Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

you know you did that intentionally

I suppose next you will say that you were not making an assumption or supposition.

[GBinOz]

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."

Daily Telegraph Sep 10:
At eight o'clock last night the Scotland-yard authorities had come to a definite conclusion as to the description of the murderer of two, at least, of the hapless women found dead at the East-end, and the following is the official telegram despatched to every station throughout the metropolis and suburbs: "Commercial-street, 8.20 p.m. - Description of a man wanted, who entered a passage of the house at which the murder was committed with a prostitute, at two a.m. the 8th. Aged thirty-seven, height 5 ft. 7 in., rather dark, beard and moustache; dress, short dark jacket, dark vest and trousers, black scarf and black felt hat; spoke with a foreign accent."

Evening Standard Sep 10:
At eight o'clock last night the Scotland yard authorities had come to a definite conclusion as to the description of the murderer of two of the women found dead at the East end, and the following is the official intimation sent to every Station throughout the Metropolis and suburbs:- "Commercial street, 8.20 p.m. - Description of a man wanted, who entered a passage of the house at which the murder was committed, with a prostitute, at 2.0 a.m., on the 8th. Age 37, height 5ft 7in, rather dark beard and moustache. Dress - Short, dark jacket, dark vest and trousers, black scarf, and black felt hat. Spoke with a foreign accent." This description has been arrived at after mature consideration on the part of the most experienced members of the detective police force.

The Times Sep 11:
The following official notice has been circulated throughout the metropolitan police district and all police-stations throughout the country:--"Description of a man who entered a passage of the house at which the murder was committed of a prostitute at 2 a.m. on the 8th.--Age 37; height, 5ft. 7in.; rather dark beard and moustache. Dress-shirt, dark vest and trousers, black scarf, and black felt hat. Spoke with a foreign accent."

Sugden's analysis commences with a conclusion "since Annie was killed at about 5:30". He then "adjusts" the evidence from at least four news reports from "Description of a man wanted, who entered a passage of the house at which the murder was committed with a prostitute, at two a.m. the 8th." to "Description of a man wanted, who entered a passage of the house at which the murder was committed with a prostitute, after two a.m. the 8th.", and claims "The whole sense of the sentence is now altered. The time and date are now correct for the murder itself and no time or date is mentioned for the man's entry into the passage itself". But, still not happy with the evidence, or the time and date, and on the basis of Amelia' Richardson's inquest testimony regarding a siting of a stranger a month before, the whole incident reported upon is shifted to "about a month ago", "between half -past three and four o'clock. Curious that the Scotland-yard authorities should publish a description, that was reported in the news media on Sep 10, that was allegedly influenced by Amelia Richardson's testimony on Sep 12.

The coup de grāce of his analysis is his contention that the only opposition to his theories will be from "the idle and incompetent".

[Wickerman]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Let me ask you this.

Do you deny that the last time Annie Chapman was seen alive was when she left the lodging house, as stated by Timothy Donovan: " It was then about ten minutes to two a.m. She left the house,"

Do we agree?

Then who was this woman referred to in the press article quoted by you?
"entered the passage of the house, 29, Hanbury-street, at which the murder was committed with a prostitute, at two a.m., the 8th."
The police had no reason to think it was Chapman, or 2:00 am would have been the last time she was seen alive, wouldn't it?

Were you aware the Star, being an evening paper, often copied their stories from the Daily Telegraph, the morning paper?
I have compared a number of the Star's leading stories with what we read in the Daily Telegraph, of the same date.
It may come as no surprise the same story appears in the Daily Telegraph on the same day.

However, if we read the Daily News, the story is a little different.

The following is the official telegram sent to each station throughout the metropolis:

"Commercial street 8.20 p.m. Description of a man wanted who entered a passage of the house at which the murder was committed of a prostitute at 2 a.m. the 8th. Age 37; height 5ft 7in; rather dark beard and moustache. dress: Shirt, dark jacket, bark vest and trousers, black scarf and black felt hat. Spoke with a foreign accent."

"of a prostitute" not "with a prostitute".

There was no woman in the company of this stranger.

[rjpalmer]

Curious that the Scotland-yard authorities should publish a description, that was reported in the news media on Sep 10, that was allegedly influenced by Amelia Richardson's testimony on Sep 12.

Hi George. I'm not sure why Sugden relied on the Daily Telegraph--he may not have been aware of every source.

