Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[Fleetwood Mac]

This may be newish and so refreshing: to what degree can we rely on Albert?

1) We have Albert's recollection of events as opposed to a photograph of the event.
2) That might not be that which happened in its entirety, or it may be.

There are a wealth of studies, drawing on actual witness testimony, which suggest that witnesses are often unreliable.

I will start with this:

Psychological scientist Elizabeth Loftus studies memories. More precisely, she studies false memories, when people either remember things that didn’t happen or remember them differently from the way they really were. It’s more common than you might think, and Loftus shares some startling stories and statistics, and raises some important ethical questions we should all remember to consider.

And this:

Contrary to common intuition, however, courtroom statements of confidence are very poor predictors of accuracy (26–29). The cause of this confidence–accuracy disparity is well captured by Daniel Kahneman’s cognitive “illusion of validity” (30). Subjective confidence in a judgment is not a reasoned evaluation of the probability that this judgment is correct. Confidence is a feeling, which reflects the coherence of the information and the cognitive ease of processing it. Declarations of high confidence mainly tell you that an individual has constructed a coherent story in his mind, not necessarily that the story is true.

Have theorists been too quick to assume Albert's recollection, is what actually happened? To what degree is Albert's statement reliable?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I do not think Cadoche is in the category of over-confident witnesses.

He said he was not sure where the 'no' came from, and what he described as something like a fall against the fence then became something touching the fence.

[JeffHamm]

I don't think anyone really disputes that witnesses can be mistaken, or that there can be information they state that is incorrect when taken literally as said. There are all sorts of reasons why a witness, giving their testimony in "good faith", can get things wrong. This applies to witnesses like Cadosche, and to expert witnesses as well, such as the doctors and police who give statements.

When dealing with such "noisy" information, one is left with trying to track down what bits in a statement seem to be effectively correct, and what information seems to be problematic (so, effectively incorrect).

It is a mistake, though, to go from the undebatable point that witnesses can be wrong, to the conclusion that the witness must be wrong. While the studies on reliability do show that witness statements can often get bits wrong those studies do not show that everything they say is always wrong. For example, if we were to do that with Cadosche (set him aside because we argue "Witnesses can be wrong therefore Cadosche is wrong"), we have to do that with all of the witnesses (because Dr. Phillips could be wrong therefore he must be wrong).

The approach I take, for what it is worth, is to try and get an idea of what constitutes effectively correct, and this can depend upon which testimony we're considering. Then, I try and "overlay" all of the sources of information, from all of the witnesses, or news reports, and so forth, and look for what "values" remain that are in common. If all of the information results in some common values remaining, then it follows those common values are the best supported values. Sometimes, though, there will be nothing left in common, and that signals there is a problem. By then going back and looking at the various sources, sometimes one can locate the source of that problem (i.e. there is one statement that "zeros out" a common value that all the other statements allow for).

For example, in a study by Lindsay, Semmler, Weber, Brewer, & Lindsay (2008) of the accuracy of distance on eyewitnesses estimates of things like height, weight, and age, we can create expected "ranges of acceptibility" (I'll just use age for this example, and not get into the influence of distance for simplicity's sake).

What they found was that out of 1175 witnesses:
30.3% of the witnesses estimated the age to within 2 years
44.3% of the witnesses estimated the age to within 5 years
46.1% of the witnesses estimated the age to within 10 years.

So over 50% of the estimates were out by more than 10 years! But also, there's a reasonable gain in accuracy between +-2 years to +-5 years, with much less gain in reliability between +-5 to +-10.

From that, we would probably conclude that while interesting to note, any witness statements with regards to the age are probably best viewed with extreme caution.

Or, we could take the age estimates from various witnesses, and see if they generally agree. I'm not going to collate all the actual estimates from the case as that's not necessary, but there are a number around late 20s to 30, and then there's Long's 40.

If we had 4 estimates, say 27, 29, 30, and 40. And we go with the +-5 criterion for "reasonably accurate" (noting that even then we know it's not very good). We get this:
22-32
24-34
25-35
35-45

And there is no age that is common to all ranges, so there's a problem. The range 25-32, however, is common to 3 of our estimates, and the age 35 is common to two of them. That would point towards the last estimate of 40 seems to be the problem, and we might argue that the person has a reasonable chance of being between 25 and 32.

if we widen our range of acceptable and used the +-10 year criterion, we get:
17-37
19-39
20-40
30-50

and now the range 30-37 is common to them all, so we can't really say that 40 is a problem. Interestingly, and by chance, both give 7 year ranges, and both ranges point have 30-32 in common, and so one might argue for that range being the most supported, and so forth.

