|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1016
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 20, 2003 - 6:17 pm: |       |
G'day,
At 5:25 a.m. on Sept. 8th, Albert Cadosch (who lived next door to No. 29 Hanbury Street), heard someone say "No"., apparently from the backyard of No. 29. He took no notice.
Three minutes later, he heard something fall against the fence. He took no notice.
Two minutes after that, at 5:30a.m. Mrs. Long saw a man and woman talking near no. 29. She positively identified the woman as Annie Chapman, but only saw the man's back.
Do we all think that what Mr. Cadosch heard was Annie's final words and movements? Or was it just an indication that the spot was being used as a 'safe' spot for prostitution?
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1611
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 21, 2003 - 8:38 am: | |
Hi Leanne
Who knows? Maybe Chapman serviced a client in the yard, then returned to the front door and waited for another to turn up - the one seen by Long.
Robert |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 180
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 21, 2003 - 3:27 pm: | |
You have to understand -- wrist watches and clocks were not as ubiquitous as they are today. A watch in particular was considered an item for the rich. Times are bound to be approximate. |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 76
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 21, 2003 - 3:35 pm: | |
Hi Leanne & Robert,
In his dissertation "Long -vs- Cadoche", as far as I can see, Dave Yost gives a very plausible explanation for both Cadoche and Long having witnessed contact between Annie Chapman and her killer.
Here's a fragment of that dissertation:
"From the junction of Hanbury Street and Brick Lane to the markets is about 575 feet, which would take Long about four minutes to travel. Since Long turned onto Hanbury Street at 5:30, she would have arrived at the markets at around 5:34 am, which corresponds with her description of a "few minutes after half-past five". However, Long also tells us that it took her a half-hour to travel from her home in Church Row to the corner of Hanbury Street and Brick Lane (she somewhere stated she left home around 5 o'clock). From the corner of Church Row and Hare Street to the junction of Hanbury Street and Brick Lane is about 2100 feet. This would take Long about twelve minutes to walk. Because she did not mention that she stopped somewhere along the way, we can not merely assume that she might have. Even if we allow some extra time, this means that she would have arrived at Hanbury Street at about 5:15 am. Remember that after she left home, Long only mentions the time via the Brewer’s Clock, which she had already passed. She heard the clock chime and most likely assumed it was 5:30 am. By the time she had arrived at the markets it would have been closer to 5:20 am, instead of 5:34 am."
Accepting Dave Yost's explanation, I would say that Cadoche witnessed Annie's final word.
All the best,
Frank
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 477
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 21, 2003 - 4:35 pm: | |
Hi Frank.
Well observed, The results of that experiment, will be in our book, I painstakingly, and hopefully accurately, retraced that experiment, and the time span cannot be faulted. I am confident Mrs Long , and Albert cadouche, both witnessed events concerning the same person.
Richard. |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 78
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 21, 2003 - 5:32 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the confirmation, and I'm looking forward to your book.
Frank |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1618
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 21, 2003 - 5:41 pm: | |
Hi Richard
I'm definitely going to have to get your book!
Robert |
Neil K. MacMillan
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 61
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 3:21 pm: | |
Diana: Didn't one of the witnesses state that they knew he time because they heard the church bell chime? I don't have my copy of "The Ultimate Jack the ripper" handy at present but I believe it was John Richardson.
I agree Cadoche over heard Chapmans final word but it is still possible that the area was unsed as a trysting site. Kindest regards, Neil |
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 859
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 3:49 pm: | |
Hi all
Interesting thread. I thought it might be of some interest to post the work I have done on Albert Cadosch (this is the spelling consistently used in the census returns) and am posting below.
Chris
Albert Cadoche/Cadosch
1881 census
Address: 54 Finnis Street, London
Head:
Albert Cadosch aged 21 born Paris, France - Glass cutter
Wife:
Alice Cadosch aged 22 born Coggeshall, Essex - Dressmaker
Children:
Isabella Cadosch aged 3 born Paddington
Hannah Cadosch aged 6 months born Bethnal Green
Other:
Fred French aged 16 - Son in Law (sic - should probably read brother in law) born Coggeshall, Essex - General porter
Herbert French aged 14 - Brother in law - born Coggeshall, Essex - Carman's boy
From the place of birth and relationship to head of household, the last two listed above would be the younger brothers of Albert's wife, which gives us her maiden name as Alice French.
