Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Cadoche really thought he heard two people, a scuffle, and the sound of someone falling heavily against the fence, then he would surely not have thought that it was nothing more serious than a packing case touching the fence.

And if he knew which part of the fence it fell against, then why did he not see the fence move?

This is the problem we have with different Press versions. Isn’t there an earlier version the has Richardson going through the yard? The ‘scuffle’ was surely an assumption made by the newspaper who naturally connected what Cadosch heard with an initial ‘scuffle’ between Annie and her killer? If he had heard a scuffle he would have mentioned this at the inquest. After all if he wasn’t being truthful why wouldn’t he continue with a scuffle story which would only add to the importance of his account?

He heard the noise and judged which area of the fence it came from. This doesn’t mean that he was looking at the fence when the noise occurred.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here is what Swanson deduced from all this:

Swanson’s report of 19th October 1888:

5.25 a.m. 8th Sept. Albert Cadosch of 27 Hanbury Street, (next door) had occasion to go into the yard at the rear of No. 27, separated only by a wooden fence about 5 feet high, and he heard words pass between some persons apparently at No. 29 Hanbury Street, but the only word he could catch was “No”.

5.28 a.m. 8th Sept. On Cadosch going back into the yard again he heard a noise as of something falling against the fence on the side next No. 29 Hanbury Street, but he did not take any notice.

Note that the report is dated the same day as that on which Cadosch testified before the inquest.

Cheers, George

I’d say that was another assumption George. And an assumption that couldn’t have been far from the truth because if he heard a ‘no’ then clearly this would have been unlikely to have been someone talking to themselves; so he heard what was part of some kind of conversation. Swanson assumed that he heard some of that conversation but only the ‘no’ stood out.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The ‘scuffle’ was surely an assumption made by the newspaper who naturally connected what Cadosch heard with an initial ‘scuffle’ between Annie and her killer? If he had heard a scuffle he would have mentioned this at the inquest.

The scuffle was mentioned by BOTH newspapers!

And in case you think the second newspaper was merely copying details from the first, the second has Cadoche going into the yard at about 5.20 a.m., the same as what he subsequently told the inquest, a detail omitted by the first newspaper.

I agree that if Cadoche had heard a scuffle he would have mentioned this at the inquest.

The question is why he apparently told two newspapers that he heard what sounded like a scuffle.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi PI1,

I interpreted the article to be indicating that he encountered the man seven minutes after leaving Mitre Sq, and was back at Mitre Sq seven minutes later, although I admit that is not the way it reads. I attributed that to it being poorly written. JMO.

Cheers, George

Hi GB,

Here are two excerpts which should make things clear:


It was night and the policeman had passed through the square once, everything being then apparently all right. He walked on, coming to a court leading from a street out of Mitre Square. Halfway up the court he stood sideways to allow a man to pass him. The man came from the direction of the square.

(LANGDON)


Watkins exited the Square via Mitre Street and walked up and around to the Orange Market (not through St. James Passage). Seven minutes later he met a man coming out of the passage from the direction of Mitre Square.

(SCOTT NELSON)


It is quite obvious that Langdon implied that the encounter occurred much earlier than the seven minutes reported by Scott Nelson.

Langdon's seven minutes are a reference to something else:


Presently - exactly seven minutes after he had been in the square previously - the policeman entered it again


He obviously got that wrong.

There was no seven minute interval in either case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The scuffle was mentioned by BOTH newspapers!

And in case you think the second newspaper was merely copying details from the first, the second has Cadoche going into the yard at about 5.20 a.m., the same as what he subsequently told the inquest, a detail omitted by the first newspaper.

I agree that if Cadoche had heard a scuffle he would have mentioned this at the inquest.

The question is why he apparently told two newspapers that he heard what sounded like a scuffle.

How do we know that newspaper reporters hadn’t asked Cadosch if the noise could have been the result of a scuffle? And he said that it could have been. It would have been a natural speculation to have made after all. Then at the inquest he just mentions what he’d heard without the speculation as to what it was.

