Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[Herlock Sholmes]

I did not.

I suggest you reread what I did write.

And please do not reply that it would not be worthwhile or you have better uses for your time.

You have just addressed to me a post which is 964 words long and you expected me to read that, including what must be about the one-hundredth example of someone on this forum claiming incorrectly that I have made an invalid assumption or misrepresented an opinion as fact or misrepresented an assumption as evidence, ad nauseam.

And I reciprocate your compliment that your arguments don't hold any weight with me.

The reason is that what you have written above, along with much that has been written by a number of other posters, is nothing more substantial than an exercise in hair-splitting.

Do you know what irony is PI. Your power to amaze never fails.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

PI, I could write a list similar to this from the other viewpoint and it would be 5 times longer than yours. It gets us nowhere. The leaps of faith are coming from your side I’m afraid and it’s not even a close run thing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Ok.

I can’t see any relevance in the fact that at some points in her life Annie Chapman had some money. This hardly makes her affluent. I think that when you consider her you are applying modern day criteria which is distorting your viewpoint. As if she was just occasionally ‘a bit short of cash.’ We have to consider the realities of Annie’s life (and all of the victims) A woman who never knew where her next meal was coming from would have been unlikely in the extreme to have turned down an opportunity of acquiring ‘things’ (food included) Those ‘things’ could be used (eaten) sold or traded for something else. A woman who couldn’t be sure that she would eat the next day wouldn’t have turned her nose up at a spare crust of bread or half a potato or a sausage that we’d think twice about throwing to a dog. They also had to carry everything on there person because they had nowhere to leave them and because they could trust other desperately poor people not to steal anything that wasn’t bolted to the ground.

It’s only one suggestion but it wouldn’t have been at all unusual for her to have had some item of food on her person. Catherine Eddowes had tea and sugar in her property list after all. So maybe a crust of bread. Maybe she had two potatoes but only at one in the lodging house? None of this is remotely unlikely but we just can’t state it as a fact of course.

Absolutely when she left the lodging house her first aim was to get money for her bed but how long would she have continued looking with no success? How long before she gave up and found somewhere to sleep; perhaps having something to eat before sleep? She would have known other women in the same position so how can we know that she didn’t sleep next to a friend and how can we know that friend didn’t offer to share a bit of food. Would a woman who couldn’t know if she was going to eat tomorrow have turned it down?

So to sum up PI. We have a situation where Annie might or might not have eaten again…we can’t possibly know either way. It’s entirely 50-50. And we have to remember that we don’t know what those stomach contents were so we can’t assume potatoes. And even if she didn’t eat again, as Jeff has shown from the medical evidence that he posted, food can remain in a stomach for that period. And finally we have to remember that certain illnesses can retard digestion and one of those types are lung diseases and Annie had an advanced disease of the lungs.

The contents of Annie’s stomach are of no help in estimating her ToD and should be used as such.

[JeffHamm]

This is another fallacious argument. It's a non sequitur.

The evidence we have is this:

1) Annie ate at a quarter to two in the morning.

2) Mary had partially digested food in her stomach when examined.

We do not have any evidence to tell us Annie ate later and neither do we have evidence to tell us when Mary ate, with the exception that the food was partially digested and so that gives us a clue. That's it. That's the evidence. The rest is your speculation and employment of non sequiturs and other logical fallacies.

At its root, we're disagreeing on the fundamentals of a logical argument, including your persistent use of logical fallacies, and that which constitutes arguments of equal worth.

You believe that speculation with no supporting evidence is an argument of equal worth when compared with an argument underpinned by evidence, i.e. the evidence of Annie eating at a quarter to two in the morning.

As I said, in the event you claimed "we just don't know and so it is possible", then I would agree.

But, that's not what you're doing, you're claiming: "we just don't know and that's sufficient to propose it as an argument of equal worth", which is illogical and essentially means that no matter what any poster puts forward on this board, on any aspect of this case; you cannot accept it as being probable providing you consistently employ the logic you're employing here.

In the end, you and I could never have a reasonable discussion on any aspect of this case given that your logic is fallacious and you will fall back on "we just don't know" and claim "we just don't know" is an argument of equal worth.

That being the case, this has all been pointless.

I'll leave you to it.

This is rather pointless, on that we agree.

The problem with your position is that it is logically irrational. You keep making the error that Annie's meal of potatoes is evidence as to whether or not she ate after leaving the doss house. That is irrational - her eating at that time does not constitute evidence she did not eat later, but you continue to present it as if I have no evidence for her eating (which is true of course - I've always said we have no evidence of her activities) while you have evidence that she did not - which is false, because you do not have evidence of what she did after she left the doss house.

You are failing to recognize that we have a period of time for which we have no information about Annie's activities, therefore you cannot conclude she did not eat. Nor can I conclude she did eat, but if you read my posts, you will notice that at no time have I said she definitely did eat, I have only said we have to consider the possibility that she ate, and the possibility that she did not. I have never said we should ignore the idea of her not eating. You, on the other hand, are pushing for the conclusion that she did not eat simply because we know she at at the doss house. That is logically irrational, your conclusion does not follow from the evidence. And yes, because there is no evidence for either, then neither can be considered more likely and we have to consider both possibilities equally.

It is never stated what the food was that was found in Annie's stomach. I believe Kelly's food was identified as fish and potatoes - but there is no evidence ever given of her being seen eating fish and potatoes - are your going to argue that because we have nobody testifying that Kelly ate fish and potatoes then we have to conclude she didn't eat them? That is basically what you're doing for Annie - there is "some food" in her stomach, not "potatoes" just "some food", so how do you know that "some food" isn't something other than potatoes? You don't, because it is information we do not have. I have maintained that we therefore must consider the possibility that it was potatoes, and that it was not potatoes. It may be that Dr. Phillips did not say what the food was because it was in an unidentifiable state, but since he does not say that, it also may be that Dr. Phillips simply did not state what the food was even though he could identify it. We also do not know how much food was present. Does "some food" mean a residual amount, like say a teaspoons worth, or is "some food" a fairly substantial meal still present? If the former, that would be more consistent with it being a residual amount of potatoes perhaps, but if the latter, it clearly is evidence that she ate something else, wouldn't you agree to that? But since we don't know how much food is being quantified by the word "some", there's no way for us to draw any conclusion. The term is too vague for that.

And having considered the actual data on gastric emptying, which I posted some time ago and have suggested you look for, it shows that even easily digestible food is often found many hours later, with increasing passing of time converting it to more unidentifiable states but not always. As such, even if the "some food" found was some of the potatoes from her doss house meal that does not mean she could not have been killed at 5:20. Any other of the possible combinations (i.e. if she did eat after she left - if she ate something else with her potatoes that wasn't noticed by Donnovan, etc) are obviously also capable if she was killed at 5:20.

And yes, all of those are also possible if she was killed before 4:30 too, I've never said it wasn't.

What I have maintained throughout, though perhaps have not always been as clear as I could be, is that Dr. Phillips statement of "some food" being found in her stomach in no way allows us to favour one or the other ToD. It is consistent with both.

You seem to find it hard to accept that when you do not know something you have to consider all the options. We have no evidence of her activities and no evidence of her activities means we have to consider both the implications of her eating and of her not eating. And when we recognize all the bits we do not know (whether or not she ate after leaving the doss house; whether or not she ate something with her potatoes that Donnovan didn't see; whether or not the food found in her stomach was even potatoes; whether or not the identity of the food found in her stomach was omitted by Dr. Phillips because it was in an unidentifiable state or because he simply did not choose to state it at the inquest; whether or not "some food" refers to a teaspoon amount or does it refer to something more substantial? all of these things are unknown to us, so any of them are possible - that is the nature of not knowing things after all). And as I've argued, no matter how those unknowns are looked at, there is no combination that allows us to favour either ToD. The food in her stomach is simply non-informative on that point.

And to reiterate, no, you do not have evidence indicating she did not eat. You, like all of us, have a period of multiple hours in which Annie's activities are not known.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

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,"

Yes but still time for the couple described in the article to have been Chapman and the killer

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?

The only reason the police did not appear to believe it was Chapman was the fact that they readily accepted without question the three witnesses whose evidence is now unsafe.

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.

I have no faith in the accuracy of newspaper reports but sadly in many cases we have no choice but to go with what they print and do our best to prove or disprove the various reports

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.

Well if that is correct it just proves my point about the unreliability of newspaper reports do you have a copy of that official telegram? If it is not now in existence we can only discuss the conflicting newspaper reports

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.

- Jeff

This is another fallacious argument. It's a non sequitur.

The evidence we have is this:

1) Annie ate at a quarter to two in the morning.

2) Mary had partially digested food in her stomach when examined.

We do not have any evidence to tell us Annie ate later and neither do we have evidence to tell us when Mary ate, with the exception that the food was partially digested and so that gives us a clue. That's it. That's the evidence. The rest is your speculation and employment of non sequiturs and other logical fallacies.

At its root, we're disagreeing on the fundamentals of a logical argument, including your persistent use of logical fallacies, and that which constitutes arguments of equal worth.

You believe that speculation with no supporting evidence is an argument of equal worth when compared with an argument underpinned by evidence, i.e. the evidence of Annie eating at a quarter to two in the morning.

As I said, in the event you claimed "we just don't know and so it is possible", then I would agree.

But, that's not what you're doing, you're claiming: "we just don't know and that's sufficient to propose it as an argument of equal worth", which is illogical and essentially means that no matter what any poster puts forward on this board, on any aspect of this case; you cannot accept it as being probable providing you consistently employ the logic you're employing here.

In the end, you and I could never have a reasonable discussion on any aspect of this case given that your logic is fallacious and you will fall back on "we just don't know" and claim "we just don't know" is an argument of equal worth.

That being the case, this has all been pointless.

I'll leave you to it.

[JeffHamm]

I did not.

I suggest you reread what I did write.

And please do not reply that it would not be worthwhile or you have better uses for your time.

You have just addressed to me a post which is 964 words long and you expected me to read that, including what must be about the one-hundredth example of someone on this forum claiming incorrectly that I have made an invalid assumption or misrepresented an opinion as fact or misrepresented an assumption as evidence, ad nauseam.

And I reciprocate your compliment that your arguments don't hold any weight with me.

The reason is that what you have written above, along with much that has been written by a number of other posters, is nothing more substantial than an exercise in hair-splitting.

I did read it. You presented a series of random ideas that were presented to create the impression that the idea of Annie being alive until 5:20 was somehow unrealistic. In your presentation you presented the notion that it is somehow unacceptable to consider her being alive as it would require such a great stretch given nobody came forth reporting they saw her and/or sold her food.

But now you say that it wasn't your intention to suggest that nobody coming forth implies she wasn't seen.

So why did you include such things if, as you now claim, you recognize that nobody coming forth does not mean she wasn't alive?

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

I did not.

I suggest you reread what I did write.

And please do not reply that it would not be worthwhile or you have better uses for your time.

You have just addressed to me a post which is 964 words long and you expected me to read that, including what must be about the one-hundredth example of someone on this forum claiming incorrectly that I have made an invalid assumption or misrepresented an opinion as fact or misrepresented an assumption as evidence, ad nauseam.

And I reciprocate your compliment that your arguments don't hold any weight with me.

The reason is that what you have written above, along with much that has been written by a number of other posters, is nothing more substantial than an exercise in hair-splitting.

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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]

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