosch's "No" an exclamation mark, but how sure are we that he heard the word uttered exclamatorily? It would make quite a bit of difference to our interpretation of what it signifies.

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.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

If Christer jumped off a bridge...

Mike

I frequently do - every time I post here, for example.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

hello mr fisherman
good and interesting post for a thread, and I see your point. however, if they were making it up or embellishing for attention or their 15 minutes of fame i would imagine their stories would be a little more "fluffy", along the lines of hutch (too much detail/info), packer (changing stories) or violenia (clear alterior motive) or a combination of these along with the posibilities of monetary gain. nothing so mundane as the descriptions they gave. I beleive them.

Fair enough. My take is the opposite one - in both regards.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

When evaluating the language, I believe we must also take into account that speech patterns in that period were noticeably different even in lower socio-economic situations. The language of the late Victorians would sound very formal and be constructed in ways that would seem a bit odd to most modern ears even for denizens of Whitechapel.

The fact that the Chapman conversation sounds a bit odd to us means nothing more than people spoke somewhat differently than we are used to.

Thatīs a useful point. There will have been differences. Iīm just not sure that they would have taken this path. And I think the East End would be very different from the West End, when it comes to the formality of the language.

The best,
Fisherman