Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[JeffHamm]

I argued that it is unlikely that Chapman

may have wandered about for three and a half hours without anyone noticing her and reporting having seen her

Why would that be unlikely though?

Unless she happened to bump into someone she knew at that hour, why would anyone, after hearing of a murder on Hanbury Street, even think to connect some random woman they may have seen in passing hours before the body was discovered? Long only comes forward because she recalled seeing a couple outside of the crime scene that morning after all.

There is no reason for anyone to come forward to the police to say they saw a woman out late at night or the in the early hours. And oddly, when one does come forward, and identifies Annie at the morgue, you reject that information anyway. So I suspect if we did have someone come forward, reporting seeing "a woman" at, say 4:45, you would dismiss that on the grounds that the witness is not reliable.

Anyway, please explain why you think it unusual that nobody came forward to report that they saw someone they did not know on the streets at night? Is it because you think the streets were deserted, so she would stand out? Doesn't that greatly lower the probability of her being seen though? Or is the probability of her being seen high because there were many people out and about, lowering the probability that they would happen to connect one of the women they saw to being the murdered woman.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

What am I supposed to be judging?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I'm following your example.
Rather than accept the possibility of one particular news report, you chose to set the bar so high as to only accept the actual telegram referred to in the press report as proof which report is the correct one. Knowing full well that such a artifact is hardly likely to exist, you can settle back in what you perceive as a secure argument.
Namely, that I cannot meet the challenge.

So, I am playing you at your own game.
If I was to produce a copy of the telegram, would you have sufficient knowledge to determine if it was real, or fake?
I think we both know you do not have that ability - so the question then becomes one of 'why ask for something you cannot validate'?

All this is a distraction from the fact you chose to believe a newspaper story, and use it in an argument, without conducting the minimal research.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The suggestion that you made, that Chapman may have slept outside next to a friend who offered her food, which she then ate, is not of equal value to the suggestion that, being broke and desperate for money, and, having just eaten, her sole aim was, as she had said, to earn enough money to pay for a bed for the rest of the night, and that she was murdered before she could eat again.

No such friend ever came forward.


You cannot refute what I wrote.

Refutation…..way too easy by the way.

You really can’t be understanding this so poorly PI. I think that your sole aim is to annoy with these kind of posts.

I’ve already discussed this ‘sole aim’ point. Do you honestly think that if she hadn’t found a client after a while she would have just continued walking round and round all night? Is that what you genuinely think? Or is it entirely reasonable and plausible (indeed likely) that at some point she would have given up in favour of getting at least some sleep. Sleeping rough to these women would have been no isolated experience. There’s absolutely nothing unlikely about it.

Some things are unlikely though….like a malnourished, poverty-stricken prostitute turning down the opportunity of food.

Also, when we suggest that she might have eaten you do realise that we aren’t talking about sitting down to a three course meal with wine don’t you PI? If she was still looking for a client do you think that her search would have been scuppered if she simply sat down for 5 minutes for a rest and ate a morsel of food while she did so?

You really do need to re-think your thinking on this PI. You’re trying way, way too hard to try and prove the unprovable.

Annie might or might not have eaten. Neither of us know which is the case and you cannot try shoehorning by raising silly points. And even if she didn’t eat it still wouldn’t help toward an earlier ToD so your position is about as weak as it gets.

If you’re going to keep pursuing this nonsense please address them to someone else. Honestly PI I’m embarrassed for you and I can’t think why you would put yourself through this. Just stop being biased.

[Trevor Marriott]

My point was to query if you are qualified to judge?

What am I supposed to be judging?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

No response required. This is way paste a joke.

You cannot refute what I wrote.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

More nonsense. Absolute drivel.

You originally wrote a single word: Joke.

You have no answer other than ridicule.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You wrote:

it wouldn’t have been at all unusual for her to have had some item of food on her person.


but there is no evidence to support what you wrote.


You say she may have eaten the food on her person.

That is very convenient.


You then come up with an excuse as to why a friend of hers would not have come forward, based on her class.

Yet there were witnesses who testified at the inquests of the victims, and they were not exactly members of the aristocracy.

Neither of your arguments is valid.

More nonsense. Absolute drivel.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Excellent point NW. Note the complete lack of response on this point from those who find it close to impossible to allow for a margin for error on timings. Those that think that it’s somehow manipulating the evidence to make this elementary allowance.

That is not true.

In particular, it is not true as you have repeatedly asserted, that I have claimed that the clock times were always correct.

You, on the other hand, have repeatedly claimed that the clock times were out by so much that you can then claim that Cadoche heard the woman who was seen by Long say 'no'.

And on the strength of that, you have claimed that the man seen by Long was probably the Whitechapel murderer.

What you are claiming does not follow from the evidence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The suggestion that you made, that Chapman may have slept outside next to a friend who offered her food, which she then ate, is not of equal value to the suggestion that, being broke and desperate for money, and, having just eaten, her sole aim was, as she had said, to earn enough money to pay for a bed for the rest of the night, and that she was murdered before she could eat again.

No such friend ever came forward.

No response required. This is way paste a joke.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think I have found a great example of where people (especially before wrist watches were commonly available) had different perceptions of time. I was reading an entry on another thread, (When and how was it made public that Eddowes gave the fake name Mary Ann Kelly?)

When I saw the press article from

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Pall Mall Gazette - 11 October 1888

Police constable Roberts deposed that on Sunday night, at ten minutes to nine, before the murder, the deceased was lying on the footway in High-street, Aldgate, drunk, and surrounded by a crowd of people. He set her up against the shutters and she fell down again. He obtained assistance and conveyed her to he Bishopsgate police-station, when she was asked what her name was. She replied, "Nothing!" She was then wearing an apron which he identified as the one produced, a portion of which was found on the body and another portion in Goulston-street after the murder.

