Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I am enormously impressed if Herlock can estimate variations in how long Cadoche needed each time he went to the lavatory.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Because when people go to the loo they don’t go for the same duration every time.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Why would the interval between Cadoche's first visit to the lavatory and his return to the house be 5-6 minutes, but his second only 1-2 minutes?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Cadosch gets up at around 5.15/16

Cadosch goes to the outside loo at around 5.20/21

Elizabeth Long sees the couple at 5.25

The couple enter the yard, after Long passes, at around 5.25/26

Cadosch exits the loo and hears the ‘no’ at around 5.26

Cadosch returns to the loo at around 5.28

Cadosch exits the loo and hears the noise at around 5.29/30

Cadosch goes into the house and straight out at around 5.30

Cadosch walks the 3 minutes to the church clock

The church clock says around 5.32/33


So we have no need to ‘alter’ Cadosch’s time by the 5 or 6 minutes that I’d previously suggested. The only suggestion is that the brewer’s clock could have been around 5 minutes fast which of course is nothing implausible.


Or…..


Memory is fallible as we know and Long was recalling events of three days previously. She would no doubt have heard that brewer’s clock hundreds of times on her way to the market but it’s perfectly plausible to suggest that she wouldn’t always have been at the same spot when she heard it. So sometimes she’d have heard it before she’d got adjacent to number 29 and sometimes she’d have heard it after she’d passed. If it was the case that the majority of times it was the case that she heard it before reaching number 29 it’s possible that she may have misremembered when thinking back and that she’d actually heard it after she’d passed. After all, she had no particular reason for mentally logging the time that she’d seen two people chatting normally in the street.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If it all right with you, Jeff, I will reply to your last post at

The Stride Murder

for the sake of Albert.

[rjpalmer]

In one source, the broad-shouldered bloke was staggering slightly, which might be somewhat unusual for a Jew on the Sabbath, but it was well past sundown and it’s not unknown to break Sabbath with a drink. There’s no law against it.

Personally, I kind of like the idea of Jewish witnesses implicating Gentiles, and Gentile witnesses implicating Jews—and outside of Mrs. Cox, it almost works.

[JeffHamm]

I don’t recall Schwartz using the word Gentile? Or anything about the man’s nationality?

Hi Herlock,

I don't believe he did. Rather, his initial statement was that Lipski was shouted at Pipeman and it appears Schwartz took that to be Pipeman's name, and that Pipeman was working with Broad Shoulders. While not definitive, it would suggest that Schwartz therefore assumed Pipeman was Jewish (Lipski being a common-ish Jewish name) and by implication so was Broad Shoulders.

However, when the police pressed him on this point (who exactly was Lipski shouted at), it appears that Schwartz backed down from his interpretation that it was shouted at Pipeman, and accepted that it could have been directed at he himself (given its derogatory use at the time, and apparently he was readily identifiable by sight as being Jewish - perhaps by manner of dress and/or hair style, etc). Once he changed his mind on that point and accepted it could have been directed at him, then it that too changes the view of Broad Shoulders from a Jewish offender shouting a warning to his Jewish accomplice, to a Gentile offender shouting an antiemetic insult to a Jewish looking bystander.

The whole Schwartz testimony is quite an interesting bit of the whole case, as we have some insights into the police questioning of witness statements and so forth. It would be fascinating, and I think very informative, if transcripts of that interview, including the questions asked, were available for us to go over. I would not be surprised if there were a lot of other interesting details contained in them that have since been lost to us. Indeed, the absence of such police documents, where we're left only with summaries of reports, is one of the barriers we have when trying to get at the actual statements of the various witnesses, or at the details of the police investigations.

- Jeff

[Lewis C]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Cadosch did not hear a noise of something hitting the fence. Correct me if I am wrong. I think we can accept that he heard something. Any suggestion that this is a noise made by packing case makers at that specific time in the morning doesn't hold water. Where is the evidence of a packing case maker bumping into the fence at that time. No where. There was nobody in the Hanbury Street back yard at that time to make that noise. Or if I am incorrect and one of the occupants of the house can be shown to be in the yard at that time well, then perhaps it was them. Otherwise it strongly suggests it was Chapman or her murderer and importantly when Cadosch leaves the house there are no signs of the couple that Long has just seen.

No because Chapman lies bleeding in the yard and her killer either still in the yard or climbing fences to make good his escape. Surely it must have been Chapman and her murderer seen by Long otherwise we have two couples hanging around number 29 looking for somewhere discreet to go. The evidence just seems so strong.

So who was the murderer? We have a description. It may not be the description we want but that's how it works in real life.

NW

Hi NW,

We can be confident that the noise wasn't made by a packing case, because if it wasn't made by Chapman or her killer, it would mean that Chapman had been killed prior to that. If anyone had been in the yard with packing cases with a dead body in the yard, they would have seen the body. That is, unless the Chapman and her killer entered the yard after Cadosch left, but I don't think that anyone thinks that that's what happened.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don’t recall Schwartz using the word Gentile? Or anything about the man’s nationality?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Anderson never said that his witness was a witness for the Chapman murder or the Kelly murder. All we know is that both the witness and the suspect were Jewish. Top theories are are that the Jewish witness was Lawende, for the Eddowes murder, or Schwartz, for the Stride murder.

