Interpretation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

For the purpose of this thread I’d request that all of us put aside all questions of earlier or later times of death. I’d also ask that we put aside what has always been assumed to have been the case and simply give opinions based on the wording alone.


I ask that we look at two sentences from the inquest testimony of Albert Cadosch (taken from The Telegraph):

“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.”


This has traditionally been taken to have meant that Cadosch was saying that he couldn’t be certain which side of his yard that the “no” came from and that it could either have been from number 29 or from number 25 but is that really what he meant?

The language is clumsy. A more natural way of expressing this I’d suggest would be something more along the lines of “It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of number 29. I can’t be sure though.” I want to suggest an alternative meaning which I believe conforms more accurately to what he’d said.

I suggest that what Cadosch might actually have meant was - I think that it came from the yard of number 29 but I can’t be certain from which side of that yard it came.

So that rather than the suggestion that he was saying that the “no” might have come from number 29 or from number 25 he could have been saying that he thought it came from number 29 but he couldn’t be sure whether it came from the number 27 side or the number 31 side of that yard. I think that this better fits the wording of his inquest testimony.


Why couldn’t this have been what he actually meant?

[Fiver]

That may be what he meant. This is where actual inquest notes still existing might clarify. Are there any hints from alternate newspaper accounts?

[Ms Diddles]

Hi Herlock,

I see what you're getting at here.

To me, Cadosche's statement is perfectly ambiguous.

Either interpretation is of equal probability.

I agree with Fiver that more data is required to give more weight to one or the other interpretation.

(Then we'll likely argue over the credibility of that data)!

Sorry, that's a bit of a cop-out, but based on what we've got I'm on the fence with this one!

[etenguy]

“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.”

Hi Herlock

Based just on the words, you are correct that there is more than one interpretation that could be made. I would say that it is slightly more likely that Cadosch meant he was sure the noise was not from within his yard, he thought it likely it came from the yard of number 29 but it could have been the yard of number 25. The reason I give this interpretation slightly more weight is because the however seems to be qualifying his topic of conversation - ie which yard the noise came from.

That may be a bit pedantic and the alternative you suggest may be what he meant - it certainly makes just as much sense.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fiver, Ms D and Eten, thanks for your comments. No problem at all if anyone favours that he meant that he wasn’t sure which side of his yard it came from. The more I think about though the more I feel that my original suggestion makes more sense but I’d certainly not talk in definite terms. I just think that it’s interesting that one version has always been assumed correct. I don’t know if anyone else has made my suggestion before I did by the way. (Just in case someone else has and I’m accused of nicking the idea.)

[Lewis C]

It is ambiguous, but I think that regardless of which interpretation is right, he's saying, "I think it came from the yard of No. 29, but I'm not sure, I only know for sure that it didn't come from my yard." The only difference is whether that's all he's saying, or if he's adding that if it did come from 29, he has no idea what part of that yard it came from.

[Damaso Marte]

Cadosche was not a native speaker of English, correct? He was Belgian and thus spoke French or Dutch as a native tongue? If so it's entirely possible that his statement has a meaning or connotation that he did not intend for it to have.

Treating the quote at face value, the introduction of "it was not from our yard" makes me lean towards the interpretation of "I'm not 100% sure whether it came from 25 or 29, but I think it came from 29"

[Fleetwood Mac]

Albert was not sure where the "no" came from but he was unequivocal on where the noise against the fence came from.

That suggests to me that the two noises came from two different places.

Human evolution dictates that we are able to determine where a sound comes from when it's to our left or to our right.

It follows that Albert was able to discern the noise against the fence because it was to his left.

He couldn't be sure on the "no" and that tells me it didn't come from his left otherwise he would have been certain, just as he was with the noise against the fence.

The most difficult place from which to determine a sound is when it's in front of you, and that's because the sound hits the left and right ear at the same time.

I'd suggest that the "no" came from in front of Albert, and the noise against the fence to the left of Albert.

[Herlock Sholmes]

“I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door.”

So from inside the house? Wouldn’t he have been aware that someone was inside talking when he entered?

He said that he thought that it came from number 29. Which was behind and to the left.

[Abby Normal]

For the purpose of this thread I’d request that all of us put aside all questions of earlier or later times of death. I’d also ask that we put aside what has always been assumed to have been the case and simply give opinions based on the wording alone.


I ask that we look at two sentences from the inquest testimony of Albert Cadosch (taken from The Telegraph):

“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.”


This has traditionally been taken to have meant that Cadosch was saying that he couldn’t be certain which side of his yard that the “no” came from and that it could either have been from number 29 or from number 25 but is that really what he meant?