Age estimation, though, is simply not very good, and no suspect should be discarded simply because their age doesn't "match". It is a point against them, of course, but it is not a very strong one.

This sort of thing gets harder to do with other types of information, particularly when dealing with the "error associated with news coverage". One example that currently is of interest to me is the piece of metal found at the Chapman scene. It is described in 3 different news reports, one which says it was identified by Mrs Richardson as her son's "legging spring", one which describes it as coming from a child's gaiter, and one that says it was the spring from a perambulator (baby carriage).

There is clearly no overlap there when one looks at all 3 reports.
Two reports, however, have some concepts in common. Both indicate it was from clothing (a legging spring, or child's gaiter). Those two reports also have a connection between the owner of the clothing, one being described as Mrs. Richardson's son, the other refers to a child. The overlap in these concepts found in those two reports allow for one to consider that the description as being a "child's gaiter" may reflect an error on the reporter's part (or their editor) that the reference by Mrs. Richardson to her son (rather than to Richardson directly), got mistranslated to child, and the wrong clothing item (legging spring vs gaiter; or is a legging spring from something like a gaiter?) . Technically Richardson is her child, of course, but the word child in this context means something beyond that technical definition. The overlap in concepts here, however, are sort of like the overlap in our age estimations when using the widest margin, and even then finding one that just doesn't fit. It shows there is some possible range of conceptual overlap between a couple of articles, but as our "range" is so large, we really shouldn't place too much confidence it in. We can't discard it entirely of course, but we shouldn't over emphasize it either. This sort of information is much more debatable with regards to what constitutes acceptable ranges.

I guess, what I do, is that I accept than any of the information "could be wrong" (because of course it could be), but I don't accept that it "must be wrong" (because it doesn't have to be) when it overlays with other, independent, sources of information. When all the information gets combined, if there still remains a set of "possible values" being considered, then I see no reason to set the information aside as being an example of a witness error but rather the common overlap tends to point towards it being an example of when a witness was reasonably accurate.

After having selected the evidence that all seems to produce reasonably accurate statements, it is always good practice to see how the range of possible values changes as one swaps in and out various individuals.

- Jeff

[Fiver]

1) We have Albert's recollection of events as opposed to a photograph of the event.

Feel free to show that Albert Cadosch's recollection of events is opposed by a photograph of the event

There are a wealth of studies, drawing on actual witness testimony, which suggest that witnesses are often unreliable.

There are a wealth of studies that show that eyewitness identification of suspects can be in error. Cadosch did not identify a suspect. Nothing you have posted shows how often witnesses are wrong, nor have you given any reasons why Cadosch's testimony might be in error.

The second article you quote says "Uncertain memories of witnessed events may thus be biased readily by information subsequently gathered from numerous sources, including law enforcement, counsel, family, friends, and the press, all of which can reduce the likelihood that an eyewitness correctly identifies the culprit."

Again, Cadosch was not identifying a culprit. Lets look at possible sources of bias. Cadosch was alone, so that rules out family and friends. I can't think of any way the police would have influenced Cadosch's memory - they didn't have a suspect or favor a particular time of death. Press accounts had told of Richards being in the yard "between 4:45 a.m. and 4.50 a.m" and of Davis finding the body at around 6am. Before Cadosch gave his testimony, Dr Phillips testified that he believed that Chapman had been killed at 4:30am or even earlier. If Cadosch was influenced by the doctor's testimony, I'd expect him to give a time estimate that agreed with the doctor. If he was influenced by the doctor and Richards, I'd expect a time estimate somewhere between 4:50 and 5am.

"On Saturday, Sept. 8, I got up about a quarter past five in the morning, and went into the yard. It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think." - Alfred Cadosch

So Cadosch's testimony does not appear to have been influenced by anyone.

Cadosch's testimony also doesn't appear to show any signs over overconfidence that might indicate his memory filling in the blanks. Note all the qualifiers in his statement.

