Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

[QUOTE=JeffHamm;n824863]

I gave it in # 510.

Perhaps you missed it.

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

No.

You expect me to answer your questions, but you will not answer mine, even though you implied that you would.

[A P Tomlinson]

I like how this thread has from "21st century science tells us that people have bad memories so Albert Cadosche is unreliable" to "21st century science knows naff all compared to a 19th century doctor in terms of establishing Time of Death. people trusted his opinion so Philips was right!"

I mentioned this before on the previous thread, but since this is a new one it's been ignored.
The fact that the killer plunged a 5-6" blade in below the sternum is highly likely (I'm not saying "certain" because I know that THAT word would become the focus of attention rather than the substance...) to have torn open the stomach. Add that the killer removed the small intestine by severing it from the end that connects to the stomach via the mesenteric valve, anything that was at that end of the intestine would have been squeezed back out with some going back into the stomach via the pyloric (? trying to remember the names. My Mrs explained it to me... but...) sphincter, and as the cut to sever the intestine was made the rest would be squeezed into the open cavity in which the mutilations were being performed.

Philips performed his divination without the aid of a thermometre, using inadequate understanding, didn't measure lividity, temp or rigor over any period of time, and when adding his caveat to his ToD, forgot to mention that there was a considerable amount (about 5 or 6 metres...) of internal organs missing from the body that would also have contributed (in fact far more so) to a body being colder than one found dead of natural causes in a hospital bed. (The standard by which he was measuring)
All he did was estimate the difference in temperature between the back of his own hand and that of the surface of the body.
And if the police accepted what he said that's because they knew even less about the science he was practising than HE did!

Here is an addendum to what I said before... Potatoe, as people have pointed out, is very starchy and fairly lightly bound. On death the process of digestion stops as the muscles cease working, but the gastric acid does not stop being acidic immediately. Potatoes eaten four hours prior to death stand a pretty good chance of having dissolved into chyme by that time dead or alive.


I'm not engaging in any back and fro with this, till it gets back to the subject I was advised to focus on by the person who started the thread, who seems to have once again ignored their own advice.

So far I've still seen nothing that suggests Albert Cadosch was unreliable, and just another descent into a desperate push for an earlier Time of Death for Chapman.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just a list of variables.


That Annie met her killer and was killed at 4.30 or before.

That Annie met a punter but spent the money on something else.

That Annie met a punter but was robbed.

That Annie met a punter but she considered it too late to waste money on a bed for such a short time so kept the money for later in the day.

That Annie met a punter who took the money back (with the threat of violence or actual violence)

That Annie didn’t find a punter after an hour or so and gave up.

That Annie decided to sleep in a doorway somewhere.

That Annie met a friend and they both found a spot to sleep.

That Annie met a friend who had a room.

That Annie kept some of the potatoes that she eaten in the doss house kitchen and then ate them before she bedded down in a doorway.

That Annie had some other item of food on her like a crust of bread which she ate in a doorway before sleep.

That Annie met a friend who took pity on her and shared some item of food with her.

That Annie stole an item of food from the doss house kitchen and at it later.

That Annie found some item of food that perhaps had fallen from a coasters cart into the gutter.

That the only punter she ran into had no money but offered to pay her in some item of food that she considered at least something.

That her killer gave her some food which she ate as they walked to number 29 (as per Packer)

That Annie earned the money but her bed had been let and Donovan didn’t want to admit that he’d turned her out to her death.

That Annie didn’t eat but there were still remnants of food in her stomach (as per Jeff’s medical evidence)

That Annie’s serious health issues slowed down her digestion (as per medical evidence)


How far can speculation take us? How can we rate any as likely or unlikely?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

[Phillips] ... when adding his caveat to his ToD, forgot to mention that there was a considerable amount (about 5 or 6 metres...) of internal organs missing from the body that would also have contributed (in fact far more so) to a body being colder than one found dead of natural causes in a hospital bed.