P.C. Bifield said he remembered the deceased being brought into the station on the Saturday night at about quarter to nine o'clock, drunk. She remained at the station until one o'clock in the morning and gave her name as being Mary Ann Kelly, of Fashion-street. Deceased told him she had been hopping in Kent.

These are the reports from two Police Officers. The arresting Officer PC Roberts states that Eddowes was drunk on the pavement at ten minutes to nine and PC Bifield at the station states that he remembers Eddowes being brought into the station at about quarter to nine!

Now bearing in mind Eddowes has to be conveyed to the police station drunk clearly the times are well out. Possible by 15-20 minutes. The actual day is described as either Saturday or Sunday

There is only one arrest of the drunken Eddowes. There is a large discrepancy of times. These mistakes may have been made by the officers or the press. However what this tells us is that there are mistakes in the reported times, by witnesses, officers, the press etc.

It still happened. We must try to be less worrying about trying to get times spot on. We will never achieve this.

Yes times are important but more important when investigating a period where there are question marks over exact timings is what people actually witnessed. If we were to start looking at the precise time when Eddowes was actually arrested and taken to the police station then we would start to pull that apart to no real end.

Lets look at what we have with Chapman disregarding exact timing, see if we have leads as a result of this and see where we go

Lets also look at other possibilities with different suggested times and lets see where the various routes take us

NW

Excellent point NW. Note the complete lack of response on this point from those who find it close to impossible to allow for a margin for error on timings. Those that think that it’s somehow manipulating the evidence to make this elementary allowance.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That’s exactly what they are.

They are not assumptions.

They are logical arguments, based on evidence, unlike the arguments you put forward.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Again, when I present an argument, you try to discredit it by claiming that it is an incorrect assumption.

I have never assumed that the clocks were all reading the same time.

As for your further claim that I am assuming that JtR would have washed his hands rather than simply wipe them on her clothes, I suggest you take up your objections to supposed assumptions with Wolf Vanderlinden.


There is one more interesting observation. If you believe that the killer murdered Annie Chapman at 5:30 that morning, you have to wonder at his bloodstained appearance as he walked the bustling streets on a market morning. I don't mean that he would be covered in blood but certainly his hands would have been bloody and merely wiping them would not make them clean. He took a huge and seemingly unnecessary risk since there was a water tap just feet away from him in the backyard at Hanbury Street. A tap which he didn't use. Perhaps he was afraid that the sound of flowing water might draw attention. There was, however, a convenient pan of water lying just underneath the tap and all he had to do was to dip his hands into the pan. He didn't do this either. Why? Perhaps it was because he didn't see the tap or the pan in the complete darkness that enveloped the yard at about, oh, let us say 3:30 to 4:30 a.m.? A time consistent with Dr. Phillips' opinion on the time of death.

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-doubt.html

That is just one of many arguments in favour of an earlier time of death.

They are not, as you make them out to be, mere assumptions.

That’s exactly what they are.

[Wickerman]

Well when you produce what you believe to be the telegram I might accept it as being factual

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

My point was to query if you are qualified to judge?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Excellent. So, you concede that she wasn't broke, but she may well have had some money left?

There is a fair amount of data showing that a pint of beer could be had for 2d.

Do you concede that she was almost broke?

I read that a beer cost about 3 1/2 pence, but it could have been less.

Why would Chapman have spent the very little she had left on potatoes when she had already eaten?

If you think the whole subject is irrelevant, why do I have to concede that she may have had tuppence left rather than zeropence in order to earn a commendation from you?

[rjpalmer]

It may be that she intended to put whatever was left towards the cost of her bed.

She must have been almost broke.

Excellent. So, you concede that she wasn't broke, but she may well have had some money left?

How did you make your calculations? We are only told that she came back with "potatoes." That could mean two, it could mean three or more. We don't have sufficient data to know for certain. So, from the outset, our calculations cannot be precise.

But let's make a go of it. Let's believe her story about receiving 5d from her sister in Vauxhall. There is a fair amount of data showing that a pint of beer could be had for 2d. I have an article from 1884 that states one could get a baked potato in a pub for a halfpenny. If she bought three potatoes and a pint of beer earlier, that comes to 3 1/2d.

Leaving her 1 1/2d which would be "insufficient" for her bed. This can only be a rough estimate, however.

According an 1886 article, "a military man's complaint," one could get a small meal for 1 1/2 d --bread and cheese. One can find other prices for food in 1888 if one looks. So not impossible that she had another small meal.

Meanwhile, bear in mind that while Dr. Phillips said he found a 'little food' in her stomach, Wynne Baxter at summation described it as a 'meal.' One account even states a "full meal." Seeing that her stomach was cut in half--some over the left shoulder and some over the right shoulder--the conditions weren't exactly ideal.

Somewhat oddly, while the medicos in the Kelly and Mylett case described the exact nature of the food found in the victim's stomach, we get no such description in Chapman's cases, so we are left blundering around in the dark.

Based on the data posted by Jeff Hamm on another thread--based on 500 cases of food found in the stomach during post-mortems and the great variation in amount and time it had spent in the stomach--I would suggest the 'potato' argument is hopelessly inconclusive and needs to be abandoned.

Was it even potatoes that Phillips found? How long does it take a potato skin to make its way out of the stomach? What was found in the small intestine?

We don't know. We don't know. We don't know. There is no use in pretending we know more than we actually do know, and then arguing forward from a position of ignorance, is there?