Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

As you know I am not one that deals in absolutes, so I am quite prepared to consider the possibility that Long did see Annie that morning. My reservations in that regard are that she took three days to come forward, and said that she didn't think that she could identify either of the couple, and of course her caveat, that she saw lots of couples at that time of morning and that was the reason she took no notice of them. I am confident that Packer actually saw Stride because he was initially shown Eddowes body and said that she was not the woman he saw. Did Long pick Annie out of a line-up of one? This detail would clarify both our opinions I would think.

With regard to the time Long needed to get to work, there are possible reasons why it might have taken twice as long as reasonably presumed, such as stopping to talk to acquaintances on the way. The question in my mind is, would she have anticipated such interruptions and decided to leave for work fifteen minutes before the necessary time, or was she just confused about the times in general?

In terms of evidence, Long represents a very light weight on my scale of probabilities. If it could be shown that she picked Annie out of a line-up of more than one, then the weight of her evidence on my scale would become more substantial.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Yah, we're in agreement on Long. And yes, as I say, there are lots of reasons why she might have taken longer, and I wasn't presenting that as any sort of definitive "proof" or anything. Other arguments for concern could be that her memory for her time of leaving was the error, or the locations that have been suggested for her residence are not correct (apparently the address that is given at the inquest for her doesn't exist, so there was an old thread trying to work out where she did live - a few different locations were suggested, but of course if none of them are correct, then who knows how long it would have taken her??). And of course, she could have stopped along the way and all sorts of things. I was just using it as an example of how one might start going about trying to determine where some witness errors might be determined. Obviously, if the "15 minutes to walk" were found to be reasonable, the next step would have been to question her to find out if she did stop along the way, and so forth. We can't do that for obvious reasons, so it would just end up being another thing that doesn't really differentiate, but does provide food for thought. I think, though, if it turned out that her residence was a 30 minute walk away, that would be seen as providing support for her getting the 5:30 chime correct. When I went looking at this idea, I realised that if the locations were of the 15 min type it would do no more than leave the door open, while a 30 minute walk would probably close the idea on misremembering the chime. Again, I'm not pushing this has to be the case, only that it has to be considered as one of the options we still cannot discount.

And I too am concerned that Long's identification might have been a "line up of 1", which is not a great way to do it as such procedures produce higher false positives (not always, as we see with the coffee vendor, but that's a different person).

And yes, Packer did reject Eddowes before picking Stride. But of course, if he knew Stride hadn't been facially mutilated and he had heard of Eddowes' murder, that might not be as good a "line up" as one might hope. Regardless, Packer may indeed have seen Stride, but the problem with his statements is they continuously change and some have suggested his changes seem to correspond with information that appeared in the press. That makes him an unreliable witness and probably he makes for a good example of how the press can indeed influence a witness - and perhaps indicates what sort of behaviours we would expect to see in such a witness.

In the end, as I've said before, I'm of two minds about Long (and most things). While it could indeed be the case that she saw two people unrelated to the crime, it also could be she did indeed see Annie. Her identification of Annie at the morgue should be taken with caution simply because the identification procedure does appear to be of the more unreliable sort. On the other hand, just because there are reasons to consider that she might be wrong doesn't mean she actually was wrong! In the end, though, nothing really changes whether we include or exclude her testimony.

I'm interested in her testimony, mostly because she poses such an ambiguous puzzle to solve, and I'm not concerned with which solution is correct, but I would like to know the correct solution. I'm not sure the information will exist to solve it - but hey, if one doesn't look one will never see.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

...

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. (SWANSON)

My interpretation of Swanson's words differs from yours. I see the first and last parts of the statement as an indication that Richardson was strongly suspected of involvement in the murder, and the middle as commenting that no evidence could be found to substantiate that suspicion.

Hi George.
While I agree with your point above, that there was a shift in Swanson's commentary, from Richardson not seeing the body, to the police treatment of Richardson as a suspect.
It's almost as if a line was missed out. That (the police) "specially directed their attention to him". Certainly appears to suggest he was suspected, or required to be eliminated from suspicion, which is another way of saying the same thing.

What I thought Dr. W. was pointing out was the police had no idea because in their eyes the evidence of Dr. Phillips was neutralized by Mrs Long, and/or vice versa.
That neither could be relied on, them being both subject to equal doubt.

Notice, Swanson makes no mention of the caveat added by Dr. Phillips, Swanson only refers to the time of 4:20, which suggests his (19th Oct.) report was compiled from statements made before the inquest, or before 13 Sept.
That it was only at the inquest when Dr. Phillips thought it expedient to qualify his immediate opinion with the reconsideration of what the ambient temperature & mutilations may have had on his initial estimate.