The language is clumsy. A more natural way of expressing this I’d suggest would be something more along the lines of “It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of number 29. I can’t be sure though.” I want to suggest an alternative meaning which I believe conforms more accurately to what he’d said.

I suggest that what Cadosch might actually have meant was - I think that it came from the yard of number 29 but I can’t be certain from which side of that yard it came.

So that rather than the suggestion that he was saying that the “no” might have come from number 29 or from number 25 he could have been saying that he thought it came from number 29 but he couldn’t be sure whether it came from the number 27 side or the number 31 side of that yard. I think that this better fits the wording of his inquest testimony.


Why couldn’t this have been what he actually meant?

ive always read that as meaning he didnt know which side of the yard of #29 it came from. hes certain the brushing of the fence was next to him, but not the no, which makes perfect sense. especially if chapman is facing in the opposite direction from cadosh speaking to the ripper.

[Herlock Sholmes]

ive always read that as meaning he didnt know which side of the yard of #29 it came from. hes certain the brushing of the fence was next to him, but not the no, which makes perfect sense. especially if chapman is facing in the opposite direction from cadosh speaking to the ripper.

That’s interesting Abby because I’d always assumed that everyone assumed that he was talking about what side of number 27 it came from. My old boss used to quote regularly - never assume or it could make an ass out of u and me. (Yeah, we used to groan when we heard it too.)

I agree though. The language makes more sense if he was expressing doubt about what side of number 29 in came from.

[JeffHamm]

One thing to keep in mind, of course, is that when events happen that are of no particular interest (and Cadosche indicates the sounds he heard were not of interest to him), then when it comes to testifying there is always the issue that the information being testified to has had to be recalled from memory. And not one the person spent much time encoding (they weren't paying attention, they probably didn't go over it thinking "Must remember I heard someone talking just now", and so forth).

Recollection of such memories is often incomplete, and some information will be less salient than other. So Cadosche may be quite sure he heard someone say "No", and at the time he may even had heard some other words, but they fail to get recalled when he later hears of the murder and thinks "I heard some people talking this morning, and there was that noise on the fence too".

It's entirely possible, therefore, that he could be sure of the location of the fence noise, but less sure of the location of the voices, and not because he didn't hear them and locate them at the time, but only because he can't recall the sound location when it becomes necessary for him to do so (probably at the time he hears of the murder, I don't mean at the time of the inquest - by then, he's probably gone over his memories quite a bit, and in the process, has realised he's not sure of the voice location but sure of the fence noise location).

We actually get little information about the "No", for example, he doesn't say if the voice was male or female, so we don't know if he may have overheard Annie or JtR (if, of course, he overheard either).

I thin his testimony is ambiguous myself (I think I raised that point myself awhile ago as well) - and I think he could mean he's not sure of which side of the yard of #29 the voices were, because of course the murder happened on a particular side of the yard - or he could mean he's not sure on which side of him the "no" came from (so which yard, #29 or #25). It seems to me he could have meant either of those interpretations, and various posts have given good explanations as to how it could be intercepted one way or the other. Unfortunately, people don't always speak grammatically perfect, so the only way we could ever get clarification on which meaning he meant would be to ask him, and he's not able to answer us anymore. As such, what he meant at the time is simply unknowable to us.

If, however, he means which side of the yard, then he is definitely placing the speakers in the backyard of #29. If he means which side of him, then the speakers could have been in the back yard of #29 but they also could have been in the yard of #25. His testimony is such that I think it is fair he thinks it more probable they were in the backyard of #29, but he is also saying he's not positive (in this version of his meaning). It is similar to Dr. Phillips' caveate, he thinks the ToD was 4:30 or earlier, but he's not positive it couldn't have been later due to his need to estimate the influence of various important factors in his calculations.

There would have been ways for the police at the time to investigate the different yard possibility, of course. Simply go to #25 and inquire if anyone from that residence was in their yard around that time of the morning. If there was nobody in the yard of #25, then the voices could not have come from there unless, of course, we go with the speculative "well, they lied about it and were in the yard but didn't want to say", or we speculate that "there were people in the yard of #25 who were not supposed to be there, similar to how Annie and JtR were". Regardless of what the police could have done, we do not know if the police did make any such inquiries, and even if they did, we do not know what they found as a result. I would suggest that if they did do the above then they were not able to locate anyone in the yard of #25 at that time, otherwise, such an individual would have been called because their testimony would indicate that Cadosche's voices were likely those people and that would be important for the jury to know given Cadosche's testimony impacts upon the ToD. Of course, if they didn't follow this line of investigation, we're left with the possibility that there were people in the yard of #25 that Cadosche did not see, but possibly heard. Of course, we are also left with the possibility that the noise did, in fact, come from #29 as Cadosche's lack of confidence doesn't mean he is wrong when he says he thinks it came from #29; being unsure does not mean he must be wrong after all - it just means we have to keep our options open and consider all possibilities.

