Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[GBinOz]

I am interested in hearing how you have come to the idea that it would be likely that someone who hears of a murder being discovered at 6 am, and who was themself walking around the night before, would have any particular reason to presume that one of the women they saw was the murder victim?

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Isn't that what Elizabeth Long did?

Given that Annie was well known in the area, is it more likely that someone that knew her, and saw her that night, would, after hearing of her murder report the sighting, more so than someone who didn't know Annie presuming someone she saw was the victim.

Best regards, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

Isn't that what Elizabeth Long did?

Given that Annie was well known in the area, is it more likely that someone that knew her, and saw her that night, would, after hearing of her murder report the sighting, more so than someone who didn't know Annie presuming someone she saw was the victim.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Yes, the difference, though, is that Long recalls seeing a man and woman outside of the crime scene that morning, at a time not long before the body was discovered. Hearing of that would result in her thinking she may have seen something related. However, hours earlier, and in all likelihood in locations well displaced from #29 Hanbury (see below for wild speculation), at which point there's nothing to connect seeing women with the crime. That's why I think it is rather improbable that for much of the missing time anyone who saw her probably also saw many other woman and men out and about, so there's no reason to connect any of those sightings to the crime. Long, as I say, saw a couple not long before the crime was discovered, outside the vicinity of the location of the crime. Hence, she came forward while others would have no reason to.

This is just following on from the "well displaced from #29" idea, I suppose one could contemplate the idea that Annie just stood there all night, but I find that improbable. Personally, given that both Nicoles and Eddowes appear to have headed towards Whitechapple Road, my guess would be that Annie went down that way looking for trade for much of the night and perhaps was on her way back to the doss house. If that idea were to be correct, it would suggest she probably met JtR after turning east on Hanbury from Commercial, and JtR was coming from the other direction - which I think fits with the direction of facing that Long describes as she saw the man from the back. I realise I'm running quite a bit with this idea, as there's nothing to prevent Annie and the man meeting when heading in exactly the opposite directions but change positions upon meeting - i.e. she's just passed him when he hails her? I'm completely speculating here, and already have objected to my thoughts! ha ha).

[JeffHamm]

It would help if you could explain why it would take Chapman about three and a half hours to find a customer.

Chapman's last words as she left the lodging house are reported as: I shan't be long before I am in.

The last sighting of Nichols alive was at at 2:30 AM.

An hour later, she met her killer.

Stride was seen with a man at 12:35 AM, with another man at about 12:45 AM, and met her killer before 1:00AM.

Within half an hour of being released from the police station, Eddowes met her killer.

We know the Whitechapel murderer was on the prowl in the early hours of the morning.

We also know that Chapman was looking for a customer from 1.50 AM onwards.

Why would it have taken 3 1/2 hours for their paths to converge?

Ah, so either you don't have an explanation, or you're unwilling to share it. I've never found such one sided conversations to be very enlightening, so I'll keep my ideas to myself as well.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

Isn't that what Elizabeth Long did?

Given that Annie was well known in the area, is it more likely that someone that knew her, and saw her that night, would, after hearing of her murder report the sighting, more so than someone who didn't know Annie presuming someone she saw was the victim.

Best regards, George

Ooops, just realised I forgot to mention the "someone that knew her" bit.

Yes, that makes sense. However, if Annie was looking for trade more towards Whitechapel Road for much of the night (as per Nicoles and Eddowes), combined with the probability that most people who knew her probably already had their bed for the night, that means for most of the hours the people that knew Annie were probably asleep, or at least away from the area she was looking for customers. If she was returning to the doss house when she meets up with JtR, then the amount of time she's in the vicinity where she might be known becomes relatively short, making it less of a mystery (even less of one if we presume that most doss house residence are either not particularly early risers, or would have been up and gone looking for day work well before that - I think they went to places like the docks to seek day jobs long before 5 am).

Again, given we don't know her activities, all I can offer are such speculative type ideas. I'm sure there are many alternative ideas that would account for her not being seen by someone she knew. We know she wasn't, but pow probable or improbable that is would require us to know a bit more information about the habits of the people she knew, and of course, what she was doing and where she was doing it during those missing hours. I can imagine things that make it probable she would have been seen and I can imagine things that make it improbable that she would be seen - in the end, I don't know which of those things were the reality.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Again, given we don't know her activities, all I can offer are such speculative type ideas. I'm sure there are many alternative ideas that would account for her not being seen by someone she knew.
- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

An alternative idea that would account for her not being seen by anyone would be that she was lying dead in the backyard of #29. The area she emerged into from the doss house was the geographic profiling hot spot, so it was not altogether unlikely that Jack may have picked her up there immediately after she left the doss house. All the victims lived in this vicinity, so she/they may have known him as a fellow drinker at a local pub such as The Ten Bells or Ringers. This would fit with the Scotland yard memo to the police stations. I am wary of building scenarios based on a preconceived conclusion in the way that Sugden built his argument by commencing with the presumption of a 5:30 murder.