But Mrs. Richardson's account had already appeared in the Morning Advertiser on September 10th

And recall that September 9th was a Sunday, and the Morning Advertiser didn't publish a Sunday edition, so they would have interviewed Mrs. Richardson on either the 8th or the 9th, as of course, would have the police.

It's the Morning Advertiser that really gives the game away, in my opinion, and shows that this mystery man must have been based on Mrs. Thompson's creeper.

Here's what Mrs. Richardson is quoted as saying:

"The only possible clue that I can think of is that Mr. Thompson's wife met a man about a month ago lying on the stairs. This was about four o'clock in the morning. He looked like a Jew, and spoke with a foreign accent. When asked what he was doing there, he replied that he was waiting to do a 'doss' before the market opened. He slept on the stairs that night, and I believe he has slept on the stairs on other nights. Mrs. Thompson is certain she could recognise the man again both by his personal appearance and his peculiar voice. The police have taken a full and careful description of this man."

That last line is significant, no? "The police have taken a full and careful description of this man."

Then later in the article, the Morning Advertiser gives a version of the telegram sent out by the police the very night that Mrs. Richardson must have been interviewed (September 9th):

"The following official telegram was despatched last night to every police station in the metropolis:- "Commercial street, 8.20 p.m. Description of a man wanted, who entered a passage of the house at which the murder was committed with a woman, at two a.m., the 8th. Age 37, height 5ft 7in, rather dark beard and moustache. Dress - short, dark jacket, dark vest and trousers, black scarf, and black felt hat; spoke with a foreign accent."

It even mentions he had a foreign accent--the distinguishing factor that Mrs. Thompson had specifically noted.

Who could this witness possibly be other than Mrs. Thompson?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

And who, pray, saw Mrs Thompson's Jewish sleeper enter number 29 at 2 a.m. on 8 September 1888?

[rjpalmer]

And who, pray, saw Mrs Thompson's Jewish sleeper enter number 29 at 2 a.m. on 8 September 1888?

No one according to Sugden, and his argument is persuasive.

Different papers gave different wording of the telegram, some more ambiguous than others, but as Wickerman (and Sugden) argue, it's poorly written. The man was seen entering the house at which the woman was murdered (at around 2 a.m on 8 September). He was never seen entering the house with her or on that date. (Yes, some seem to suggest this, but they are garbled renditions).

If he had been, we would know about it, because this spectacular witness would have been at the inquest and would have been mentioned in internal police reports, including Swanson's of October 19th.

Surely, he or she would have been a superior witness to even Lawende, Schwartz, and Hutchinson--and yet we hear...nada...zilch..nothing of this witness.

Why do you think that might be?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

No one according to Sugden, and his argument is persuasive.

Different papers gave different wording of the telegram, some more ambiguous than others, but as Wickerman (and Sugden) argue, it's poorly written. The man was seen entering the house at which the woman was murdered (at around 2 a.m on 8 September). He was never seen entering the house with her or on that date. (Yes, some seem to suggest this, but they are garbled renditions).

If he had been, we would know about it, because this spectacular witness would have been at the inquest and would have been mentioned in internal police reports, including Swanson's of October 19th.

Surely, he or she would have been a superior witness to even Lawende, Schwartz, and Hutchinson--and yet we hear...nada...zilch..nothing of this witness.

Why do you think that might be?

I agree with you and refer you to # 365:

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

And if the Jewish sleeper was really a suspect, then surely Mrs Thompson herself would have been an important witness, but it seems she never materialises.

[GBinOz]

Hi George. I'm not sure why Sugden relied on the Daily Telegraph--he may not have been aware of every source.

But Mrs. Richardson's account had already appeared in the Morning Advertiser on September 10th

And recall that September 9th was a Sunday, and the Morning Advertiser didn't publish a Sunday edition, so they would have interviewed Mrs. Richardson on either the 8th or the 9th, as of course, would have the police.

It's the Morning Advertiser that really gives the game away, in my opinion, and shows that this mystery man must have been based on Mrs. Thompson's creeper.

Here's what Mrs. Richardson is quoted as saying:

"The only possible clue that I can think of is that Mr. Thompson's wife met a man about a month ago lying on the stairs. This was about four o'clock in the morning. He looked like a Jew, and spoke with a foreign accent. When asked what he was doing there, he replied that he was waiting to do a 'doss' before the market opened. He slept on the stairs that night, and I believe he has slept on the stairs on other nights. Mrs. Thompson is certain she could recognise the man again both by his personal appearance and his peculiar voice. The police have taken a full and careful description of this man."