The same thing happened to Eddowes, with the intestines thrown over the shoulder on the same side and in similar weather conditions.

Posters are arguing that Chapman, who was almost completely cold, had been dead for only about one hour.

Eddowes was examined about 42 minutes after death, yet was still warm.

So far I've still seen nothing that suggests Albert Cadosch was unreliable, and just another descent into a desperate push for an earlier Time of Death for Chapman.

If Long was earlier than she thought, then why would she have mistaken the quarter hour chime for the half hour chime, even though they were different, and she went to the market regularly?

And why would she state that she arrived at the market a few minutes after half past if it was actually only a few minutes after a quarter past?

And why would no-one at the market note that she was early, or do you think everyone else there was living in a parallel universe where everything happened a quarter of an hour earlier?

And if, alternatively, Cadoche mistakenly thought it was earlier than it was, why did his colleagues or superiors at work not notice that he arrived late, or were they too living in a parallel universe in which everything happened a quarter of an hour later?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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

Let me know if you receive an answer.

I made a similar point in the post immediately preceding yours, in response to Jeff's request that I answer a question of his, but he has since indicated that he will not answer my questions.

[JeffHamm]

[QUOTE=PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1;n824866]

You expect me to answer your questions, but you will not answer mine, even though you implied that you would.

Correction. I expected you to answer my question. Twice you didn't, hence I'm not answering yours. See how it works? It's not rocket science after all.

- Jeff

[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

The only reason our conversation is one-sided is that although I have offered you an explanation in # 510, you indicated in # 524 that you will not answer my # 508 (not # 513 as previously stated, although it is quoted there).

[JeffHamm]

The only reason our conversation is one-sided is that although I have offered you an explanation in # 510, you indicated in # 524 that you will not answer my # 508 (not # 513 as previously stated, although it is quoted there).

Your post at 510 wasn't an answer to my question. It was a reply, but saying "hello" is a reply, but not an answer if the question was "What time is it?".

But, ok. My response is "Yes, it is sunny today."

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

[QUOTE=JeffHamm;n824872]

Correction. I expected you to answer my question. Twice you didn't, hence I'm not answering yours. See how it works? It's not rocket science after all.

- Jeff

I was not aware of any time limit by which I have to answer your questions.

If you refuse to answer questions posed by other posters, even after having said that you would do so, what actually are you doing here?

[JeffHamm]

[QUOTE=PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1;n824875]

I was not aware of any time limit by which I have to answer your questions.

If you refuse to answer questions posed by other posters, even after having said that you would do so, what actually are you doing here?

see above

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Your post at 510 wasn't an answer to my question. It was a reply, but saying "hello" is a reply, but not an answer if the question was "What time is it?".

But, ok. My response is "Yes, it is sunny today."

- Jeff

It was an answer to your question.

Your talking about the weather, on the other hand, is not an answer to anything.

You're being facetious.

[JeffHamm]

It was an answer to your question.

Your talking about the weather, on the other hand, is not an answer to anything.

You're being facetious.

Correction. I'm being equivalent.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Correction. I'm being equivalent.

- Jeff

If you were being 'equivalent', you would have answered by now.

And I note that you have not answered George, who made a similar point to mine, either.

Are you going to ignore him too, or are you planning to send him a weather forecast instead?

[jmenges]

This is getting ridiculous.

JM

[Doctored Whatsit]

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.

There is absolutely no connection whatever between your quote above "up to the present the combined result of those enquiries did not supply the slightest clue to the murderer", and Long's statement or Swanson's opinion as to its reliability. Your interpretation by linking them together is therefore totally irrelevant and without foundation.

The quote refers to and follows an account of certain listed police enquiries since the murder, for example at 29 Hanbury St, other lodging houses, pawnbrokers, the "insane students", and "other women of the same class" etc. Swanson wrote that those specific enquiries produced no evidence of value. The comment has nothing to do with Long's account, so you cannot claim that it "obviously" establishes anything about Swanson's opinion of Long.