The problem is one of looking at events through a ‘sinister’ lens. The inquest testimony should take precedence over random Press reports of interviews which could easily have been embellished or ‘sexed up.’ Come the inquest Cadosch would have been responding to questions without any requests to speculate on what the noise might or might not have been.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

How do we know that newspaper reporters hadn’t asked Cadosch if the noise could have been the result of a scuffle? And he said that it could have been. It would have been a natural speculation to have made after all. Then at the inquest he just mentions what he’d heard without the speculation as to what it was.

That is possible, but it would mean that both reporters independently asked him whether there could have been a scuffle, both times he replied that there could have been, and both times they reported that there had been a scuffle.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That is possible, but it would mean that both reporters independently asked him whether there could have been a scuffle, both times he replied that there could have been, and both times they reported that there had been a scuffle.

I think that more than 2 papers mention the scuffle though?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I think that more than 2 papers mention the scuffle though?

George mentioned Lloyd's Weekly News, 9 September and Daily News, 10 September.

Do you know of any others?

[A P Tomlinson]

How do we know that newspaper reporters hadn’t asked Cadosch if the noise could have been the result of a scuffle? And he said that it could have been. It would have been a natural speculation to have made after all. Then at the inquest he just mentions what he’d heard without the speculation as to what it was.

The problem is one of looking at events through a ‘sinister’ lens. The inquest testimony should take precedence over random Press reports of interviews which could easily have been embellished or ‘sexed up.’ Come the inquest Cadosch would have been responding to questions without any requests to speculate on what the noise might or might not have been.

There is also the distinct possibility that the reporters, (OR editors reading from the same single agency-source interview) without having known of Philips' ETD, just assumed that a noise of people, and the subsequent falling sound (against the fence where a murder victim was found...) were the sounds of the killer and the victim, followed by the body hitting the floor.
It's not like the majority of newspaper editors get all beat out of shape if they get something a bit wrong, as long as it sells papers.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There is also the distinct possibility that the reporters, (OR editors reading from the same single agency-source interview) without having known of Philips' ETD, just assumed that a noise of people, and the subsequent falling sound (against the fence where a murder victim was found...) were the sounds of the killer and thevictim, followed by the body hitting the floor.

The two newspapers could not have been using the same agency or interview.

The first sent its own reporter to interview the witness and the second provided a detail which was not mentioned by the first.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The two newspapers could not have been using the same agency or interview.

The first sent its own reporter to interview the witness and the second provided a detail which was not mentioned by the first.

Does the fact that one detail was missing prove that though?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Does the fact that one detail was missing prove that though?

I suppose the answer to your question depends upon what you consider to be proof.

But if two newspaper editors were looking at the same transcript of an interview, or summary of an interview, and it mentioned the time that the witness first entered the yard, which is surely the starting point of his testimony, then why would one newspaper mention it and the other fail to mention it?

And if the second newspaper merely used the information which had been provided by the witness to the first newspaper, how could the second newspaper divine the time at which the witness first entered the yard, when the first newspaper had not even mentioned it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is also the distinct possibility that the reporters, (OR editors reading from the same single agency-source interview) without having known of Philips' ETD, just assumed that a noise of people, and the subsequent falling sound (against the fence where a murder victim was found...) were the sounds of the killer and the victim, followed by the body hitting the floor.
It's not like the majority of newspaper editors get all beat out of shape if they get something a bit wrong, as long as it sells papers.

Exactly AP. We can’t assume that the word originated with Cadosch when we have reporters competing for sales. A report of a public inquest, whilst not totally free from discrepancy newspaper to newspaper, must be the likeliest for getting at what was actually said.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I suppose the answer to your question depends upon what you consider to be proof.

But if two newspaper editors were looking at the same transcript of an interview, or summary of an interview, and it mentioned the time that the witness first entered the yard, which is surely the starting point of his testimony, then why would one newspaper mention it and the other fail to mention it?

And if the second newspaper merely used the information which had been provided by the witness to the first newspaper, how could the second newspaper divine the time at which the witness first entered the yard, when the first newspaper had not even mentioned it?

The second reporter could have read the first papers report before speaking to someone and discovering the time.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The second reporter could have read the first papers report before speaking to someone and discovering the time.

The someone being Cadoche.