Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[Herlock Sholmes]

A 'good memory for faces', usually refers to the ability to associate a face with a name - not the ability to briefly observe a stranger while passing them by, and recognizing the same face a few days later, at a mortuary.
Wynne Baxter might have thought Long's testimony to be a big deal, but with 21st century knowledge of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony, we can safely ignore Long.

Knowledge of Annie’s name was irrelevant. She saw Annie’s face and said that it was the same person that she’d seen at the mortuary.

That seems to be the situation. You're admitting here that you don't even 'get' what people like ABE and myself are arguing.

I’m either stupid or I just think you’re exaggerating it’s relevance.

All you're doing here is justifying Cadosch in not taking an interest in what he had heard.
However, there is no question of Cadosch being criticized for not being more aware.

What I’m doing is saying that a discrepancy or an unknown or a doubt is no reason to completely dismiss evidence. We aren’t in a court room. We are discussing things that we cannot know for a fact.

There seems to be some agreement that what Albert heard, sounds quite like the murder is taking place.
In that case, having already heard the 'no, no', then hearing a scuffle and a sort of fall against the fence, he must do one of two things:

1. Take an interest in what he has heard, by paying more attention, and yes, even boldly peering over the fence
2. Regard the sounds as mundane, and therefore inconsequential - leading to him forgetting about what he had heard by the time he walks out onto the street, and never reporting the non-incident to the police

No. That’s not a valid inference. If he heard a ‘no’ and a sound these are not complex. He wasn’t being asked to recall a conversation or a complicated interaction.

The sounds appeared trivial when he heard them but gained relevance after he’d heard about the murder.

Your understanding of Cadosch seems to be like this:

Cadosch payed little attention to those sounds, but his brain faithfully stored everything he had heard in memory, and recalled it all when Albert heard about the murder, and went to the police to give them all the details.

That is not how human memory works.

Cadosch didn’t need to be Stephen Hawking to remember a ‘no’ and a sound. Your exaggerating. Again.

[Herlock Sholmes]

How about this interpretation (my addition in bold);

"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 [of that yard] it came from."

Excellent point Joshua. But didn’t you know that you’re breaking the rules by not employing the most sinister interpretation?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have said many times that Cadosh`s evidence is unsafe, the following extract from the inquest clearly proves that point.

"It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. 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 just wish people would take the blinkers off and apply some common sense to the testimony instead of inventing possible uncorroborated scenarios.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Common sense?!

Trevor we are all interpreting here. We have no choice. Just saying that a witness ‘might’ have been telling the truth is not the same as saying that he was telling the truth.

If we all adopted your thinking it would be impossible to discuss the case because you don’t allow for interpretation (whether for or against) You simply dismiss every witness. I’ve asked you this before Trevor but is there a single witness in the case that shouldn’t be dismissed?

[Fisherman]

What I’m doing is saying that a discrepancy or an unknown or a doubt is no reason to completely dismiss evidence.

That depends wholly on the character of that discrepancy, Herlock. And in this case, it is of a magnitude that actually calls upon us to dismiss Cadosch. We cannot use his evidence and hope to be taken seriously any more. That is the way I look upon it. The fact that we are not in a court room is somewhat irrelevant. Regradless if we are there oo on an internet forum, the discrepancies inbetween Cadoscheīs original statement and his inquest testimony has the exact same impact - or is should have. We cannot put trust in him, and so he must be dismissed.
If we want to try and compromise and put together some sort of story that involves elements of what he said is of course up to each and every one of us, but the problem is that it is perfectly legit not to accept any such suggestion.
Albert Cadosch is effectively out, Iīm afraid.

[Fisherman]

Excellent point Joshua. But didn’t you know that you’re breaking the rules by not employing the most sinister interpretation?

See post 195. In it, you will find two different quotes from two different papers that make it very clear that Cadosch stated that he could not hear from which backyard the voice emanated. And they are paper articles, mind you, not "sinister interpretations". It seems clear to me that some of the papers condensed away the important point that Cadosch could not say which yard the voice came from.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Cadosch didn’t need to be Stephen Hawking to remember a ‘no’ and a sound. Your exaggerating. Again.

It is your Cadosch that has the photographic-like memory, and is therefore most like Hawking

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is your Cadosch that has the photographic-like memory, and is therefore most like Hawking

You’re basically saying that no one can be trusted in saying what they heard unless they were actually anticipating it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Almost all discussion on this case can be rendered null and void on the criteria that are being promoted here. There is a middle ground that is being totally abandoned in a conveniently black and white world. Any error or discrepancy (no matter if there might have been a reasonable explanation) results in a blanket dismissal of the witness.

