Ripperologist 132: June 2013

[Bridewell]

Without wishing to pee on any parade, but before certain things are accepted as gospel, I think it is only fair to point out that some of Colin's contentions are just his personal theories which have yet to be shown to be true

I've presented the arguments behind my thinking and they have yet to be shown to be untrue. I have explained what I think and why I think it, but I await developments with interest.

- the American connection he pooh-poohs seems to be true, and there is very compelling evidence for two Albert Cadosches (and so no bigimous marriage).

I've covered this in the current article. If there is, as you say, very compelling evidence for a second Albert Cadosch (other than a son of the same name) I shall be as interested as anyone to see it.

I know of ongoing research that may require a drastic revision of the Cadosch story, but one that conforms more accurately with the family tradition.

I'm intrigued because I haven't found any evidence in the historical record of two co-existing Albert Cadosches.

[Bridewell]

It would seem that Esther was born in New York, but her birth registered in London.

The birth record I've seen records the birth as having been at an address on Brick Lane.

[Rubyretro]

The birth record I've seen records the birth as having been at an address on Brick Lane.

That is true, but although the 'New York' story of Esther's birth seems a bit off the wall, the fact is that Elizabeth Southward had emigrated to New York in 1852, when she was aged 12.

Her Father died in New York in 1860, and her brother returned to London in 1862.

At some point Elizabeth returned to London, most probably after 1862 and before March 1866, when Esther was born.

Although, Esther's birth is registered as being at Brick Lane, Elizabeth gave her birth on the 1871 census as having been in New York. Since Elizabeth really had recently returned from New York when Esther was born, it seems most probable that the child had been born there, but was registered in London to avoid complications.

[Rubyretro]

I've covered this in the current article. If there is, as you say, very compelling evidence for a second Albert Cadosch (other than a son of the same name) I shall be as interested as anyone to see it.

I shall put up some of the pointers today, if I have time...

[Scott Nelson]

Simon's piece, "One Lone Manaic Too Many" was interesting. I took a different spin on Leather Apron, arguing that he was a real composite of several men roaming about Whitechapel at the time. The Chapman angle is interesting, as is Stanley. Wasn't there an Australian named Saxby looking into him at one point? I'm sure part two will pull everything together and we'll hear more about John Richardson.

Someone once said the entire case solution can be unraveled from the testimony of John Richardson.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Scott,

Thank you. Glad you found Part One interesting.

Are you thinking of Cecil Saxby, the retired Scotland Yard detective who in the 1980s gave lectures on cruise-ships and at country clubs, and who quite fancied the Prince Eddy/cover-up scenario?

Regards,

Simon

[Scott Nelson]

I don't think so. He was an Australian researcher. Can't remember the first name, though.

[DVV]

Someone once said the entire case solution can be unraveled from the testimony of John Richardson.

Who said so ?

[Rubyretro]

Re Cadosch :

Alice French gives herself as married in 1901.
When Fred Cadosch enlisted at Colchester in 1902, he gave his father (and mother) as next of kin.
When Herbert Cadosch enlisted in 1904, he gave his next of kin as his mother and brother.


Why, if Charles Albert's whereabouts had been unknown to his family since 1891/3, would
Fred give his father as next of kin over 10 years later ?

The logical reason is that Charles Albert was known to be alive by his family in 1901/02, and
known to be dead by 1904, when Herbert enlisted.


- There is a possible death certificate for Charles Albert in Paris, in late 1901, which would
fit. This is a recent find though, and a trip needs to be made to Paris to investigate this further.


-There is a newspaper report of 20th Sept 1888, which says “...of the palings leading from that house to No. 27, where resides the young man Cadosh, ...”

Charles Albert would surely have been 28ish ( forgive me, top of my head) and would not be described as a 'young' man in 1888. Furthermore, there is no evidence that he nor his wife and children were living anywhere but Finnis Street at this date, and Charles Albert was a porter.

It infers to me that there was another, younger, Albert Cadosch, who was a carpenter, and who resided with his father in Hanbury street in 1888, and was the witness in the Jack the Ripper case. I believe that a member of the Cadosh family suggested as much. If the urological disease was inherited via Paul Cadosch, then young Albert probably suffered from it too.

Since there is no indication that this young half brother was the son of Elizabeth Southward,
he would have been illegitimate with a different mother. Just as Esther Southward was born with her mother's surname , I believe that there is a birth certificate for young Albert, but not under Cadosch. His first name might not even have been registered as Albert.

It might not be impossible to trace him though, as there are some clues, and a couple of possibles that need to be worked on.

[Lechmere]

And Alice French described herself as a widow in 1911 - for the first time.
Could the guy in the photo - taken around 1880 - pass as being in his early 20s over ten years later?

[Monty]

"There is a possible death certificate for Charles Albert in Paris, in late 1901, which would
fit. This is a recent find though, and a trip needs to be made to Paris to investigate this further."

How do you mean possible? Do you mean you aren't sure?

As for the age thing, not sure that news report mentions an name, thereore its logical to assume that the reporter went on looks alone, and to him Cadosche may have looked young.

Is this fascinating evidence be presented properly or are we to endure a debated thread of conjecture?

I, Personally, would like to see this alternate evidence presented clearly, as it deserves to be.

Monty

[Lechmere]

Monty
I think you'll find that it has been clearly stated that research is ongoing, but the situation very much points to two Alberts.
The matter was just raised as it was too readily bring accepted as gospel that there was just one - a bigamist who knocked ten years off his age.

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Lechmere,


if the research is ongoing then how can you be sure to make any ascertains at this stage?

Jenni

[Monty]

Ed,

Then surely it would be wise to wait until the reseach is concluded best it can be, and presented, before dimissing others research.


Monty

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

"There is a possible death certificate for Charles Albert in Paris, in late 1901, which would
fit. This is a recent find though, and a trip needs to be made to Paris to investigate this further."

How do you mean possible? Do you mean you aren't sure?

Lets put it this way, Monty ( and Neil, you know that I am not an aggressive person - you met me ) -of course I'm not sure; if I were sure then I would have told you.
I had no intention of bringing any of this up before having all the certain information, but my hand was a bit forced.
The person who is doing the most research is bilingual, as I am, in French. It looks like it is Charles Albert, but it needs to be confirmed.

You didn't put into the equation that the Cadosch family believed that Charles Albert went to France. Neither that the date of death fits with what his wife and children are telling us across the known documentation.

I'm excited that this is the death certificate -if it isn't, then I am pretty confidant that we will find the right one in Paris...but I think that it will turn out to be good..,.

As for the age thing, not sure that news report mentions an name, thereore its logical to assume that the reporter went on looks alone, and to him Cadosche may have looked young.

There's quite a big age gap. We can look at a photo of Charles Albert now, and see that he didn't look amazingly or strangely young for his age. Nor was he resident in Hanbury Street, and nor was he a carpenter.

Is this fascinating evidence be presented properly or are we to endure a debated thread of conjecture?

I, Personally, would like to see this alternate evidence presented clearly, as it deserves to be.

I personally won't mention another thing - certainly not enter into a thread of conjecture - ( and that was always my intention) until there are the hard
documents. Until then, to echo Lechmere, be aware that Colin's interpretation is only his interpretation. Use Occam's knife in the meantime..the pointers are that the man in Newcastle and Charles Albert Cadosch are two different people, as part of the Cadosch family originally
believed until Colin convinced them otherwise.