Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[Fleetwood Mac]

Going with your presentation, we know that Kelly had eaten fish and potatoes based upon the analysis of her stomach contents. However, we have nobody verifying that she ate anything at all. According to you, because we have nobody saying she ate we must therefore go with the idea she didn't eat during that time we have no information, making the fish and potatoes a mystery (how could it be there if she didn't eat?).

We'll have to disagree on the main thrust of your post given that we've exhausted it.

I wanted to comment on your paragraph above:

We do have verification that Mary ate not too long before she was murdered: the medical evidence. That is reason enough to believe it.

Similarly, we have verification with regard to Annie eating at a quarter to two in the morning.

It is your proposition that lacks verification.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Neither of which precludes her eating during the time for which we have no information.

Being broke at 1.50 a.m. would make it unlikely.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is not just the fact that there is no evidence that Chapman ate during that time, but also the fact that we know she had already eaten and was almost broke.

And there is no evidence that she didn’t eat. Despite FM’s waffle they are both of equal value.

Why do you keep making the same points? Points that aren’t valid.

Fact - Annie left the lodging house at 1.45 and was found dead at 6.00. A gap of 4¼ hours.

Fact - Annie was malnourished.

Fact - We have no idea when Annie last ate before those few potatoes.

Fact - We have no clue about the amount of potatoes that she ate.

Fact - She was skint and was under the influence of alcohol.

Fact - She said that she was going to get the money for her bed.

Even you or FM can’t dispute the above….ok?

So why would we assume that a dirt-poor, homeless, seriously ill woman that often had to resort to prostitutes would eat a few potatoes and think “well that’s me full. I couldn’t possibly eat another morsel because I’m so full?”

Yes, her first aim was to get money for a bed and she assumed that this wouldn’t take long. As we know, alcohol doesn’t make for great judgment so perhaps she was a little over-optimistic? So one of two things happened. She either met a client but spent the money on other things or that she didn’t find a client. I tend to favour the latter but it’s an unknown so I’m speculating. So if she couldn’t find a client what could she do….would she keep walking the streets for hours or would she, at some point, give up and bed down for the night outdoors? I’d say bedding down was likely, but again, I’m not claiming this as proven because it can’t be.

So at that point would she have turned down the opportunity of food if she had it? Some leftover potato, a crust of bread whatever. There are numerous ways that someone in her position might have gained some small items of food….we don’t even know where she got the potatoes from……saying that she’d bought them would be an assumption. Maybe she met a friend (a fellow prostitute) and they bedded down together and the woman shared some food with her. Would Annie have turned it down? Unlikely.

None of the above is fanciful. None of it is suggesting opinion as fact. None of it is exaggeration.

In that gap we have no evidence for anything. She ate/ she didn’t eat gave absolutely equal validity unless you are trying to skew the evidence one way (which is very clearly what you and FM are trying to do on this point.

And finally….

Fact - We don’t know what the contents of Annie’s stomach were.

Fact - We know that digestion varies from individual to individual.

Fact - We know that certain illnesses retard digestion. Lung diseases for example……and we know that Annie had an advanced lung disease.

………

The people who are simply trying to ‘win’ an argument rather than taking a balanced, unbiased look at the evidence are Jeff, myself and others. You and FM are simply shoehorning. Looking for any desperate measure to try and boost the remarkable weak case for an earlier ToD.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the other hand, it is widely accepted that potatoes is easily digested food, and we did have commentary from three qualified pathologists who all believed that Annie would not have been alive when Albert walked into the yard, in the event her last food was those potatoes at a quarter to two in the morning.

No pathologist has said that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That kind of thing happens all the time on here.

Unlikely or farfetched scenarios are put forward as though they are just as reasonable as ones that flow from the evidence.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

So at that point would she have turned down the opportunity of food if she had it? Some leftover potato, a crust of bread whatever. There are numerous ways that someone in her position might have gained some small items of food….we don’t even know where she got the potatoes from……saying that she’d bought them would be an assumption. Maybe she met a friend (a fellow prostitute) and they bedded down together and the woman shared some food with her. Would Annie have turned it down? Unlikely.