Best regards, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi George,

Yes, not being seen is also consistent with her being killed earlier, which I should have said. In my defense, I was focusing more on how it is not evidence of that, but nevertheless I should have acknowledged that more overtly. My baf, as they say.

- Jeff

[Doctored Whatsit]

If the evidence of Dr. Phillips is correct as to time of death, it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body when he went into the yard at 4:45 a.m. but as his clothes were examined, the house searched and his statement taken in which there was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him, although police specially directed their attention to him...

Up to the present the combined result of those inquiries did not supply the police with the slightest clue to the murderer...

[Dr Phillips] gives it as his opinion that death occurred about two hours earlier, viz: 4:20 a.m. hence the evidence of Mrs. Long which appeared to be so important to the Coroner, must be looked upon with some amount of doubt, which is to be regretted.

(SWANSON)


Swanson, so greatly admired and respected by so many posters, evidently was not impressed by the evidence of either Richardson or Long.

Neither am I.

I find this response to be a very strange interpretation of Swanson's report. It is also incomplete, and ignores a part which contradicts your point about Mrs Long.

Firstly, please note that Swanson wrote "If the evidence of Dr Phillips is correct", so he is considering this as a possibility, not a fact. He then continues that he cannot understand how Richardson could have failed to see the body if it was there, and then says that despite their best efforts and thorough checks, they could not fault his story. That reads to me more like an acceptance of Richardson's story, or at worst, an admission that there are no grounds for rejecting it. It is not an expression of his lack of acceptance for the story.

As for Long, I wonder why you excluded from your note above that Swanson also wrote, "if the evidence of Mrs Long is correct ... then the evidence of Dr Phillips as to the probable time of death is incorrect". In other words, Swanson was looking at both sides of the story, and demonstrating the contradiction, without expressing any firm conclusion. He considered that if either one of them was correct the other must be incorrect, without concluding that the police favoured one side of the argument.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I find this response to be a very strange interpretation of Swanson's report. It is also incomplete, and ignores a part which contradicts your point about Mrs Long.

It is Wolf Vanderlinden's interpretation.

I quote from his dissertation 'Considerable Doubt' and the Death of Annie Chapman:


The police were obviously depending upon Dr. Phillips' opinions and his standing as a reliable medical expert when directing the course of their investigations. To the detectives working on the Chapman murder, Dr. Phillips' estimated time of death made Long and Cadosch irrelevant.

This sentiment is also expressed in Swanson's report.

hence the evidence of Mrs. Long which appeared to be so important to the Coroner, must be looked upon with some amount of doubt, which is to be regretted.

This "doubt" apparently soon became the conviction that Mrs. Long's testimony was worthless.

It is now time to look at Dr. Phillips' opinions about the time of death of Annie Chapman, opinions that were supported by Scotland Yard.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Ah, so either you don't have an explanation, or you're unwilling to share it. I've never found such one sided conversations to be very enlightening, so I'll keep my ideas to myself as well.

- Jeff

I gave it in # 510.

Perhaps you missed it.

Can I now have your response to # 513 please?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It would help if you could explain why it would take Chapman about three and a half hours to find a customer.


Do you think that the streets would have been exactly teeming with potential punters after 2am? When these women went out onto the streets do you think that it was always the case that they ran into a punter within an hour or so or was the reality that they often stood around for hours having no luck? We know that there were a huge amount of prostitutes in that area (I can’t recall the actual figures) so there was much competition for trade and, with respect to Annie, there were younger, more attractive ones around too.

Then we surely have to consider that there would have come a point where she would have thought “even if I got some money now would it be worth getting a bed at this time of the morning?” I’m not certain but weren’t the occupants of doss-houses kicked out at some time in the morning? So, as I’ve suggested before, she might have just given up and bedded down somewhere. Another suggestion, and that’s all that it is, is that she might have met a friend who, like Mary Kelly, had her own room and put her up for the night.


Chapman's last words as she left the lodging house are reported as: I shan't be long before I am in.


Yes, it’s reminiscent of Mary Nichols “see what a jolly bonnet…” comment. Mary was drunk, Annie was the worse for drink too. Again, as I’ve said before, alcohol isn’t known as a means to sensible thinking or decision-making. Annie couldn’t actually have known how long it would have taken her to find a punter but she wanted Donovan to keep a bed for her so she wanted him to believe that she would be back soon.