[Lewis C]

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.

(SWANSON)


Swanson did not conclude from Richardson's apparent innocence that the body was not there at that time.

DW was talking about doubts that Swanson had that Phillips was correct. DW didn't say that Swanson was certain that Phillips was incorrect.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

DW was talking about doubts that Swanson had that Phillips was correct. DW didn't say that Swanson was certain that Phillips was incorrect.

Why then are so many of Swanson's admirers here so sure that Phillips was wrong?

It was Phillips who saw the body and the bloodstains, who felt the stiffening of the limbs, and the coldness of the body.

The experts of today, who we are told know better than Phillips, did none of those things.

And if Phillips' much-made-of caveat had really meant that it was possible that Chapman was murdered at about 5.30 a.m., then why did Swanson not conclude that no body was there at 4.50 a.m. instead of writing it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body?

[Wickerman]

...
And if Phillips' much-made-of caveat had really meant that it was possible that Chapman was murdered at about 5.30 a.m., then why did Swanson not conclude that no body was there at 4.50 a.m. instead of writing it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body?

That's what I meant by Swanson was using the police statement, not the inquest testimony.
All those witnesses gave a statement to police, those are kept as part of the record. When Swanson was asked by Warren to compile a report for the Home Office, he use those police statements. The caveat was not on Phillips's statement, he came up with it at the inquest.
I mentioned that in a previous post, perhaps you didn't understand what I meant?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That's what I meant by Swanson was using the police statement, not the inquest testimony.
All those witnesses gave a statement to police, those are kept as part of the record. When Swanson was asked by Warren to compile a report for the Home Office, he use those police statements. The caveat was not on Phillips's statement, he came up with it at the inquest.
I mentioned that in a previous post, perhaps you didn't understand what I meant?

I did vaguely remember something about that, but how do you know that Swanson was unaware of Phillips' caveat?

[GBinOz]

That it was only at the inquest when Dr. Phillips thought it expedient to qualify his immediate opinion with the reconsideration of what the ambient temperature & mutilations may have had on his initial estimate.

Hi Jon,

Speaking of temperatures, I recall that we were both a little incredulous that doctors would not use thermometers when they had been available for many decades. I was recently scanning some cookbooks and noticed that many of them prescribed oven temperatures by means of descriptions - moderately hot, very hot etc. These descriptions were translated into Celsius or Fahrenheit by means of a table in the back of the book. Could the doctors have been engaging in a similar practice? Descriptions being code for use with a doctor's table of temperatures. What do you think?

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

I did vaguely remember something about that, but how do you know that Swanson was unaware of Phillips' caveat?

It's not that we 'know', it's more about what his report already includes.
Swanson is presenting both sides of an argument; Phillips's early estimate of 2 hours or more, as opposed to Long & Cadosch suggesting Chapman died later.
Had Phillips's caveat been part of the police files, it would have been included.
The fact it is not included shows Phillips produced his caveat at the inquest for the first time, and this was on 13 Sept.

[Trevor Marriott]

That's what I meant by Swanson was using the police statement, not the inquest testimony.
All those witnesses gave a statement to police, those are kept as part of the record. When Swanson was asked by Warren to compile a report for the Home Office, he use those police statements. The caveat was not on Phillips's statement, he came up with it at the inquest.
I mentioned that in a previous post, perhaps you didn't understand what I meant?

I think you are mistaken on that point, one of the first questions the police would ask a doctor at a crime scene is "How long has she been dead" ? it is important for the police to know this approx TOD at the earliest for obvious reasons.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[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.

(SWANSON)


Swanson did not conclude from Richardson's apparent innocence that the body was not there at that time.

I didn't say that he did. We were discussing "doubt". This statement first says, "let's assume that Phillips might be right", and did not accept that he must be right. Then he basically says that Richardson should surely have seen the body if it had been there. Then he adds that his story was checked thoroughly, and the police could not fault it. Absolutely nothing there to say that Swanson was accepting Phillips' ToD, and stating that Richardson was wrong.

The point I was making was that Swanson did not reject Richardson's story. He therefore did not accept that Phillips was correct. He had a doubt. If he didn't have some reservations about Phillps' ToD, he would have rejected Richardson's story, and he didn't do this.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi DW,

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. (SWANSON)

My interpretation of Swanson's words differs from yours. I see the first and last parts of the statement as an indication that Richardson was strongly suspected of involvement in the murder, and the middle as commenting that no evidence could be found to substantiate that suspicion.

As we are both aware, lack of evidence of involvement does not equate to either guilt or innocence.

JMO.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Firstly, I totally agree that the police were suspicious of Richarsdson, and checked out every aspect of his story because they thought he might have been the murderer. I am sure that this is correct.