1891 Census
Address: 44 Stanwell Street, St Giles, Colchester, Essex
Head:
Albert Cadosch aged 31 born Paris, France - Fruit dealer
Wife:
Alice Cadosch aged 32 born Coggeshall, Essex - Shopkeeper
Children:
Hannah Cadosch aged 10 born Bethnal Green
Ethel Cadosch aged 9 born Bethnal Green
Frederick Cadosch aged 7 born Bethnal Green
Herbert Cadosch aged 5 born Bethnal Green
Gladys Cadosch aged 7 months born Bethnal Green
1901 Census
I was unable to trace Albert in the 1901 census. At the Colchester address the following family members were living:
Alice aged 42 - Tailoress
Ethel aged 18 - Tailoress
Fred aged 17 - postman
Hannah aged 20 - Dressmaker
Herbert aged 15 - Office boy tailoress factory
there is one additional child:
Nellie Cadosch aged 8 born Colchester, Essex
There are two others of this surname listed in 1901:
Elizabeth Cadosch aged 60 - born Lambeth - living in Bethnal Green - Confectioner
Esther Cadosch aged 33 - born Mile End New town - living Bethnal Green - Plain needle worker
It is possible, but only surmise, that this may be Albert's mother and a sister.
Re: the above two listings - I looked back at the 1891 census and found these two still living at 27 Hanbury Street, so the identification is certain. The reason for not picking them up before was that the surname has been transcribed as Cadosck. The listing for 1891 for this household is as follows:
27 Hanbury Street, Christchurch, Spitalfields
Head:
Elizabeth Cadosch aged 50 born Lambeth - Widow - China and glass dealer
Children:
Esther Cadosch aged 24 born Mile End
Irma (?) Cadosch aged 22 born Spitalfields
|
Neil K. MacMillan
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 65
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 4:01 pm: | |
Chris:
Wasn't Cadosch a carpenter of some sort? I assumed the reason he heard Chapman was that he lived at 27 Hanbury Street. I wonder if he saw more than he let on. Neil |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 641
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 4:02 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
Your researches are invaluable to these boards, it is a pity you were not around at the time of these murders, the police could have done with some help.
If anyone is going to point us in the right direction it is you.
Regards Richard. |
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 860
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 5:53 pm: | |
Richard
many thanks for the comments - always glad to know efforts are appreciated:-)
Neil:
The two snapshots we have of Cadosch (1881 and 1891) show him intwo very different occupations - glass cutter in 1881 and fruitdealer in 1891. The glass cutter connection is easy to expalin - his mother is listed as a china and glass dealer in 1891. The fruit business he presumably set up when he moved to Essex - his wife is listed as the shopkeeper. Also his wife's family came from Coggeshall in Essex, which is very near Colchester.
I don't think we can necessarily infer that Albert was actually living at No 27 hanbury Street at the time of the murders. let us not forget John Richardson at No 29 who used to visit early to check the premises were secure. Albert may well have been on a similar errand at that time of the morning or have have been staying with his widowed mother.
By the way since my last post I have traced Albert's mother and sister at a different address in 1881 (and under yet another spelling!!)
11 Buckle Street, London
Head:
Elizabeth Cadosck (sic) aged 40 born Lambeth - Tailoress
Daughter:
Irma Cadosck aged 12 born Spitalfields.
Regards
chris
|
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 861
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 6:00 pm: | |
Just for info Finnis Street where Cadosch is listed as living in 1881 (and may well still have been living at the time of the murders) was just off the north end of Brady Street which at its lower end joined Buck's Row. It is marked with an arrow in the map below
C
 |
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 862
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 6:09 pm: | |
Also traced the other road where Cadosch's mother lived prior to Hanbury Street. This is Buckle Street (top left in map below) which is very close to Berner Street (extreme right in map)
Chris
 |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 218
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 6:28 pm: | |
Hi, Chris and Neil
Regarding Cadosch's address: Inspector Swanson wrote in a 19 October 1888 report that Cadosch lived at No. 27. However, The Star, 10 September 1888, lists the house on the other side of No. 29 as his address:
About twenty-five minutes past five Albert Cadosch, living at No. 31, the next house on the left-hand side, entered the yard adjoining that of No. 29.