She had received just enough money from her sister to cover the cost of the beer and potatoes.

I suppose you think her beer was left over and there are numerous ways she could have come across that too.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

What if she had said “I’ll find us a safe spot,” and he replied “will you?”

That hardly sounds like a prelude to entering number 29, let alone the back yard of it.

Why would she not have indicated number 29?

Why would he not instead have asked where her safe spot was?

And what would be safe about a place where people were likely to be up and about and where she was already known to the residents?

Is it not more likely that the conversation had nothing to do with entering number 29, which is why they were not even standing in front of it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

She had received just enough money from her sister to cover the cost of the beer and potatoes.

I suppose you think her beer was left over and there are numerous ways she could have come across that too.

You’re just being silly now PI. I think that you realise the weakness of your position and like FM you just won’t admit it.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You’re just being silly now PI. I think that you realise the weakness of your position and like FM you just won’t admit it.

Why not try answering directly?

[Herlock Sholmes]

That hardly sounds like a prelude to entering number 29, let alone the back yard of it.

Why would she not have indicated number 29?

Why didn’t she whip out a piece of paper and a pen and draw a map from the spot they were standing on to the door of number 29?

Why would he not instead have asked where her safe spot was?

He might have done. You do realise that Elizabeth Long walked past don’t you? The didn’t pull up a chair and listen to what they were saying. Please stop this PI. You’re letting yourself down badly here.

And what would be safe about a place where people were likely to be up and about and where she was already known to the residents?

Woman desperate for money…..serial killer with the urge to kill. Do you really think that Annie would have been too ‘honourable’ to have lied about how safe number 29 was? She wouldn’t have cared less if they’d been interrupted.

Is it not more likely that the conversation had nothing to do with entering number 29, which is why they were not even standing in front of it?

No. It’s more likely that this was Annie and her killer. You may prefer the ‘massive coincidence’ argument….I don’t.

You always do this PI. When there’s a scenario that you don’t like you start making ridiculous demands. As if I can actually tell you what was said. We can deduce nothing……absolutely nothing from those three words. So why are you attempting to do so?

Because you’re shoehorning.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why not try answering directly?

It’s not worthy of an answer.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It’s not worthy of an answer.

I made a serious point about how Chapman had been able to pay for the food and drink, but you have her foraging.

And then you say that what I write is not worthy of an answer.

You do not have a satisfactory response.

[Trevor Marriott]

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?

The connection is quite simple the man and woman seen entering No 29 were clearly Chapman and her killer and that confirms an earlier TOD

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

No. It’s more likely that this was Annie and her killer. You may prefer the ‘massive coincidence’ argument….I don’t.

That comment is typical of the way in which you overstate your case.

The couple were not even standing in front of number 29, no-one saw them enter number 29, there is no evidence that the woman was soliciting, nor that the 'foreign' man had a foreign accent, nor that the sighting occurred minutes prior to the 'murder' heard by Cadoche.

All we know is that Long saw a couple while on her way to the market at about 5.30 a.m. and heard the man ask 'Will you?' which could have a perfectly innocent explanation.

It is not true that the alternative to believing that the foreigner without a foreign accent was the Whitechapel Murderer is to argue that a massive coincidence occurred.

The police asked Lawende to try to identify two British sailors; they did not ask Long to try to identify a foreigner.

[Abby Normal]

That comment is typical of the way in which you overstate your case.

The couple were not even standing in front of number 29, no-one saw them enter number 29, there is no evidence that the woman was soliciting, nor that the 'foreign' man had a foreign accent, nor that the sighting occurred minutes prior to the 'murder' heard by Cadoche.

All we know is that Chapman saw a couple while on her way to the market at about 5.30 a.m. and heard the man ask 'Will you?' which could have a perfectly innocent explanation.

It is not true that the alternative to believing that the foreigner without a foreign accent was the Whitechapel Murderer is to argue that a massive coincidence occurred.

The police asked Lawende to try to identify two British sailors; they did not ask Long to try to identify a foreigner.

except you tried to conveniently leave out that long ided chapman as the woman she saw, even though you know you did that intentionally because you wrote chapman in your above post instead of long.lol. freudian slip? i can see right through you.