Can anyone on here prove that Cadosch couldn’t have been telling the truth and that there might have been a reasonable explanation for any discrepancy? The answer to that is no. Does this mean that he cannot have been lying? No, of course it doesn’t but why is there an attempt to remove certain options from the table? Doubt does not equal dismissal.

Theres nothing laughable about considering options and possibilities when it comes to witnesses where discrepancies occur. The ‘fifteen minutes of fame’ argument is a very convenient one to put in place of evidence of lying and without the need of a reason to lie or even a recognition of the possible ramifications to the person ‘lying.’

****

Dr Phillips - Could have been right or he could have been wrong. ( cue Fish and his talk of parameters) Unreliable one’s.

Richardson - Seems unlikely that he’d have lied to place himself at the scene of a murder with a knife.

Could he have been mistaken? I’d still say unlikely in the extreme.

Cadosch - Despite discrepancies which might very possibly be explained he heard a ‘no’ and a sound from number 29.

Long - Saw a woman’s face and remembered it. According to some this is tantamount to witchcraft. Could she have been mistaken....yes. Could she have been mistaken about her timing? Perish the thought because this would mean 3 witnesses aligned. Can anyone sense a double standard here?

****

Phillips cannot be proved to have been lying or wrong. Neither can the three witnesses.

[Fisherman]

Almost all discussion on this case can be rendered null and void on the criteria that are being promoted here. There is a middle ground that is being totally abandoned in a conveniently black and white world. Any error or discrepancy (no matter if there might have been a reasonable explanation) results in a blanket dismissal of the witness.

Since there are two independent sources informing us that Cadosch inititally gave a very clear picture of having overheard the murder, there can be no reasonable doubt that this was so. That is how sources must be looked upon when researching something. So it is not as if ANY error or discrepancy results in a dismissal - but the specific kind of discrepancies we are dealing with calls upon us to dismiss Cadosch as a reliable witness.

Can anyone on here prove that Cadosch couldn’t have been telling the truth and that there might have been a reasonable explanation for any discrepancy?

No, and Iīve said so before. But it is not abut whether we can prove if he told the truth at any of these instances - it is about how we can prove that he gave so very differing versions of the matter that he cannot be relied upon.

The answer to that is no. Does this mean that he cannot have been lying? No, of course it doesn’t but why is there an attempt to remove certain options from the table? Doubt does not equal dismissal.

If that doubt is grounded in the kind of material we are dealing with, then yes, it could, should and will equal dismissal. There are no two ways about it; Cadoscheīs reliability is smoked. That is not to say that what he said could not involve a core of truth. That is why I do not say that his veracity is smoked, but instead that his reliability is. There is a difference, but not a difference that lends itself to making him admissible as a witness.

Theres nothing laughable about considering options and possibilities when it comes to witnesses where discrepancies occur.

There is actually a duty on our behalf to do so. And it is what I have done.

The ‘fifteen minutes of fame’ argument is a very convenient one to put in place of evidence of lying and without the need of a reason to lie or even a recognition of the possible ramifications to the person ‘lying.’

How many of historyīs witnesses who sought fifteen minutes of fame do you think had a reason to lie - other than wanting to share in the limelight? And as I said before, Cadosch actually reduces the amount of risk when he backpedalled. Before that, he arguably never even understood that his information could be challenged.

****

Dr Phillips - Could have been right or he could have been wrong. ( cue Fish and his talk of parameters) Unreliable one’s.

No, not cue me - cue the parameters themselves. Four of them, all in line. And we have Eddowes to compare to - who was completely warm, who had no rigor and who had fluid blood serum around her body around three quarters of an hour after she died. It is an almighty heap of concurring factors, Iīm afraid. There is nothing strange at all about it, but for the fact that so many people have accepted the witnesses as a real possibility over the years. They never were.

Richardson - Seems unlikely that he’d have lied to place himself at the scene of a murder with a knife.

Could he have been mistaken? I’d still say unlikely in the extreme.

Cadosch - Despite discrepancies which might very possibly be explained he heard a ‘no’ and a sound from number 29.

Long - Saw a woman’s face and remembered it. According to some this is tantamount to witchcraft. Could she have been mistaken....yes. Could she have been mistaken about her timing? Perish the thought because this would mean 3 witnesses aligned. Can anyone sense a double standard here?

****

Double standard? A double standard is when we say that witness x MUST have looked left, whereas witness y need not have. Let me assure you that my stance has nothing at all of any double standards about it. If you refer to me, I deeply resent the suggestion.

Phillips cannot be proved to have been lying or wrong. Neither can the three witnesses.

I would say personally that the four parameters do amount to decisive proof. The possibility that they could all align and still be wrong, each of them, is not within what can be accepted as in any way likely.

[Elamarna]

The clock matter is interesting. Just as you say, even if Longs and Cadoscheīs observations were correct, there is still the possibility that the clocks they overheard were not correct.

