Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[Herlock Sholmes]

I paid you a compliment, but you had to make an argument out of it.

I didn’t see it as a compliment, but if it was then I have no problem apologising.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But you are missing the point ask yourself would Annie have been wandering around the streets aimlessly until 5.30am I personally doubt that. and would anyone looking to proposition someone for sex,i.e, the killer and Annie be active at that same time of the morning I personally doubt that either.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

She was a homeless, prostitute Trevor. Permanently penniless, possibly wanting a drink and with no money for a bed. If she walked along Hanbury Street and bumped into a potential customer how likely would it have been for her to have turned him down. Also, if she was killed at 4.30, that was only an hour earlier. So was she less likely to have been walking along Hanbury Street at 4.30 than she would have been at 5.30?

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no evidence that she ate something else.

There is no evidence that she didn’t eat anything either.

There is no evidence that the food in her stomach was potatoes.




One can reasonably conclude that you will not eat breakfast again until tomorrow.

It is entirely unreasonable to assume this.

Especially if you have just eaten breakfast, eat out, are broke, and need desperately to find some money for an entirely different purpose.

Im sorry PI if you can’t see that this is nonsense then there’s little that can be done. You are treating Annie Chapman as if she was a normal, modern day woman and not what she actually was, a malnourished, dirt-poor, homeless, downtrodden prostitute with a possible drink problem. When did she last eat before those few meagre potatoes? That might have been all that she’d eaten for 24 hours for all that we know. You are talking as if she’d just eaten a three course meal! You are simply trying to twist the evidence to bolster your own position.



We have enough evidence to know that it is unlikely that she ate again before being murdered:

This is simply untrue and not an honest appraisal of the evidence. It’s simply your own speculation based on your mistaken assumption that you somehow know how a Victorian prostitute would or wouldn’t have behaved. Do you use a crystal ball, tarot cards or the tea leaves PI?

she took her food to the house, she had drink brought to the house, she was almost broke, she said she was going out to look for a customer to raise the money needed to pay for a bed for the night, and there was no reported sighting of her for the next three and a half hours, or, if Long did not see her, alive again.

None of the above is remotely relevant.


They are not long odds.

You are simply plucking things out of thin air.

Long's and Cadoche's evidence cannot be reconciled except on the strength of an assumption - an allegation routinely thrown at me - that clocks were sufficiently wrong without Long or Cadoche realising it.

Yes we can. Unless you take a dishonest approach. Any poster on here who refuses to allow for a margin for error in clocks CANNOT under any circumstances be taken seriously. I refuse to humour dishonesty. It’s just too basic and obvious to ignore. Abject nonsense.

There is no evidence that the man and woman seen by Long were a prostitute and her customer, nor that they entered number 29.

There is no evidence that the couple that Lawende saw were Eddowes and her killer. They were a couple. They might or might not have been. But because you are biased you assume Lawende to be Mr. Super Witness and Long to be mistaken.

Cadoche saw neither Chapman nor her murderer.

He heard them.

Richardson's evidence has always been controversial.

Only to people who wish to shoehorn in an earlier ToD. To the rest of us it’s simple. He couldn’t possibly have missed a body. Not a chance. Couldn’t have occurred. Easily dismissed by physics, common sense and reason. Can I be clearer.

[rjpalmer]

The evidence tells us she ate potatoes at the doss house. That in no way tells us how many times she ate.

True enough, and I've always read it in a way that suggests the whole potato episode could have been more chaotic than how 'P.I.' and 'Fleetwood' are portraying it.

The drink 'brought to the house' came earlier--a little after midnight. Annie then left for roughly 90 minutes but came back before 2 a.m. 'eating baked potatoes.' There is no mention of drink at this later time.

Below are two contemporary accounts. There is much uncertainty, but it seems as if she passed down into the kitchen to eat her potatoes, but during this she was given the heave-ho and told to leave when she admitted that she didn't have enough money. (She could have had SOME money). When Evans saw her, after she was told to leave, she was still eating potatoes. That's how I read it.

I doubt that a woman in her circumstance would have left the potatoes behind. Why would she have? And if she was still gnawing on a potato at 2.30 a.m., which is certainly possible, it could have been in her stomach 3 hours later when she was killed. The experts that Vanderlinden cites in his study (and he seems to be pushing for an earlier time of death) give times varying between 30 minutes and three hours for the stomach to empty after a meal. I've read a study using dogs (don't chase it down if you like dogs) and it suggested that the time that it takes to digest food is more erratic and complicated than some let on.

Cheers.

[Herlock Sholmes]

True enough, and I've always read it in a way that suggests the whole potato episode could have been more chaotic than how 'P.I.' and 'Fleetwood' are portraying it.

The drink 'brought to the house' came earlier--a little after midnight. Annie then left for roughly 90 minutes but came back before 2 a.m. 'eating baked potatoes.' There is no mention of drink at this later time.

Below are two contemporary accounts. There is much uncertainty, but it seems as if she passed down into the kitchen to eat her potatoes, but during this she was given the heave-ho and told to leave when she admitted that she didn't have enough money. (She could have had SOME money). When Evans saw her, after she was told to leave, she was still eating potatoes. That's how I read it.

I doubt that a woman in her circumstance would have left the potatoes behind. Why would she have? And if she was still gnawing on a potato at 2.30 a.m., which is certainly possible, it could have been in her stomach 3 hours later when she was killed. The experts that Vanderlinden cites in his study (and he seems to be pushing for an earlier time of death) give times varying between 30 minutes and three hours for the stomach to empty after a meal. I've read a study using dogs (don't chase it down if you like dogs) and it suggested that the time that it takes to digest food is more erratic and complicated than some let on.