That last line is significant, no? "The police have taken a full and careful description of this man."

Then later in the article, the Morning Advertiser gives a version of the telegram sent out by the police the very night that Mrs. Richardson must have been interviewed (September 9th):

"The following official telegram was despatched last night to every police station in the metropolis:- "Commercial street, 8.20 p.m. Description of a man wanted, who entered a passage of the house at which the murder was committed with a woman, at two a.m., the 8th. Age 37, height 5ft 7in, rather dark beard and moustache. Dress - short, dark jacket, dark vest and trousers, black scarf, and black felt hat; spoke with a foreign accent."

It even mentions he had a foreign accent--the distinguishing factor that Mrs. Thompson had specifically noted.

Who could this witness possibly be other than Mrs. Thompson?

Hi RJ,

Thanks for your reference to the Morning Advertiser Sep 10, as in contained information of which I was not aware.

As always, we a plagued with inconsistencies in news reports. However, I should answer your question: "Who could this witness possibly be other than Mrs. Thompson?" with the observation that Amelia's inquest testimony nominated that it was Mr Thompson. So, from whom did police actually take the full and careful description of the man, and why did neither appear at the inquest. Is there a question about Amelia's recollection of memories?

You say "He was never seen entering the house with her or on that date. (Yes, some seem to suggest this, but they are garbled renditions).", but for the sake of consistency it must be pointed out that The Morning Advertiser Sep 10 was one of those "garbled renditions".
The following official telegram was despatched last night to every police station in the metropolis:- "Commercial street, 8.20 p.m. Description of a man wanted, who entered a passage of the house at which the murder was committed with a woman, at two a.m., the 8th. Age 37, height 5ft 7in, rather dark beard and moustache. Dress - short, dark jacket, dark vest and trousers, black scarf, and black felt hat; spoke with a foreign accent."

One of the things I noticed in the Morning Advertiser report of the 10th was that they reported that there were packing cases in the yard that were moved out after the body was found.
In the yard there were recently some packing cases, which had been sent up from the basement of the dwelling, but just behind the lower door there was a clear space left, wherein the murder was undoubtedly committed. The theory primarily formed was that the unfortunate victim had been first murdered and afterwards dragged through the entry into the back yard; but from an inspection made later in the day it appears that the murder was actually committed in the corner of the yard, which the back door, when open, places in obscurity. There were some marks of blood observable in the passage, but it is now known that these were caused in the work of removal of some packing cases, the edges of which accidentally came in contact with the blood which remained upon the spot from which the unhappy victim was removed.
This is consistent with the the observation that people were paying to view the yard when all it contained was a packing case with a trickle of blood underneath. It should also notice be noted that it was reported there was blood found in the passage which was attributed to having been deposited there when the packing cases were removed.
Cadosch was also interviewed:
Albert Cadosch, who lodges next door, had occasion to go into the adjoining yard at the back at 5.25, and states that he heard a conversation on the other side of the palings as if between two people. He caught the word "No," and fancied he subsequently heard a slight scuffle, with the noise of a falling against the palings, but, thinking that his neighbours might probably be out in the yard, he took no further notice, and went to his work.
Apparently it was not unusual for his neighbours to be engaging in fisticuffs at that time of morning, but his answer to the coroner at the inquest regarding the noise being made by a packing case makes a little more sense, as there were in fact packing cases there near the body. Not that their presence is conclusive for either argument, as while the noise against the fence could have been made by natural movement of a packing case, as suggested by Cadosch, it could equally have been made by Jack bumping the case in his endeavour to evade detection by Cadosch. I have to admit to being puzzled as to why the packing cases and the blood in the passage were not mentioned by Chandler, the fact of which does raise some question as to the veracity of the Morning Advertiser's reporting

Some posts ago I suggested that, when so many couples had been caught using the stairs and the landing for their activities, would it be logical that Annie would choose to go out into the cold yard? With the report of blood being found in the passage, this thought re-presents itself.

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

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.

By your argument, then, we have evidence that Annie ate after she left the doss house, because there was some food found in her stomach.