The point being discussed at the time was the question of "doubt", and whether Swanson was leaning towards an acceptance of Phillips' ToD, and a rejection of the witness evidence. I was making the point that Swanson's comments about Richardson's story do not in any way corroborate this view. Swanson only considers the "what if" in consideration of Phillips' ToD, and does not say anything to suggest that Richardson was wrong. He does not reject Richardson's account.

[Doctored Whatsit]

It's not that we 'know', it's more about what his report already includes.
Swanson is presenting both sides of an argument; Phillips's early estimate of 2 hours or more, as opposed to Long & Cadosch suggesting Chapman died later.
Had Phillips's caveat been part of the police files, it would have been included.
The fact it is not included shows Phillips produced his caveat at the inquest for the first time, and this was on 13 Sept.

I am inclined to agree. Swanson was the "indoors man" who looked at all of the paperwork. He didn't interview witnesses or attend the inquests, for example. We know that his reports occasionally contain little errors like timings. This is in keeping with the genuine consideration that he made his reports to The Home Office totally from the various statements and paperwork in his possession. A minor error on one report that he read could get carried forward into his official report. He may well not have had a copy of the Inquest transcript. That would not necessarily be part of his police paperwork.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

(SWANSON)


It’s always possible to interpret pieces of writing in more than one way but I’d suggest that we have to keep in mind the writer and anyone mentioned in the letter and any relationship that might have existed between them; in this case a senior Police Officer and a respected Police doctor. Swanson is talking about a piece of witness evidence which is at variance with the doctor’s estimation. Caution and professional respect clearly comes into play here and although he’s an experienced police officer Swanson isn’t medically qualified and would naturally have been reluctant to doubt a doctor’s conclusion; especially in print. In this case I’d say that the interpretation is fairly clear.


If the evidence of Dr. Phillips is correct as to time of death, - so he’s using the word ‘if’ which introduces the possibility that it might not have been but without specifically doubting Phillips estimation.


..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 - Again he’s remaining neutral here. He’s not saying ‘Richardson didn’t see it so it couldn’t have been there.’ Nor is he saying ‘If the doctor got it right then how come there was no body there according to the witness.’ Swanson is simply laying out the facts of the conflicting evidence.


..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 - Now he’s letting everyone know that the witness, who it would be his usual inclination to doubt in favour of a competent professional, was thoroughly looked into and checked and that nothing could be found to his detriment. So the witness couldn’t be dismissed.


..although police specially directed their attention to him. - He ends by stressing how closely they looked at Richardson’s evidence. Emphasising his apparent reliability.



So it’s pretty obvious that while it would usually be the case that the doctor’s estimation would be favoured, in this case they have what appears to have been, after a rigorous investigation, an apparently reliable witness that disputes the original estimation. Who Swanson favoured is impossible to tell with certainty but he’s clearly not dismissing Richardson. I’d say that he’s employing professional tact while suggesting that it looked possible Phillips could have been wrong.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I have read everyone's reply.

No-one has argued that Swanson was unaware of Phillips' caveat.

Posters previously argued that Phillips' caveat allowed for the possibility that Chapman died at about 5.30 a.m.

In that case, there would be no conflict between Phillips' and Richardson's testimony, yet Swanson considered them to be irreconcilable.

That suggests that he understood that Phillips' 'at least two hours' was not reduced by his caveat.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Swanson wasn’t a medical man. He didn’t have the easy access to medical knowledge that we have today. It’s entirely possible and plausible that he hadn’t noted the caveat’s significance or that he understood it but realised that Phillips only meant that it as an ‘outside chance’ and that he still favoured a ToD of 4.30 or earlier based on his own knowledge (which was of course limited to the medical knowledge of 1888) Therefore Swanson was plainly stating the contradiction as he saw it.

Coroner Baxter, who was experienced at listening to and understanding medical testimony, and who was at the inquest and heard Phillips report in full and verbatim had no doubt whatsoever as to the meaning of the caveat. Baxter clearly trumps Swanson on this point.

Swanson was simply summing up the evidence as it stood. He had no reason to hold back on making any judgment call on which was likelier but this is exactly what he didn’t do. This strongly suggests that Swanson simply accepted the fact that there was a discrepancy. There was nothing to have prevented him stating something like “…but as Dr. Phillips estimated a ToD of 4.30 or earlier then the witness Richardson was likely to have been mistaken in some way.”

But he didn’t did he?

Its very simple, obvious stuff.

Personally, I think that he did doubt Phillips estimation but he didn’t want to go on record as doubting his own expert. He left the decisions to others closer to the ground on the investigation.