The problem is that neither Schwartz nor Lawende saw anything so incriminating that a prosecution for murder could have depended on it.

And another problem is that it is obvious that both Schwartz and Lawende described Gentile suspects.

We have no idea if the Jewish man seen by Anderson's Jewish witness was the Ripper. We have no idea if he was the same man seen by Long. Plenty of men were suspected of being the Ripper.

I agree.

And we have no idea whether any such Jewish man existed, was seen at the scene of any of the murders, or was seen by any Jewish witness.

[Fiver]

If Long's suspect was the murderer, then he must have been seen by Anderson's witness somewhere, in circumstances that incriminated him.

If there was no Jewish witness in the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street, nor in 13 Miller's court, then where was he?

Anderson never said that his witness was a witness for the Chapman murder or the Kelly murder. All we know is that both the witness and the suspect were Jewish. Top theories are are that the Jewish witness was Lawende, for the Eddowes murder, or Schwartz, for the Stride murder.

We have no idea if the Jewish man seen by Anderson's Jewish witness was the Ripper. We have no idea if he was the same man seen by Long. Plenty of men were suspected of being the Ripper.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

We know he gave Shabbat as an excuse to not pay a fine for an unmuzzled dog. Which doesn't tell us if he was observant, let alone if he was the Ripper.

You wrote:

We have no idea if Kosminski was an observant Jew.

and I replied:

We do have an idea.

He refused to handle money on the Sabbath.

That does not tell us for certain that he was observant, but it means we do have an idea.

There is nothing to suggest that the Kosminskis were irreligious, and it was customary for Whitechapel Jews to attend synagogue.

It is therefore reasonable to deduce that Aaron did too.

[Fiver]

We know that Kosminski refused to handle money on the Sabbath.

We know he gave Shabbat as an excuse to not pay a fine for an unmuzzled dog. Which doesn't tell us if he was observant, let alone if he was the Ripper.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Long's age estimate points against Kosminski being the man she saw, but you have been arguing that human perception and memory are fallible, especially in witnesses for the Chapman case. Yet here you seem to be insisting that Long was completely accurate in her estimation of the man's age.

I am certainly not insisting that Long was completely accurate in her estimation of the man's age.

But there is a big difference between 22 and about 44.

We have no idea if Kosminski was an observant Jew.

We do have an idea.

He refused to handle money on the Sabbath.

The holiest Shabbat is Yom Kippur. In 1888 it was from sundown Friday September 14 to sundown Saturday September 15, a week after Chapman's murder.

The holiest Sabbath in the Jewish calendar is the Sabbath of Repentance, which occurs shortly before Yom Kippur every year.

The fact that Yom Kippur fell on a Sabbath in 1888 is coincidental.

Nothing about Anderson's witness disproves that Kosminski was the Ripper. The only thing we know about the suspect is that he was Jewish and Kosminski was Jewish.

We know that Kosminski refused to handle money on the Sabbath.

We also know that the Hanbury Street murder occurred on a Sabbath.

We also know that it occured on the holiest Sabbath in the Jewish calendar.

That argues against his having committed the Hanbury Street murder.

Nobody has suggested there was a Jewish witness in the back yard of 29 Hanbury.

Elamarna himself stated that Anderson's witness can be presumed to have seen something incriminating.

If Long's suspect was the murderer, then he must have been seen by Anderson's witness somewhere, in circumstances that incriminated him.

If there was no Jewish witness in the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street, nor in 13 Miller's court, then where was he?

[Fiver]

Firstly, because Kosminski was 22 years old, about half the age of Long's estimate of the man she saw.

Secondly, because one can reasonably assume that Kosminski would have been attending synagogue that morning, as it was the holiest Sabbath in the Jewish calendar.

Why would he have selected the holiest Sabbath of the year on which to commit the only murder he committed on a Sabbath?

Thirdly, because Anderson's witness is supposed to have seen something incriminating.

What would a Jewish witness be doing in the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street?

Long's age estimate points against Kosminski being the man she saw, but you have been arguing that human perception and memory are fallible, especially in witnesses for the Chapman case. Yet here you seem to be insisting that Long was completely accurate in her estimation of the man's age.

We have no idea if Kosminski was an observant Jew. The holiest Shabbat is Yom Kippur. In 1888 it was from sundown Friday September 14 to sundown Saturday September 15, a week after Chapman's murder.

Nothing about Anderson's witness disproves that Kosminski was the Ripper. The only thing we know about the suspect is that he was Jewish and Kosminski was Jewish.

Nobody has suggested there was a Jewish witness in the back yard of 29 Hanbury. It's also irrelevant to whether Kosminski was the Ripper.