Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[A P Tomlinson]

How do you KNOW it was incorrect?

I don't... But I know WHY I know it was correct...
If you don't want to answer that's fine.
This is a pointless argument, and you will only engage to win points rather than move a discussion forward.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please, tell me... how do you KNOW the ToD was correct?

How do you KNOW it was incorrect?

[A P Tomlinson]

I AM going to mention Mitre Square.

The weather conditions were similar, the loss of blood was similar, the mutilation was similar, and both victims had their intestines over the right shoulder.

Yet Eddowes was still warm about 42 minutes after death occurred, whereas Chapman was almost completely cold, supposedly after about an hour.

I do not think you have any answer to that.

Please, tell me... how do you KNOW the ToD was correct?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body. Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing.

(Mr. George Baxter Phillips at Chapman inquest)


The body had been mutilated, and was quite warm - no rigor mortis.

(Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown at Eddowes inquest)


That is a big difference.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The answer is simply that you cannot compare two different bodies. Experts tell us this. What more do we need to know when a laymen tries to tell us otherwise.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

... external factors like the cold and loss of blood might impact the process estimating of time of death by touch, but not enough to realise that missing vast quantities of iinnards would also make a difference.

PLEASE don't call back to Mitre bloody Square ...

I AM going to mention Mitre Square.

The weather conditions were similar, the loss of blood was similar, the mutilation was similar, and both victims had their intestines over the right shoulder.

Yet Eddowes was still warm about 42 minutes after death occurred, whereas Chapman was almost completely cold, supposedly after about an hour.

I do not think you have any answer to that.

[A P Tomlinson]

I have read everyone's reply.

No-one has argued that Swanson was unaware of Phillips' caveat.

Posters previously argued that Phillips' caveat allowed for the possibility that Chapman died at about 5.30 a.m.

In that case, there would be no conflict between Phillips' and Richardson's testimony, yet Swanson considered them to be irreconcilable.

That suggests that he understood that Phillips' 'at least two hours' was not reduced by his caveat.

Phillips' caveat is irrelevant. So is Swanson's acceptance of it or otherwise.
All it does is dsiplay that he understood that external factors like the cold and loss of blood might impact the process estimating of time of death by touch, but not enough to realise that missing vast quantities of iinnards would also make a difference.

PLEASE don't call back to Mitre bloody Square and the "They were able to tell the ToD there..." because the ToD was based on Police reports.
Doctor Brown??? Not even Derren Brown and the combined casts of Bones, CSI Miami and Rizzoli and Isles would be able to put a time of death to within a certainty of a ten minute gap! But this Victorain quack reckons HE can?
Rubbish!

Phillips was using unsound science so it wouldn't matter who believed it or not, there was a high probability that he was wrong, ergo anyone who agreed with him would be wrong, regardless of their job title or status.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It has to be noted that the accusation that some people are ‘Swanson admirers’ comes from someone who is predisposed to have a low opinion of the man due to Kosminski-related issues. For my part I’d like to add a phrase of my own…’Phillips Fans.’ People who believe that Dr. Phillips was a superhero that had powers of ToD estimation that were greater than those of modern day experts. Truly a genius. And some on here don’t find this a little…..far-fetched….strange….bizarre. Pick a word.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Swanson wasn’t a medical man. He didn’t have the easy access to medical knowledge that we have today. It’s entirely possible and plausible that he hadn’t noted the caveat’s significance or that he understood it but realised that Phillips only meant that it as an ‘outside chance’ and that he still favoured a ToD of 4.30 or earlier based on his own knowledge (which was of course limited to the medical knowledge of 1888) Therefore Swanson was plainly stating the contradiction as he saw it.

Coroner Baxter, who was experienced at listening to and understanding medical testimony, and who was at the inquest and heard Phillips report in full and verbatim had no doubt whatsoever as to the meaning of the caveat. Baxter clearly trumps Swanson on this point.

Swanson was simply summing up the evidence as it stood. He had no reason to hold back on making any judgment call on which was likelier but this is exactly what he didn’t do. This strongly suggests that Swanson simply accepted the fact that there was a discrepancy. There was nothing to have prevented him stating something like “…but as Dr. Phillips estimated a ToD of 4.30 or earlier then the witness Richardson was likely to have been mistaken in some way.”

But he didn’t did he?

Its very simple, obvious stuff.

Personally, I think that he did doubt Phillips estimation but he didn’t want to go on record as doubting his own expert. He left the decisions to others closer to the ground on the investigation.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I have read everyone's reply.

No-one has argued that Swanson was unaware of Phillips' caveat.

Posters previously argued that Phillips' caveat allowed for the possibility that Chapman died at about 5.30 a.m.

In that case, there would be no conflict between Phillips' and Richardson's testimony, yet Swanson considered them to be irreconcilable.

That suggests that he understood that Phillips' 'at least two hours' was not reduced by his caveat.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If the evidence of Dr. Phillips is correct as to time of death, it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body when he went into the yard at 4:45 a.m. but as his clothes were examined, the house searched and his statement taken in which there was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him, although police specially directed their attention to him.