You aren't viewing the data from any position except how to make an earlier ToD work. All I'm arguing is that the "some food" in her stomach can be explained regardless of which ToD is correct, and therefore it is not inconsistent with either. You're only looking at it as if it is inconsistent with a later ToD, and it isn't. That's the bit of your argument that keeps falling down. It's also the approach you seem to adopt with the research, you see a statement that you can use but you don't examine the actual study to see if the study is appropriate.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Some posts ago I suggested that, when so many couples had been caught using the stairs and the landing for their activities, would it be logical that Annie would choose to go out into the cold yard? With the report of blood being found in the passage, this thought re-presents itself.

Dr Phillips testified that there was no blood in the passage at the time that he examined the body:

I made a thorough search of the passage, and I saw no trace of blood, which must have been visible had she been taken into the yard.

[JeffHamm]

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

It is still an assumption to presume she did or did not eat. It is not a "deduction" because the evidence is not sufficient to support a deduction, which requires that we be able to state as true that she did not eat after she left the doss house. We can't do that, hence no deduction can be made, only assumptions.

For example, we know Nichols had said she had earned her bed money a few times but spent it on booze, despite having gone out specifically to earn her doss money. For all we know Annie had found a customer early on and thinking it would be a good night, bought something to eat figuring she would get her doss money soon enough.

Anything at all could have happened, and to assume that just because she was spotted eating potatoes somehow precludes her from eating again is to make an unsubstantiated assumption - no matter what our subjective idea is of how likely or unlikely it is.

Moreover, we do not even know if the "some food" that was found even was potatoes. It is yet another assumption being made that the "some food" found in her stomach was in anyway related to the potatoes she was eating.

Finally, even if it was potatoes, that doesn't mean much because the remains of even easily digestible foods will remain in the stomach for many hours. Sure, much of it might empty, but it's not like the stomach gets wiped clean. In otherwords, the "food data" does not tell us much as it is entirely consistent with a pre and post 4:30 ToD, and to view it as indicative of one or the other is not justified.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

For all we know ...

For all we know, Chapman may have obtained food for free, may have wandered about for three and a half hours without anyone noticing her and reporting having seen her, may have taken a potato with her when she left the house (and some beer too) and eaten and drunk them before meeting her murderer, or it may be that she found a customer and instead of then going to bed, went in search of more potatoes, and only then found the murderer, but still no-one could remember selling her food or seeing her, and she may have gone to number 29 at 5.30 a.m., even though she must have known something of the habits of its residents and when they were likely to be about, and her murderer may have decided not to use the tap water to wash his hands, and it may be that although Mrs Long could see him and Chapman in the street, no-one saw them enter number 29 and no-one saw him leave number 29, and naturally no-one went to the lavatory in the yard even though some people were up, and it may be that the clocks were wrong in just such a way that Cadoche could have heard the foreign-looking man who had no foreign accent with Chapman, or it may be that Chapman mistook the quarter past chime for the half past chime, but did not realise she had arrived at the market early, and it may be that Cadoche thought it was earlier than it was and no-one at his work place noticed the lateness of his arrival, and it may be that they were all using clocks that were all wrong in the same way so that everyone was in a state of delusion.

Or, for all we know, those are a long series of fanciful suggestions.

But I would not dream of calling them assumptions.

[GBinOz]

Dr Phillips testified that there was no blood in the passage at the time that he examined the body:

I made a thorough search of the passage, and I saw no trace of blood, which must have been visible had she been taken into the yard.

Thanks PI1,

So if the news report is correct then the blood was deposited there in the process of moving the crates.

Cheers, George

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Thanks PI1,

So if the news report is correct then the blood was deposited there in the process of moving the crates.

Cheers, George

It seems so.

[JeffHamm]

For all we know, Chapman may have obtained food for free, may have wandered about for three and a half hours without anyone noticing her and reporting having seen her, may have taken a potato with her when she left the house (and some beer too) and eaten and drunk them before meeting her murderer, or it may be that she found a customer and instead of then going to bed, went in search of more potatoes, and only then found the murderer, but still no-one could remember selling her food or seeing her, and she may have gone to number 29 at 5.30 a.m., even though she must have known something of the habits of its residents and when they were likely to be about, and her murderer may have decided not to use the tap water to wash his hands, and it may be that although Mrs Long could see him and Chapman in the street, no-one saw them enter number 29 and no-one saw him leave number 29, and naturally no-one went to the lavatory in the yard even though some people were up, and it may be that the clocks were wrong just so that Cadoche could have heard the foreign-looking man who had no foreign accent with Chapman, or it may be that Chapman mistook the quarter past chime for the half past chime, but did not realise she had arrived at the market early, and it may be that Cadoche thought it was earlier than it was and no-one at his work place noticed the lateness of his arrival, and it may be that they were all using clocks that were all wrong in the same way so that everyone was in a state of delusion.