The problem does not lie there, it lies with the verdict Phillips passed in combination with how the witnesses told very varying stories about their observations. So we have to gulp down not only two clocks that were wrong, but also that the witnesses were misquoted or misunderstood.

It is a lot to ask. And I am not one to accept it, becasue the alternative is much more logical (or considered, if you like) to me. It does not even predispose that the clocks must have been wrong; they and Phillips seemingly both functioned like... well, you know: clockwork.

actually the odds on both having different times is not along stretch at all, i have recently been conducting an experiment to see just how syncronised and accurate public clocks are today, with modern time keeping.
The results are very revealing, with a range of 1 min- 8 minutes difference.
I therefore suggest that its very unlikely tge the clocks would be the same.

with regards to Phillips and is TOD, the Science to give an acurrate TOD in 88, simply did not exist.
The TODs that appear to give an accurate time are those where police were at tge site a set number of minutes before the discovery of a body, that timing was undoubtly used to arrive at a TOD in those cases.
Its not a coincidence that the TWO disputed TODs are those with no such police input.

steve

[Abby Normal]

Yes, Abby, it makes zero sense to reason that the neighbours had a chat over Chapmans dead body, eventually ignoring it. So that never happened. Which leaves us with the two options that either the witnesses were wrong or Phillips was. And if Phillips was, then Chapman turned cold in an hour (which will not happen), developed rigor in an hour (which is unlikely in the extreme give the circumstances) and had her blood drying up totally in a very short time (which is just as unlikely). Plus the stomach content was also in line with a TOD before 4.30.

It is really a very easy problem to solve. And it didnīt get harder once we looked at Cadoschīs initial statements!

so cadosch was completely lying? he didnt hear the couple talking?

[Fisherman]

so cadosch was completely lying? he didnt hear the couple talking?

I cannot answer that question, Abby. All I can say is that Cadosch compromised himself to a degree where his testimony cannot be ascribed to as having any real value.

If you are asking me my personal opinion only, then Iīd say that I donīt think Cadosch heard any couple. Or any fall. Or any scuffle. But that should not be mistaken for me saying that this must have been so, it is nothing but my gut feeling, based on the evidence and my knowledge about how high profile cases attract attention-seekers.

Does that make sense to you?

[Fisherman]

actually the odds on both having different times is not along stretch at all, i have recently been conducting an experiment to see just how syncronised and accurate public clocks are today, with modern time keeping.
The results are very revealing, with a range of 1 min- 8 minutes difference.
I therefore suggest that its very unlikely tge the clocks would be the same.

It is unlikely in the extreme that they would be exactly the same. How unlikely it is - or isnīt - that they were, say, five minutes wrong both of them, we cannot say.

with regards to Phillips and is TOD, the Science to give an acurrate TOD in 88, simply did not exist.

Letīs not fool ourselves, Steve. The doctors could feel body heat for a period of up to around four hours; this was something that they used as a benchmark, and it is still used today when no thermometers are at hand.

Rigor typically set in at around two hours or more after death back then as today. And back then as today, it set in later in cold conditions.

Congealed blood was always going to be softer for some time after clotting, whereas it grows dry and harder after more time is added. Today as back then.

Once these parameters are in sync, and - not least - in sync with what should be expected from a body that has been dead for some hours, recognizing that each and every one of these parameters has a level of uncertainty built in becomes more of an academic exercise than anything else.
Chapman had been dead for at least two hours when she was found and probably more. Thatīs all there is to it, or, more correctly, it would have been all there was to it if it had not been for latter day theorists not admitting the obvious.
Disagree if you will, it wonīt change matters for me. I donīt buy into the idea that Chapman may have differed medically from the rest of us in these three respects.

The TODs that appear to give an accurate time are those where police were at tge site a set number of minutes before the discovery of a body, that timing was undoubtly used to arrive at a TOD in those cases.
Its not a coincidence that the TWO disputed TODs are those with no such police input.

steve

What was used by Phillips was body temperature, rigor, blood coagulation and food digestion. Doubtlessly, he also assessed the overall impression as such. The police will have had nothing to do with it.

[Abby Normal]

I cannot answer that question, Abby. All I can say is that Cadosch compromised himself to a degree where his testimony cannot be ascribed to as having any real value.

If you are asking me my personal opinion only, then Iīd say that I donīt think Cadosch heard any couple. Or any fall. Or any scuffle. But that should not be mistaken for me saying that this must have been so, it is nothing but my gut feeling, based on the evidence and my knowledge about how high profile cases attract attention-seekers.

Does that make sense to you?

sure fish. no worries. well just have to part ways on this one : )

[Fisherman]

sure fish. no worries. well just have to part ways on this one : )

As long as you remember that witnesses who make people part ways are normally not the best of witnesses, thatīs just fine.