Albert Cadosch [Cadoche] deposed: I live at 27, Hanbury-street, and am a carpenter. 27 is next door to 29, Hanbury-street. On Saturday, Sept. 8, I got up about a quarter past five in the morning, and went into the yard. 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 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.
The Coroner: Did you look to see what it was? - No.
[Coroner] Had you heard any noise while you were at the end of your yard? - No.
[Coroner] Any rustling of clothes? - No. I then went into the house, and from there into the street to go to my work. It was about two minutes after half-past five as I passed Spitalfields Church.
[Coroner] Do you ever hear people in these yards? - Now and then, but not often.
By a Juryman: I informed the police the same night after I returned from my work.
The Foreman: What height are the palings? - About 5 ft. 6 in. to 6 ft. high.
[Coroner] And you had not the curiosity to look over? - No, I had not.
[Coroner] It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? - They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings. I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over.
The Foreman of the Jury: It's a pity you did not.
By the Coroner. - I did not see any man and woman in the street when I went out.

Cadosch is asked several leading questions. He doesn't go where they are leading. He didn't hear noise while he was at the end of the yard. He didn't hear any rustling of clothes. He didn't suddenly remember peering over the fence and seeing something. He didn't see any man and woman in the street when he went out.

Like Richardson, Cadosch's testimony appears reliable.

[Wickerman]

This may be newish and so refreshing: to what degree can we rely on Albert?

1) We have Albert's recollection of events as opposed to a photograph of the event.
2) That might not be that which happened in its entirety, or it may be.

There are a wealth of studies, drawing on actual witness testimony, which suggest that witnesses are often unreliable.

I'm sure there are, in fact there used to be plenty of video's from documentaries demonstrating just how easy it is for a witness to make a mistake.
Even though these studies come from actual tests & experiments, the result is hypothetical. It's all speculation when you apply these studies to someone who was not included in the study.
This is not the same as the real witness being the subject of a study which came to the result he could have been mistaken.

Also, these studies are rarely applied to all suspects equally, to do that would make a level playing field, but the point of raising these studies is in most cases to tilt the playing filed towards or against one particular witness.
In this case lets say Cadoche, Long, Richardson & Phillips were all mistaken, for a variety of reasons - now what do we do?

Or, how about we raise these studies to try convince others that Cadoche was mistaken, then throw the studies away when it comes to the opinions of Dr Phillips?
Or, maybe that is what we are trying to do here under the guise of 'scientific analysis'?

Right now, I'm with Fiver on this topic.

[JeffHamm]

Oh, and further to my above post. In the past, where I was only aware of the description being from Richardson's legging spring, given that was all I knew about, I weighted that bit of evidence as quite important as it appeared to be a piece of physical evidence that backed up his boot repair story.

Since then, however, in discussions with George, he alerted me to the version where it is described as coming from a "boy's gaiter" (sorry, above I said "child's gaiter", but it actually reads "boy's gaiter"; doesn't matter for my above example though as it was just presented as an illustration), and the other article about it being from a perambulator.

Having been made aware of this new information, my view of this evidence has had to be re-evaluated. Sure, there is one description that fits my previous interpretation, and I could find ways to "make" the boy's gaiter "become" Richardson's legging spring (i.e. the news misprinted "from my boy's gaiter" as "from a boy's gaiter" as this was a statement from Mrs. Richardson - but I don't think referring to her adult son as "my boy" is common in the UK and is more of an Americanism? I could be wrong, and if so, I may have to re-evaluate yet again). Alternatively, I could try to argue that "boy's gaiter" just means "a male's gaiter", and if a "legging spring" is something that comes from a gaiter, then there would be enough conceptual overlap to maintain my original weighting of importance, with only perhaps a slight downgrade.

However, that's not the point, nor is it valid. What I've had to do is acknowledge that these new reports do call into question what exactly was found, and who exactly it belonged to. The "conceptual error range" between the descriptions is very large, and while two of them may have some overlap, that overlap is very minimal (sort of like how the +-5 year ranges for ages had 1 age, 35, in common between the 30 and 40 guesses, so while those ranges overlap, there is so little overlap one isn't going to be too confident about those).

As such, my confidence in that bit of information has, sadly for me, had to be greatly adjusted downwards. Note, I don't try and "make the new data fit my previous idea", but rather in light of new data I adjust my idea, re-weight the evidence, and move on just has happy as before. That's how it is supposed to work, our interpretations should be flexible and change when we are given new information, either becoming more or less confident than we were before. We should not use our current confidence to then decide "how" to interpret the new information - I should not "force one of my above interpretations onto the information because then it fits what a already think". It is good to see if there is a way for new information to fit, of course, but one also must consider the ways it may not fit, and then re-evaluate the overall idea.