Or, for all we know, those are a long series of fanciful suggestions.

But I would not dream of calling them assumptions.

Now you are getting it! There are lots of things that might have happened, none of which we can say for sure is what did happen, but any of the ideas you have suggested are all possible ways for her to have eaten during the period we do not know any of her activities. Moreover, with a little creative licence and sophistry, we can present those ideas as looking more or less probable, and we can throw in some other assumptions about JtR and handwashing (how that relates to Annie's food intake escapes me, but I suppose it somehow helps create the illusion that unrelated things somehow become less probable). Also, describing things that we know did happen (like nobody in #29 went to the loo when we know nobody from #29 went outside until Davies did close to 6:00 is to present what we know happened as if it's bizarre to say that's what happened? Sure making the actual events sound improbable is good spin, but hardly worth taking the time to type in my view). Mentioning the clocks is an interesting sideline too, as is your incorrect assumption that the clocks were all reading the same time - see that is going against everything we know about clocks in Victorian London (and even today), yet go for it if you wish, but it is one of the reasons I find your presentation unconvincing. As for the mistaking of the chime, I presume you mean Long not Chapman? Curious that in a thread discussing memory and errors, you find such a simple memory error so hard to contemplate, but hey, if it's hard it's hard.

You keep saying nobody saw her, because nobody came forth, but you're making an invalid assumption that just because nobody came for that means nobody saw her. Witnesses often do not come forth. Moreover, if she bought something to eat, for example, why would a vendor have any reason to know it was Annie? How could such a person come forward? Would every vendor who sold food to a local be obliged to come forward and say "I sold X to 7 woman last night, maybe one of them was her?" Is that truly what you image people would do? Actually, during the Nichols event, a coffee vendor came forward, but he later indicated that the woman he saw wasn't Nichols. But in contrast, Packer told the police that he saw nothing when they initially did their house to house search, and it was only later that he started mentioning the couple who bought grapes from him (and his idea of the time that happened changes from one telling to the next, as does his description of the man, which some have argued reflects stories in the news subsequently altering his "information", making him an unreliable witness. Others have argued in his favour though). So just because nobody came forward doesn't mean nobody saw her. It just means nobody came forward (other than Long, of course, but her sighting of a couple was in the vicinity of the crime scene - a vendor on anther street, who might have sold a number of woman food on that night, is hardly going to make such a connection unless the news really emphasized the need to find someone who may have sold her food - and that didn't happen, we focus on it because of one small statement in Dr. Phillips testimony that "some food" was found in her stomach, and other witness statements that say Annie ate potatoes. Prior to that, what would be the reason for a food vendor to come forth at all?). It's the standard problem that the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.

Anyway, you've presented your position a fair few times, and your arguments don't hold any weight with me. I know that's neither here nor there for you, just as the fact that my arguments hold no weight for you is neither here nor there for me. Personally, I find your approach to be one that is unlikely to lead to useful ideas as you are not factoring in basic truths that really should be starting points for everyone, regardless of where they end up in terms of which ToD they think more likely. Things such as the fact that the clocks are known to be out of sync by quite large margins at the time, and that simple memory errors like the chimes are the types of errors that witnesses most commonly make, and the fact that because we don't know what Annie did after she left the doss house that the idea she at some point ate something is hardly suggesting something outrageous and has to be considered as a very valid possibility, and that bits of even easily digestable foods can be found in the stomach for hours after eating them, and that estimated ToD is only that, an estimate for which the range of the true ToD goes from +-3 hours of the estimate, making any time consistent with Dr. Phillips stated estimate even if one ignores his qualified statement. You appear to be assuming the "some food" was potatoes, and we don't know that. You are assuming that JtR would have washed his hands rather than simply wipe them on her clothes, or that he had something with him for that purpose (as he may have in the other crimes). You seem reluctant to consider the idea that maybe the reason he didn't take the time to use the water is because Cadosche had just walked by (why wouldn't he have used the water earlier after all? Was it too dark to see that water, and yet light enough for him to perform his mutilations?).

- Jeff