Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[JeffHamm]

I have at times challenged those who claim I have made assumptions to state exactly what assumptions I have made, without even receiving a response.

In other instances, deductions I have made from the evidence have been called assumptions, although they evidently are not.

Those are certainly not cases of my denying 'the obvious'.

Again, you are talking about scenarios not being 'ruled out'.

I did not rule them out.

I pointed to a consensus about the time it takes to digest potato.

It is a fact that cooked potato is easily digested.

I do not need to have that nor anything else 'explained to me'.

I see my prediction was confirmed.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

We do not know that Chapman, unlike most people, did not need hours to digest potato,

Yet again….you begin from a false premise PI. We do not know the content of her stomach. You assume that it was potato but you are merely speculating. I repeat PI….you do not and cannot know. So the question of how long a potato might or might not have taken to be digested by Chapman is moot.

or that her body did not cool unusually quickly after death,

It didn’t cool unusually quickly. But aside from that I have to ask why you ignore the very obvious fact that Annie was horrifically mutilated. Phillips would probably never have seen anything like it. And as the experts tell us…different bodies don’t cool at the same rate.

or that rigor mortis did not set in unusually quickly,

It didn’t. Experts tell us that it can set in almost immediately. Many, when giving an estimate average range begin with one hour. Most tend to use the 2-4 average though. To try and make this sound like some rarity is being ‘inaccurate’ to put it politely.

or that Long did not mistake the quarter hour chime for the half hour chime,

You really are pushing it PI. I’ve explained to you before that I’m not assuming or suggesting that Long misheard the chimes. Please stop repeating this when posting directly to me as it’s a straw man argument. It is not what I’ve suggested and you well now it because I’ve explained this to you recently.

or that Long did not arrive at the market without realising that she was early,

Fatuous point. Five minutes or so would have made no difference. And how can you know how accurate the market clock was? If she’d even looked at it of course.

or that Cadoche did not arrive late at work without anyone noticing,

Same point as above. I’m sorry to say it but you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel here PI. Why are you so desperate to engineer an earlier ToD? The truth is more important than dogmatically adhering to a script.

or that Chapman did not have potatoes secreted on her person, which she just happened to eat before being murdered, or that Chapman did not walk around for about 3 1/2 hours without anyone noticing her and reporting it afterwards, or that the murderer would not have committed murder as it was getting light and somehow not noticed a supply of water with which to wash his hands.

This is becoming a joke.

What we do know, however, is that it is possible to think of any number of unlikely scenarios if one is determined enough.

A very poor standard of posting here PI. You should re-read what you’ve written. Not good.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I see my prediction was confirmed.

- Jeff

You did not make any prediction in the post of yours to which I replied.

I made a number of points.

I note that you have not yet disputed them.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have at times challenged those who claim I have made assumptions to state exactly what assumptions I have made, without even receiving a response.

In other instances, deductions I have made from the evidence have been called assumptions, although they evidently are not.

Those are certainly not cases of my denying 'the obvious'.

Again, you are talking about scenarios not being 'ruled out'.

I did not rule them out.

I pointed to a consensus about the time it takes to digest potato.

It is a fact that cooked potato is easily digested.

I do not need to have that nor anything else 'explained to me'.

Im afraid that you do because you clearly have a poor grip on some of the points being discussed here. You are allowing your preconceptions to cloud your judgment with some embarrassing results. There’s little point in continuing a discussion to be honest. You’ve become a brick wall

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Star Sep 10:
Description of a Man "Wanted."

The series of murders which now even the police believe to be the work of one man, is engaging the attention of a large force of plain clothes detectives. At eight o'clock last night the Scotland-yard authorities circulated a description of a man who, they say, "entered the passage of the house, 29, Hanbury-street, at which the murder was committed with a prostitute, at two a.m., the 8th." They give his age as 37, height 5ft. 7in., and add that he is rather dark, had a beard and moustache; was dressed in a short dark jacket, dark vest and trousers, black scarf and black felt hat; and spoke with a foreign accent.

Why was the witness not asked to give evidence at the inquest?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Im afraid that you do because you clearly have a poor grip on some of the points being discussed here. You are allowing your preconceptions to cloud your judgment with some embarrassing results. There’s little point in continuing a discussion to be honest. You’ve become a brick wall

But someone who has repeatedly stated categorically that the murder did take place at about 5.30 a.m. / it is a proven fact / end of story / black and white / does not allow preconceptions to cloud his judgment and does not resemble a brick wall?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

A very poor standard of posting here PI. You should re-read what you’ve written. Not good.