Obviously, there could be a fair bit of discussion about the various interpretations, which make sense, which seem to be pushing the limits, and so forth. Those are important discussions, particularly when dealing with verbal information and trying to understand the witness' intended meaning as Victorian English will be different from modern speech in some ways, and those differences will be larger or smaller depending on our own individual language histories.

Anyway, I'm not suggesting everyone (or even anyone) has to adopt this approach. I've personally found it to be very useful to my own understanding, and it may perhaps explain some of the ways in which my own interpretations differ from others.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Oh, and further to my above post. In the past, where I was only aware of the description being from Richardson's legging spring, given that was all I knew about, I weighted that bit of evidence as quite important as it appeared to be a piece of physical evidence that backed up his boot repair story.

Since then, however, in discussions with George, he alerted me to the version where it is described as coming from a "boy's gaiter" (sorry, above I said "child's gaiter", but it actually reads "boy's gaiter"; doesn't matter for my above example though as it was just presented as an illustration), and the other article about it being from a perambulator.

Having been made aware of this new information, my view of this evidence has had to be re-evaluated. Sure, there is one description that fits my previous interpretation, and I could find ways to "make" the boy's gaiter "become" Richardson's legging spring (i.e. the news misprinted "from my boy's gaiter" as "from a boy's gaiter" as this was a statement from Mrs. Richardson - but I don't think referring to her adult son as "my boy" is common in the UK and is more of an Americanism? I could be wrong, and if so, I may have to re-evaluate yet again). Alternatively, I could try to argue that "boy's gaiter" just means "a male's gaiter", and if a "legging spring" is something that comes from a gaiter, then there would be enough conceptual overlap to maintain my original weighting of importance, with only perhaps a slight downgrade.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

From Amelia's inquest testimony we can also harvest the additional information that there was a lad living at #29 that might qualify for the description of a "boy".

At six a.m. my grandson, Thomas Richardson, aged fourteen, who lives with me, got up. I sent him down to see what was the matter, as there was so much noise in the passage. He came back and said, "Oh, grandmother, there is a woman murdered."

It would not be a stretch to wonder if Thomas helped out with the packing case business, but even if we do not wish to extend our assumption that far, we would be fairly safe in assuming that Thomas used the Loo in the yard and could have lost the spring on any of those occasions.

Best regards, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

From Amelia's inquest testimony we can also harvest the additional information that there was a lad living at #29 that might qualify for the description of a "boy".

At six a.m. my grandson, Thomas Richardson, aged fourteen, who lives with me, got up. I sent him down to see what was the matter, as there was so much noise in the passage. He came back and said, "Oh, grandmother, there is a woman murdered."

It would not be a stretch to wonder if Thomas helped out with the packing case business, but even if we do not wish to extend our assumption that far, we would be fairly safe in assuming that Thomas used the Loo in the yard and could have lost the spring on any of those occasions.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Indeed, but we have to assume that Mrs. Richardson's statement is the correct one, while Chandler's statement seems to reflect her saying something different to him. Now, Chandler may have misunderstood her at that time of course, or Mrs. Richardson's testimony may be more prone to change. She does, for example, deny the premises were sometimes frequented for "immoral purposes", which Richardson confirms. She forgets the basement was robbed (albeit that did occur a few months ago I think it was, so she may have understood the question to mean more recently), and so forth. Her statements do seem a bit wobbly, so while I agree with the idea that in general she's the preferred source, the variation between what she says and what she apparently told Chandler makes me unsure which is the correct one (if either!). And yes, the presence of the 14 yo boy means there is good reason to argue for that version, but the same can be said about Richardson too; we know he existed and that he was there, etc. It is for reasons like this that I've downgraded the emphasis on it - it's more of an "interesting possibility" or curiosity rather than something that should be elevated in importance. It's a shame, as we have so little information that to have lost something that potentially carried some decent evidential weight is unfortunate. But, more data leads to better evaluations, and better evaluations does not always mean an increase in confidence. Sometimes a better evaluation means one should weaken their confidence, as in this case.

Hmmmm, given the 14 yo is her grandson, maybe the Chandler quote is supposed to read "...my grandson's legging spring..." rather than her son's? That seems to snap those two into place actually. I think I'm now inclined to agree with you, and that it seems the "legging spring" was not Richardson the son, but rather Richardson the grandson. That would make it unrelated to Richardson the son's visit.