But I believe Cadosch stated at the Chapman inquest that he did reside at No. 27. Apparently the Star reporter got his houses mixed up.
Cheers,
Dave |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 400
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 9:33 am: | |
David
Just for interest, this is from the Irish Times, 10th September and gives the names of some of the residents of No 31.
Mrs Elizabeth Bell, of 31 Hanbury street, stated to a reporter all she knew of the matter, in the following words:- I have been living here some time and I wish I had never come. Such a terrible sight is enough to shock any woman with the hardest heart. The house is open all night next door, and this poor creature was taken into the yard, and butchered, no doubt by the same man who committed the others. We were all roused at six o’clock this morning by Adam Osborne calling out, “For God’s sake get up; here’s a woman murdered.” We all got up and huddled on our clothes, and on going into the yard saw the poor creature lying by the steps in the next yard with her clothes torn and her body gashed in a dreadful manner. The people in the house next door were all asleep, I believe and knew nothing of the matter until the police came and roused them up. I cannot be sure if anybody in the house knew of the murder or took part in it, but I believe not. The passage is open all night, and anyone can get in, and no doubt that is what happened.” All the other tenants of the house gave the same opinion, and those in the house of Mr Richardson at 29, where the murder occurred, state that they heard no cries of “Murder” or “Help” or anything unusual during the night. |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 220
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 1:08 pm: | |
Thanks for posting that, Alan. I enjoy reading the newspaper articles.
All,
Re-reading Cadosch's inquest testimony, it seems he wasn't entirely sure if the conversation he overhead came from No. 29.
As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from. I went indoors, but returned to the yard about three or four minutes afterwards. While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.
However, Cadosch has no doubt that whatever fell (or sort of fell) against the fence was on No. 29's side, so I guess it's probable that's where the conversation came from as well. But it's worth noting that Cadosch himself couldn't say for sure.
Cheers,
Dave
|
M.Mc.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 1:49 pm: | |
 Why didn't this guy have the bright idea to look over the fence to see what was going on behind it? I guess being a male and not a female means he wasn't as snoopy eh? I would have looked over that fence and likely seen the Ripper going at his gory work. Of course the next thing I would have done is scream so loud as to wake everybody up in that area. But this guy just minds his own business and walks way! Why? |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 221
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 12:12 pm: | |
That's what someone said to Cadosch at the inquest. I wish he'd looked over the fence, too. But who expects Jack the Ripper to be next door?
At the inquest, Cadosch never explained what he was doing hanging around his backyard at such a strange hour, but the jury made a tactful statement that he'd undergone some kind of an operation and that curiosity over what was happening at No. 29 wasn't his motivation in being outside.
The feeling is that Cadosch's attention was focused on No. 27's outhouse. Since he made two visits pretty much on top of each other, his business must have been urgent.
Best,
Dave
|
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 131
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 2:12 pm: | |
M.Mc
Look at how many people lived at 29 Hanbury in 1888 and consider that the other houses in the street were probably as crowded. Consider all those people used a single privy in the backyard of each house. Consider as well that the backyard of 29 was often used by prostitutes and their customers. Consider finally that the only sounds heard by Cadoche were a muted "No" and later a thump.
The backyard at 29 was probably alive with the sounds of constant comings and going in the early hours of the morning, so why should Cadoche have been particularly curious that morning? In a way it is surprising he was cognizant of anything having happened.
Don.
|
M.Mc.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 4:09 pm: | |
Sorry but I still cannot understand why this guy would not at least wonder what was going on over the fence. Not with the killings that had taken place even then. But I guess I think too much like a detective. 