You are not in a position to mark my posts, HS.

I suggest you re-read what you have written:

'You really are pushing it PI ... I’ve explained this to you ... Fatuous point ... you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel here PI. Why are you so desperate ... This is becoming a joke.'

You are back to your old ways of relying on ridicule and condescension instead of reasoned argument.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It’s proof of an absence of knowledge.

But you KNOW that Cadoche heard Chapman and the murderer.

You KNOW that Chapman was not lying in the yard when Richardson visited number 29.

You KNOW that Chapman was murdered at about 5.30 a.m.

You KNOW that the clocks were wrong to such a degree that Long could have seen Chapman and the murderer and Cadoche could have heard them.

With you, the absence of knowledge miraculously vanishes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But someone who has repeatedly stated categorically that the murder did take place at about 5.30 a.m. / it is a proven fact / end of story / black and white / does not allow preconceptions to cloud his judgment and does not resemble a brick wall?

I’m simply following the evidence. I didn’t begin from a point of assuming a later ToD. I assessed the evidence. If Cadosch and Long had never existed I’d still say that it was 95+% proven that she died at 5.25/5.30. So the question is…could he have missed the body. No….categorically not. Impossible. So when I say 95+% I’m being too cautious.

[JeffHamm]

You did not make any prediction in the post of yours to which I replied.

I made a number of points.

I note that you have not yet disputed them.

Where did I say I posted my prediction?

You made some comments, if you wish to call them points by all means do, but as they are refuted by what I said before there's no need for me to repeat myself only for you to read what I've already supplied.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are not in a position to mark my posts, HS.

I suggest you re-read what you have written:

'You really are pushing it PI ... I’ve explained this to you ... Fatuous point ... you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel here PI. Why are you so desperate ... This is becoming a joke.'

You are back to your old ways of relying on ridicule and condescension instead of reasoned argument.

Then stop making silly, biased points. It’s as simple as that.

A perfect example is the unaccounted for gap. This is a black and white issue that should be accepted without the need for debate but you just can’t do it. An unknown is an unknown is an unknown.And the gap is an unknown. I don’t know what she did during it and you don’t know what she didn’t do during it. No more needs to be said but by persisting you are simply showing that you are determined to make the evidence fit your viewpoint.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I’m simply following the evidence. I didn’t begin from a point of assuming a later ToD. I assessed the evidence. If Cadosch and Long had never existed I’d still say that it was 95+% proven that she died at 5.25/5.30. So the question is…could he have missed the body. No….categorically not. Impossible. So when I say 95+% I’m being too cautious.

You are not 'simply following the evidence'.

You are dogmatically asserting that the murder took place at about 5:30 AM and you are browbeating anyone who thinks otherwise.

I am the one who has not begun from a point of 'assuming' a certain time of death.

I started off siding with the witnesses and a later time of death, but eventually I changed my mind.

That is not the mark of a person with preconceptions nor of someone who resembles a brick wall.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Then stop making silly, biased points.

That is not a reasoned argument.

It does not even merit a response.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But you KNOW that Cadoche heard Chapman and the murderer.

I know that if he heard something from number 29 and I’m absolutely certain that he did then it couldn’t have been anything else.

You KNOW that Chapman was not lying in the yard when Richardson visited number 29.

Yes, it’s proven. It’s impossible that Richardson could have missed seeing her.

You KNOW that Chapman was murdered at about 5.30 a.m.

Absolutely, Richardson conclusively proves this. Confirmed by Cadosch and backed up by Long (who almost certainly saw Annie and her killer)

You KNOW that the clocks were wrong to such a degree that Long could have seen Chapman and the murderer and Cadoche could have heard them.

The ‘degree’ point is waffle of course. The rest is nonsense. I have simply pointed out an everyday occurrence.

With you, the absence of knowledge miraculously vanishes.

I assess evidence and come to my conclusion.

You come to a conclusion then try to make the evidence fit.

Ill stick to my method PI. You have fun with yours but I have to say I’m tiring of this poor logic and reasoning. It serves no purpose and I really am getting bored with the whole subject.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Where did I say I posted my prediction?

When someone talks about his prediction having come true, I assume that he must have mentioned it somewhere.

But by all means, keep it to yourself.