The last sighting of Nichols alive was at at 2:30 AM.

An hour later, she met her killer.

Stride was seen with a man at 12:35 AM, with another man at about 12:45 AM, and met her killer before 1:00AM.

Within half an hour of being released from the police station, Eddowes met her killer.


You can’t compare the others as if it was a case of catching a bus or a taxi PI. These were individual circumstances. If I went out shopping for a certain item and found one in an hour it wouldn’t follow that you would find the same item in an hour too. Life isn’t as prescribed as you appear to think PI.


We know the Whitechapel murderer was on the prowl in the early hours of the morning.

We also know that Chapman was looking for a customer from 1.50 AM onwards.

Why would it have taken 3 1/2 hours for their paths to converge?


Because life isn’t that simple PI. There are some things that we can state with confidence. Annie was unlikely to have attended a meeting of a local Morris Dancing troupe for example. We can hardly state however that it was unlikely that Annie slept in some doorway for an hour or two. Or that she ate a crust of bread or a potato or an apple or whatever. Or that she couldn’t find a punter. Or that she, like Polly, found a customer but spent the money on something else. Or that she found a punter but due to the lateness she decided to sleep rough and keep the money for later.

There’s no point in picking at any individual piece of speculation because it amounts to us trying put ourselves into Annie’s position. To think and behave as Annie would have because that would be impossible. We are faced with a period of time for which we have absolutely no information. Any deductions based on what we know about Annie’s situation and intentions beforehand are just as much speculation as any other points. And just as likely to be wrong or right.

And to top this off PI we can add that even if we knew for a fact that Annie didn’t eat during that unrecorded period then that still would help toward an earlier ToD. Jeff has produced the medical evidence and I’ve added that Annie’s health and advanced lung condition could have slowed down her digestion.

So basically you are speculating on a complete unknown to get you to a point which still doesn’t get you to an earlier ToD. So it’s not exactly a convincing point is it?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

An alternative idea that would account for her not being seen by anyone would be that she was lying dead in the backyard of #29.

Having committed the unforgivable sin of stating that Chapman was not seen by anyone, and being told that it is factually incorrect and that she may have been seen but the sighting not reported, I would not dream of having the temerity to write what you have written above.

I refer you to # 513, in which I asked why it would take Chapman about three and a half hours to find a customer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is Wolf Vanderlinden's interpretation.

I quote from his dissertation 'Considerable Doubt' and the Death of Annie Chapman:


The police were obviously depending upon Dr. Phillips' opinions and his standing as a reliable medical expert when directing the course of their investigations. To the detectives working on the Chapman murder, Dr. Phillips' estimated time of death made Long and Cadosch irrelevant.

This sentiment is also expressed in Swanson's report.

hence the evidence of Mrs. Long which appeared to be so important to the Coroner, must be looked upon with some amount of doubt, which is to be regretted.

This "doubt" apparently soon became the conviction that Mrs. Long's testimony was worthless.

It is now time to look at Dr. Phillips' opinions about the time of death of Annie Chapman, opinions that were supported by Scotland Yard.

That the police of the time would have tended toward supporting the medical expert is hardly surprising. They didn’t realise how unreliable his estimation was.

Look at the way the Yorkshire Police dismissed suspects (like Sutcliffe) and various testimony because they were convinced that the killer had a Geordie accent. The police followed this route because not enough of them question George Oldfield’s confidence and decision-making. So we can hardly criticise the police for assuming that the Doctor was unlikely to have been wrong. There’s no mystery in this.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Swanson was looking at both sides of the story, and demonstrating the contradiction, without expressing any firm conclusion. He considered that if either one of them was correct the other must be incorrect, without concluding that the police favoured one side of the argument.

Up to the present the combined result of those inquiries did not supply the police with the slightest clue to the murderer...

(SWANSON)

He obviously did not believe that Long saw the murderer with Chapman.

[JeffHamm]

[QUOTE=PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1;n824858]



I gave it in # 510.

Perhaps you missed it.

Can I now have your response to # 513 please?[/QUOTE

No.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Having committed the unforgivable sin of stating that Chapman was not seen by anyone, and being told that it is factually incorrect and that she may have been seen but the sighting not reported, I would not dream of having the temerity to write what you have written above.

I refer you to # 513, in which I asked why it would take Chapman about three and a half hours to find a customer.

To say that she hadn’t been seen by anyone is indeed factual incorrect.

To say that she wasn’t reported as being seen by anyone is factually correct.