Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thats not quite correct she had a bed at the common lodging house and stated she was going out to get some money to pay for the bed. So as she was not seen after leaving the lodging house we can draw an inference that she found a punter who would turn out to be her killer long before 5.30 am

But I say again who would be looking to use the services of a prostitute at 5.30am?

I think George posted an article which is interesting

Star Sep 10:
Description of a Man "Wanted."

The series of murders which now even the police believe to be the work of one man, is engaging the attention of a large force of plain clothes detectives. At eight o'clock last night the Scotland-yard authorities circulated a description of a man who, they say, "entered the passage of the house, 29, Hanbury-street, at which the murder was committed with a prostitute, at two a.m., the 8th." They give his age as 37, height 5ft. 7in., and add that he is rather dark, had a beard and moustache; was dressed in a short dark jacket, dark vest and trousers, black scarf and black felt hat; and spoke with a foreign accent.

If this can be corroborated then its game over for you and the other later TOD chaps.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It won’t be corroborated though Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

She was a homeless, prostitute Trevor. Permanently penniless, possibly wanting a drink and with no money for a bed. If she walked along Hanbury Street and bumped into a potential customer how likely would it have been for her to have turned him down. Also, if she was killed at 4.30, that was only an hour earlier. So was she less likely to have been walking along Hanbury Street at 4.30 than she would have been at 5.30?

Thats not quite correct she had a bed at the common lodging house and stated she was going out to get some money to pay for the bed. So as she was not seen after leaving the lodging house we can draw an inference that she found a punter who would turn out to be her killer long before 5.30 am

But I say again who would be looking to use the services of a prostitute at 5.30am?

I think George posted an article which is interesting

Star Sep 10:
Description of a Man "Wanted."

The series of murders which now even the police believe to be the work of one man, is engaging the attention of a large force of plain clothes detectives. At eight o'clock last night the Scotland-yard authorities circulated a description of a man who, they say, "entered the passage of the house, 29, Hanbury-street, at which the murder was committed with a prostitute, at two a.m., the 8th." They give his age as 37, height 5ft. 7in., and add that he is rather dark, had a beard and moustache; was dressed in a short dark jacket, dark vest and trousers, black scarf and black felt hat; and spoke with a foreign accent.

If this can be corroborated then its game over for you and the other later TOD chaps.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just saw this online after a quick look:

Undernutrition is associated with impairment of digestive function, which is likely to further aggravate the nutritional state.

The National Library of Medicine.

[Herlock Sholmes]

True enough, and I've always read it in a way that suggests the whole potato episode could have been more chaotic than how 'P.I.' and 'Fleetwood' are portraying it.

The drink 'brought to the house' came earlier--a little after midnight. Annie then left for roughly 90 minutes but came back before 2 a.m. 'eating baked potatoes.' There is no mention of drink at this later time.

Below are two contemporary accounts. There is much uncertainty, but it seems as if she passed down into the kitchen to eat her potatoes, but during this she was given the heave-ho and told to leave when she admitted that she didn't have enough money. (She could have had SOME money). When Evans saw her, after she was told to leave, she was still eating potatoes. That's how I read it.

I doubt that a woman in her circumstance would have left the potatoes behind. Why would she have? And if she was still gnawing on a potato at 2.30 a.m., which is certainly possible, it could have been in her stomach 3 hours later when she was killed. The experts that Vanderlinden cites in his study (and he seems to be pushing for an earlier time of death) give times varying between 30 minutes and three hours for the stomach to empty after a meal. I've read a study using dogs (don't chase it down if you like dogs) and it suggested that the time that it takes to digest food is more erratic and complicated than some let on.

Cheers.

Hi Roger,

That’s how I see it, and we know that certain physical illnesses can slow down digestion. Lung diseases are ones that are often quoted (amongst others) and we know that she had a lung condition which was longstanding and therefore likely to have been advanced. So even without the suggestion that she might have eaten again there’s nothing in the medical evidence that makes the food in her stomach indicative of an earlier ToD. Also could it be possible that she might have had another condition, that didn’t show up at the inquest, that might also have slowed down her digestion? The last point is speculation of course but it might perhaps have been the case.

[rjpalmer]

The evidence tells us she ate potatoes at the doss house. That in no way tells us how many times she ate.

True enough, and I've always read it in a way that suggests the whole potato episode could have been more chaotic than how 'P.I.' and 'Fleetwood' are portraying it.

The drink 'brought to the house' came earlier--a little after midnight. Annie then left for roughly 90 minutes but came back before 2 a.m. 'eating baked potatoes.' There is no mention of drink at this later time.

Below are two contemporary accounts. There is much uncertainty, but it seems as if she passed down into the kitchen to eat her potatoes, but during this she was given the heave-ho and told to leave when she admitted that she didn't have enough money. (She could have had SOME money). When Evans saw her, after she was told to leave, she was still eating potatoes. That's how I read it.

I doubt that a woman in her circumstance would have left the potatoes behind. Why would she have? And if she was still gnawing on a potato at 2.30 a.m., which is certainly possible, it could have been in her stomach 3 hours later when she was killed. The experts that Vanderlinden cites in his study (and he seems to be pushing for an earlier time of death) give times varying between 30 minutes and three hours for the stomach to empty after a meal. I've read a study using dogs (don't chase it down if you like dogs) and it suggested that the time that it takes to digest food is more erratic and complicated than some let on.

Cheers.