I'm a stalking victim and I also live in Houston so maybe that makes me a bit more snoopy than anyone else. (???) I look around and notice anything out of place. I always look over my fence if I hear something going on over there. Usually I only find a cat or a racoon or something like that. I hope never to find my stalker back there but I can't be too careful. So far my stalker has only made a big fat pest of himself. But in any event, I guess it makes me wrong to assume everyone would take a look behind that fence.  My bad. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 5:17 am: | |
M.Mc.
"Sorry but I still cannot understand why this guy would not at least wonder what was going on over the fence."
Why would he? All sorts of things happened all times of night, there wouldn't be anything particularly strange about it.
OK, let's try this.
Back in college for a year I lived in a house that was only a block away from the main strip of bars. The town had an unusual law that bars could only get liquor licenses if they were within two or three blocks of the police station. So there they all were, with rowdy drunken college students almost every night.
There was a tiny little public park next door too. There was pretty much nothing but the corner of the block with grass and a picnic table or two. I'm not even sure if it had a tree or anything.
Often couples (probably recently met, lubricated with alcohol) would hang out in the park at night. A few of them would sometimes get the bright idea to hop into our backyard and have some fun. Sometimes we'd only realize it when party remains (condom wrappers, etc.) turned up out there, sometimes we heard noises.
I'd hate to think that if anyone had ever been killed back there that I'd have people 100 years later wondering why I didn't just go try to spy on the people outside that night.
If he had looked everybody would call him a voyeur, and because he didn't people are calling him strange. The innocent bystanders in this case can't win. But at least nobody (that I know of) has called him the Ripper. |
Eric Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 1:30 am: | |
M.Mc- I live in Houston too, on the east side and like you, I always check out noises. When I lived in apartments and heard noises outside at night, I looked out my window. Got to see a silly fight once at about 2AM. Now that I live in a house, I still check things out when my dog barks or I hear something downstairs. (The bumps in the night turned out to be mice. I am presently in a pitched battle to get them out of my house, since they refuse to pay rent).  |
M.Mc.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 1:31 pm: | |
This subject is getting rather funny really.  Did anyone will notice that I have proven one thing for sure? Some people notice what goes on around them while others do not.
One note: Being snoopy is not as bad as being a "voyeur" that's apples and oranges. A voyeur will go out looking for others kissing and such for their own little odd pleasure. Where as a snoopy person is one who just wonders what the heck is going on around them no matter what it is. Just to clear that for the record. Okay?  |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 10:24 pm: | |
M.Mc. wrote:
"One note: Being snoopy is not as bad as being a "voyeur" that's apples and oranges."
Well, normally, yes, but if that backyard was used for prositution on even a semi-regular basis (it's doubtful that that night was the one and only time anyone ever thought to try that back there) there's every likelihood that the neighbors would know that it was. And if they knew that that was likely to be going on, snooping on the basis of what Cadosch heard (man and women talking, a thump) would most likely be watching others have sex. The fact that in this one particular case it wasn't was something there's no way Cadosch could have guessed based upon the things he reported. |
Erin Sigler
Police Constable
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 5
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 3:57 pm: | |
Why didn't anyone respond to the cries of "Murder!" at at least two of the crime scenes? I get the feeling (and I believe at least one of the witnesses said as much during her inquest testimony) that this sort of thing was quite common in the East End and as such, unworthy of anything more than casual observation, if that. No one stopped to help Liz Stride, either, and there were at least two witnesses to the attack on her. I suppose it can be credited to the "Kitty Genovese" syndrome: Everyone hopes someone else will stop and help, so no one does. |
Busy Beaver
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 4:18 pm: | |
Just like today, no-one likes to help just in case they get hurt themselves. JTR scared people s**tless, even Policemen walking the beat were too frightened to walk around the corner just in case they met Jack. I think this is fairly evident in the Mitre Square case, where a policeman, funnily enough did not see anything- as he was far too sacred too look. No one wanted to see anything for the fear of nightmares and mayby the possibility of forever looking over their shoulders. Thomas Bowyer said "I shall not forget what I saw for the rest of my life" upon seeing the remains of MJK. Who would want to live with that memory? Not me that's for sure! |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