We still have, however, the fence noise, which clearly came from the yard of #29.

In terms of theory evaluation, we have one explanation that accounts for both the No and the fence noise (Annie and JtR in the backyard are the common relation between the No and the fence noise), while the other requires separate explanations because the No and the noise are independent events, or unrelated (the "No" was from people in the yard of #25, and the fence noise is from something else unconnected to the source of the "No"). Note, even in this independent sources theory, it is still possible for "Annie and JtR" to be the explanation for the fence noise. To rule Cadosche's testimony unrelated to the murder, we need two separate explanations, "people in the yard of #25" for the No, and another non-"Annie and JtR" explanation for the fence noise. Problem is, we can't even be sure the "No" was from #25, so we are always left having to consider the "No" could have been from #29. Again, similar to how Dr. Phillips ToD as stated without the caveate, leaves us with such a large time window to consider that we cannot rule out a ToD around 5:25ish based upon his statement alone.

As such, while not proof, it does mean that the "Annie and JtR" theory for Cadosche's testimony requires fewer parameters to account for both the "No" and the fence noise (the "Annie and JtR" parameter), while the alternative theory requires two separate parameters to account for the "No" and the fence noise (people in another yard said "No", and something else made the fence noise), and even then it requires that the "No" comes from #25 despite the fact his testimony, no matter what he meant by "which side", allows for the "No" to come from the yard of #29. While the Annie and JtR explanation paces the "No" in the backyard, despite the testimony allowing for both, it is because the fence noise rules against the #25 yard that results in placing the "No" in the backyard of #29. In the 2 parameter theory, because the events are independent, the restraints placed by the fence noise cannot be applied to the "No" the way they do in the single parameter explanation. (The issue would be reversed if Cadosche said the "No" came from #25 and the fence noise from #29 - now the single explanation cannot reconcile the different locations for the different sounds - but because the "No"'s location is uncertain, and the location of the fence noise is not, then those two go together and the uncertainty of the fence noise location clarifies the "No" location - in the theory I mean, not in reality - it doesn't prove the "No" came from #29, it just means that theory reconciles our uncertainty without creating paradoxes and so forth).

When one evaluates two theories, one should favour the one with fewer parameters. Again, this doesn't mean mean the one with fewer parameters is proven - it just means it is considered a better explanation for the current data.

What I'm getting at is that while one can always say the two parameter theory is possibly correct (and that's a fair statement), it is not correct to say it is as good an explanation because it isn't; explanations are evaluated along lines like the above - when fewer parameters are required to account for the same information, then that is considered the better explanation. So as far as an explanation (theory) goes, the Annie and JtR "theory" is a better "theory" than the "other speakers and unrelated noise" theory. Either could be true, of course, but they are not equally good explanations for the information we have. And, it is more commonly found that the "better explanation" turns out to be the "true explanation" - but of course it isn't always the case. So, yes, it is of course possible that the two parameter model is true, but it is also of course possible that the one parameter model is true. Moreover, there are versions of the two parameter model that still place Annie and JtR in the backyard of #29 for the fence noise alone.

Of course, if Cadosche meant he wasn't sure which side of #29 the "No" came from, then his uncertainty with respect to where in the yard it was is more or less irrelevant - both the "No" and the "fence noise" come from #29, which of course is accounted for by the "Annie & JtR" explanation, which a two parameter model needs to have people in the backyard of #29 who do not seem to be concerned about the mutilated corpose over by the fence (which, I think, is sufficient to rule out the two parameter model for obvious reasons - but just in case anyone missed it - Cadosche indicates the "No" was insufficient to interest him, and someone in the backyard with a mutilated corpse is not going to be talking in uninteresting voices).

So again, the number of models that favour Annie and JtR in the backyard during Cadosche's visits outnumber the versions that have Cadosche's sounds unrelated to the murder. This again leads to the odds favouring the murder around that time, but for the umteenth time, that doesn't mean it's proven - it's just means that it is more likely that was the case than not based upon what we currently know.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Excellent post Jeff. As you’ve clearly explained, Cadosch’s testimony alone makes an earlier ToD more likely.

Then we add Richardson.

Then we add Long.