- Jeff

[A P Tomlinson]

The issue with all these studies is that they are focused on detail.

Show me a study that explains how reliable memory is when it's a person who simply remembered an event as happening.
As opposed to the details of that event.

Not the exact details such as age of the suspect, height of the suspect, hair, eyes, skin tone, facial hair, hat or hood, colour of shoes, and what colour, make and model of car the suspect was driving, or trick questions like "What hand was he holding the knife in? A-HA! He was holding a GUN!!" but fairly basic things like, "Did you hear anything that morning?" "Well yes, I heard someone talking, I think it was on my left, but I wasn't paying much atttention, and then I heard something hit the fence. I didn't think much of it becuse the neighbours on that side make packing cases and sometimes things hit the fence."

When they ask these questions such as "On the night of the event did you see a man leaving the premises?" they don't stop and go through a rigmarole of saying "Are you sure? Memory can be bad you know... are you sure you actually saw someone leaving the building and that you are not merely conjuring a false memory from past experiences and stress?"
They move on to "And can you describe him..." and THAT is where the issues of reliability begin to come into question

If a car speeds past my house at 60 mph, I accept that I might get the make and model wrong, particularly if I wasn't paying much attention... and maybe even the specific colour, what I won't get wrong is the fact that a car sped past my house.

If Cadosche had related a full conversation in detail between two distinct voices, the gender of both, and giving an estimate of the age of the speakers and their dialects, and said that he had heard, "...what sounded like a human body hitting the fence at exactly X,Y, or Z o'clock" trust me... I'd be on board the "unreliability" train.

[Trevor Marriott]

Feel free to show that Albert Cadosch's recollection of events is opposed by a photograph of the event



There are a wealth of studies that show that eyewitness identification of suspects can be in error. Cadosch did not identify a suspect. Nothing you have posted shows how often witnesses are wrong, nor have you given any reasons why Cadosch's testimony might be in error.

The second article you quote says "Uncertain memories of witnessed events may thus be biased readily by information subsequently gathered from numerous sources, including law enforcement, counsel, family, friends, and the press, all of which can reduce the likelihood that an eyewitness correctly identifies the culprit."

Again, Cadosch was not identifying a culprit. Lets look at possible sources of bias. Cadosch was alone, so that rules out family and friends. I can't think of any way the police would have influenced Cadosch's memory - they didn't have a suspect or favor a particular time of death. Press accounts had told of Richards being in the yard "between 4:45 a.m. and 4.50 a.m" and of Davis finding the body at around 6am. Before Cadosch gave his testimony, Dr Phillips testified that he believed that Chapman had been killed at 4:30am or even earlier. If Cadosch was influenced by the doctor's testimony, I'd expect him to give a time estimate that agreed with the doctor. If he was influenced by the doctor and Richards, I'd expect a time estimate somewhere between 4:50 and 5am.

"On Saturday, Sept. 8, I got up about a quarter past five in the morning, and went into the yard. It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think." - Alfred Cadosch

So Cadosch's testimony does not appear to have been influenced by anyone.

Cadosch's testimony also doesn't appear to show any signs over overconfidence that might indicate his memory filling in the blanks. Note all the qualifiers in his statement.

Albert Cadosch [Cadoche] deposed: I live at 27, Hanbury-street, and am a carpenter. 27 is next door to 29, Hanbury-street. On Saturday, Sept. 8, I got up about a quarter past five in the morning, and went into the yard. 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 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.
The Coroner: Did you look to see what it was? - No.
[Coroner] Had you heard any noise while you were at the end of your yard? - No.
[Coroner] Any rustling of clothes? - No. I then went into the house, and from there into the street to go to my work. It was about two minutes after half-past five as I passed Spitalfields Church.
[Coroner] Do you ever hear people in these yards? - Now and then, but not often.
By a Juryman: I informed the police the same night after I returned from my work.
The Foreman: What height are the palings? - About 5 ft. 6 in. to 6 ft. high.
[Coroner] And you had not the curiosity to look over? - No, I had not.
[Coroner] It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? - They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings. I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over.
The Foreman of the Jury: It's a pity you did not.
By the Coroner. - I did not see any man and woman in the street when I went out.