(SWANSON)


It’s always possible to interpret pieces of writing in more than one way but I’d suggest that we have to keep in mind the writer and anyone mentioned in the letter and any relationship that might have existed between them; in this case a senior Police Officer and a respected Police doctor. Swanson is talking about a piece of witness evidence which is at variance with the doctor’s estimation. Caution and professional respect clearly comes into play here and although he’s an experienced police officer Swanson isn’t medically qualified and would naturally have been reluctant to doubt a doctor’s conclusion; especially in print. In this case I’d say that the interpretation is fairly clear.


If the evidence of Dr. Phillips is correct as to time of death, - so he’s using the word ‘if’ which introduces the possibility that it might not have been but without specifically doubting Phillips estimation.


..it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body when he went into the yard at 4:45 a.m - Again he’s remaining neutral here. He’s not saying ‘Richardson didn’t see it so it couldn’t have been there.’ Nor is he saying ‘If the doctor got it right then how come there was no body there according to the witness.’ Swanson is simply laying out the facts of the conflicting evidence.


..but as his clothes were examined, the house searched and his statement taken in which there was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him - Now he’s letting everyone know that the witness, who it would be his usual inclination to doubt in favour of a competent professional, was thoroughly looked into and checked and that nothing could be found to his detriment. So the witness couldn’t be dismissed.


..although police specially directed their attention to him. - He ends by stressing how closely they looked at Richardson’s evidence. Emphasising his apparent reliability.



So it’s pretty obvious that while it would usually be the case that the doctor’s estimation would be favoured, in this case they have what appears to have been, after a rigorous investigation, an apparently reliable witness that disputes the original estimation. Who Swanson favoured is impossible to tell with certainty but he’s clearly not dismissing Richardson. I’d say that he’s employing professional tact while suggesting that it looked possible Phillips could have been wrong.

[Doctored Whatsit]

It's not that we 'know', it's more about what his report already includes.
Swanson is presenting both sides of an argument; Phillips's early estimate of 2 hours or more, as opposed to Long & Cadosch suggesting Chapman died later.
Had Phillips's caveat been part of the police files, it would have been included.
The fact it is not included shows Phillips produced his caveat at the inquest for the first time, and this was on 13 Sept.

I am inclined to agree. Swanson was the "indoors man" who looked at all of the paperwork. He didn't interview witnesses or attend the inquests, for example. We know that his reports occasionally contain little errors like timings. This is in keeping with the genuine consideration that he made his reports to The Home Office totally from the various statements and paperwork in his possession. A minor error on one report that he read could get carried forward into his official report. He may well not have had a copy of the Inquest transcript. That would not necessarily be part of his police paperwork.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi DW,

If the evidence of Dr. Phillips is correct as to time of death, it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body when he went into the yard at 4:45 a.m. but as his clothes were examined, the house searched and his statement taken in which there was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him, although police specially directed their attention to him. (SWANSON)

My interpretation of Swanson's words differs from yours. I see the first and last parts of the statement as an indication that Richardson was strongly suspected of involvement in the murder, and the middle as commenting that no evidence could be found to substantiate that suspicion.

As we are both aware, lack of evidence of involvement does not equate to either guilt or innocence.

JMO.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Firstly, I totally agree that the police were suspicious of Richarsdson, and checked out every aspect of his story because they thought he might have been the murderer. I am sure that this is correct.

The point being discussed at the time was the question of "doubt", and whether Swanson was leaning towards an acceptance of Phillips' ToD, and a rejection of the witness evidence. I was making the point that Swanson's comments about Richardson's story do not in any way corroborate this view. Swanson only considers the "what if" in consideration of Phillips' ToD, and does not say anything to suggest that Richardson was wrong. He does not reject Richardson's account.

[Doctored Whatsit]

If the evidence of Dr. Phillips is correct as to time of death, it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body when he went into the yard at 4:45 a.m. but as his clothes were examined, the house searched and his statement taken in which there was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him, although police specially directed their attention to him.

(SWANSON)


Swanson did not conclude from Richardson's apparent innocence that the body was not there at that time.

I didn't say that he did. We were discussing "doubt". This statement first says, "let's assume that Phillips might be right", and did not accept that he must be right. Then he basically says that Richardson should surely have seen the body if it had been there. Then he adds that his story was checked thoroughly, and the police could not fault it. Absolutely nothing there to say that Swanson was accepting Phillips' ToD, and stating that Richardson was wrong.

The point I was making was that Swanson did not reject Richardson's story. He therefore did not accept that Phillips was correct. He had a doubt. If he didn't have some reservations about Phillps' ToD, he would have rejected Richardson's story, and he didn't do this.

[Trevor Marriott]

That's what I meant by Swanson was using the police statement, not the inquest testimony.
All those witnesses gave a statement to police, those are kept as part of the record. When Swanson was asked by Warren to compile a report for the Home Office, he use those police statements. The caveat was not on Phillips's statement, he came up with it at the inquest.
I mentioned that in a previous post, perhaps you didn't understand what I meant?

I think you are mistaken on that point, one of the first questions the police would ask a doctor at a crime scene is "How long has she been dead" ? it is important for the police to know this approx TOD at the earliest for obvious reasons.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk