Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[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

[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.

[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]

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

[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?

[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.

[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".

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

you know you did that intentionally

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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why not try answering directly?

It’s not worthy of an answer.

[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.

[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?