Cheers.

Hi Roger,

That’s how I see it, and we know that certain physical illnesses can slow down digestion. Lung diseases are ones that are often quoted (amongst others) and we know that she had a lung condition which was longstanding and therefore likely to have been advanced. So even without the suggestion that she might have eaten again there’s nothing in the medical evidence that makes the food in her stomach indicative of an earlier ToD. Also could it be possible that she might have had another condition, that didn’t show up at the inquest, that might also have slowed down her digestion? The last point is speculation of course but it might perhaps have been the case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just saw this online after a quick look:

Undernutrition is associated with impairment of digestive function, which is likely to further aggravate the nutritional state.

The National Library of Medicine.

[Trevor Marriott]

She was a homeless, prostitute Trevor. Permanently penniless, possibly wanting a drink and with no money for a bed. If she walked along Hanbury Street and bumped into a potential customer how likely would it have been for her to have turned him down. Also, if she was killed at 4.30, that was only an hour earlier. So was she less likely to have been walking along Hanbury Street at 4.30 than she would have been at 5.30?

Thats not quite correct she had a bed at the common lodging house and stated she was going out to get some money to pay for the bed. So as she was not seen after leaving the lodging house we can draw an inference that she found a punter who would turn out to be her killer long before 5.30 am

But I say again who would be looking to use the services of a prostitute at 5.30am?

I think George posted an article which is interesting

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.

If this can be corroborated then its game over for you and the other later TOD chaps.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thats not quite correct she had a bed at the common lodging house and stated she was going out to get some money to pay for the bed. So as she was not seen after leaving the lodging house we can draw an inference that she found a punter who would turn out to be her killer long before 5.30 am

But I say again who would be looking to use the services of a prostitute at 5.30am?

I think George posted an article which is interesting

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.

If this can be corroborated then its game over for you and the other later TOD chaps.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It won’t be corroborated though Trevor.

[rjpalmer]

It won’t be corroborated though Trevor.

You might recall that Phil Sugden dealt with this on pgs. 114-117 of his book in a chapter called "The Man in the Passage and other Chapman Murder Myths."

Sugden argues that the Star's version is misleading, and the man in the police telegram had been seen in the passage about a month earlier--ie., the 'man with a foreign accent' seen by "Mr. Thompson's wife."

Sugden also refers to Swanson's report of Oct 19, wherein the 'man in the passage' is conspicuous by his absence. Swanson only refers to Mrs. Long's suspect, which is odd if this other man had also been seen that morning.

[Wickerman]

Thats not quite correct she had a bed at the common lodging house and stated she was going out to get some money to pay for the bed. So as she was not seen after leaving the lodging house we can draw an inference that she found a punter who would turn out to be her killer long before 5.30 am

But I say again who would be looking to use the services of a prostitute at 5.30am?

I think George posted an article which is interesting

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.

If this can be corroborated then its game over for you and the other later TOD chaps.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Perhaps you can make the connection for us lay-folk, between a man seen entering the passage of No.29 at 2:00am, and a woman being found dead about 6:00am?

[rjpalmer]

Perhaps you can make the connection for us lay-folk, between a man seen entering the passage of No.29 at 2:00am, and a woman being found dead about 6:00am?

If Phil Sugden's analysis is correct, it was after 2.00 a.m. about a month earlier.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

But I say again who would be looking to use the services of a prostitute at 5.30am?

And why would the murderer have asked Chapman, 'Will you?' outside in the street?

If he was asking her whether she was willing to provide a certain service, then that would suggest that she had not exactly shown any enthusiasm to go with him.

Is that believable, when she was almost broke and had, supposedly, spent the previous three and a half hours looking for a customer in order to get a chance to get some sleep at the lodging house?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There is no evidence that the couple that Lawende saw were Eddowes and her killer. They were a couple. They might or might not have been. But because you are biased you assume Lawende to be Mr. Super Witness and Long to be mistaken.

Swanson agreed with me that there was such evidence.

The police did not agree with you.

And Lawende, who had indicated that the man he saw was a sailor, was asked by police to try to identify two men, both of whom just happened to be sailors.

I suppose you think the police were biased against sailors.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

... she had a bed at the common lodging house and stated she was going out to get some money to pay for the bed. So as she was not seen after leaving the lodging house we can draw an inference that she found a punter who would turn out to be her killer long before 5.30 am

She obviously was confident that she would find a customer well before that time, but it seems that we have an abundance of posters who not only know by how much the clocks were wrong, and when they were out by that much, but they also have a better idea than Chapman herself had of how long it would have taken her to find a customer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And why would the murderer have asked Chapman, 'Will you?' outside in the street?

If he was asking her whether she was willing to provide a certain service, then that would suggest that she had not exactly shown any enthusiasm to go with him.

Is that believable, when she was almost broke and had, supposedly, spent the previous three and a half hours looking for a customer in order to get a chance to get some sleep at the lodging house?

PI, are there no lengths that you won’t go to to try and make a later ToD appear unlikely? It really does get worse. It’s like being on the Lechmere threads were people look at every single thing as a pointer to his guilt.

How can we possibly know what words passed between those two resulting in the “will you?” What if she had said “I’ll find us a safe spot,” and he replied “will you?” You’re actually trying to dismiss a witness on the strength of two words. Think about it PI. How can that be reasonable? Don’t you think that you’re getting carried away here?

And do you really think that if she found a customer at 5.30 that the money would have been saved for her evenings bed? More likely it would have been spent in the pub.