Cadosch is asked several leading questions. He doesn't go where they are leading. He didn't hear noise while he was at the end of the yard. He didn't hear any rustling of clothes. He didn't suddenly remember peering over the fence and seeing something. He didn't see any man and woman in the street when he went out.

Like Richardson, Cadosch's testimony appears reliable.

Cadosh was not standing still and listening in both instances he described, he was on the move from the house to the outside toilet and back so given the time of the morning and the fact that people from the houses in close proximity to No 29 were moving about the sounds he heard could have emanated from anywhere close by.

Again we have a situation the same as with Phillips with the police and the coroner seemingly not concerned with the actual TOD because the police had the opportunity to speak to the residents in those houses in close proximity to No 29 to ascertain if the sounds Cadosh heard had emanated from any of those houses.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

Hmmmm, given the 14 yo is her grandson, maybe the Chandler quote is supposed to read "...my grandson's legging spring..." rather than her son's? That seems to snap those two into place actually. I think I'm now inclined to agree with you, and that it seems the "legging spring" was not Richardson the son, but rather Richardson the grandson. That would make it unrelated to Richardson the son's visit.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

The other thing to consider is, that while John was detailed in his description of his unlacing and re-lacing of his boot, he made no mention of the removal and replacement of a gaiter. On the rare occasions that I have worn gaiters they have involved straps and buckles, so I am entirely unaware of how gaiters are attached using springs. While the loss of a buckle would make my gaiters unwearable, I'm not sure if the loss of a spring would have the same consequence.

I'm inclined to agree that the spring was unrelated to the events of the morning of the 8th Sep 1888.

Best regards, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

The other thing to consider is, that while John was detailed in his description of his unlacing and re-lacing of his boot, he made no mention of the removal and replacement of a gaiter. On the rare occasions that I have worn gaiters they have involved straps and buckles, so I am entirely unaware of how gaiters are attached using springs. While the loss of a buckle would make my gaiters unwearable, I'm not sure if the loss of a spring would have the same consequence.

I'm inclined to agree that the spring was unrelated to the events of the morning of the 8th Sep 1888.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Yah, I've never worn, or seen gaiters, in person. I'm really only familiar with them as something "Scrooge McDuck" wore (Donald Duck's rich uncle), so I have no idea how a piece of flat metal relates to them. Moreover, I don't know what is meant by a "legging spring"? It sort of makes me think like something one would wear around the lower leg to keep the trouser cuff in, like what a cyclist might wear to keep their trouser leg out of the chain, but I could be way off base there. I can't really see Richardson wearing gaiters to work, as my understanding is that they are sort of a formal wear item? A legging spring, if it is like what I describe above, might be something he wore depending on his work (to keep his trouser cuffs out of the way rather than tuck them into his boots, for example). The problem, of course, is that if a "legging spring" and a piece of metal that somehow goes with gaiters are completely different things, we don't even know what was found, making it impossible to decide if it might lean towards Richardson the son or Richardson the grandson. However, as I indicated above, it seems to me the most plausible explanation is that Chandler's account should replace "son" with "grandson", either because Chandler mis-heard her originally, or mis-transcribed that detail in his notes, simply misspoke, or the reporter mis-heard him, etc. While other explanations might "save" my original idea, I think they would be pushing it, and something like one of the above just too easily explains things, and relegates the "piece of flat metal" to just a bit of detritus found in the backyard, that at one time belonged to someone who lived there. Yawn.

So yes, I agree with you and the bulk of the evidence seems to point more towards the grandson as the owner of the mental "thing", and therefore, whatever it actually was seems to be a bit of side track trivia rather than something that might be considered case relevant. Obviously, if more reports turn up, they might help to clarify, and if so, my opinion could change yet again, but in which direction would depend upon what those new reports contained.

It's a shame, though, as initially it looked like it might be one of those weird things that appeared trivial but actually ended up carrying a lot of information. If, however, it's unrelated to the case, then how it got there is just a curiosity - we don't really need to know, the grandson lived there, he apparently lost, or threw out, a piece of metal that went with his gaiters. Maybe they were worn out, maybe while wearing his Sunday best he lost it on the way to the loo, maybe my assumption that gaiters were even "formal" wear is completely wrong and they were just protectors of footwear.

Anyway, I should thank you for continuing this line of discussion and for presenting the other reports. While I'm a bit disappointed at the loss of what seemed to be useful information (not because of the direction it pointed, but just because it seemed very useful - which is rare in the JtR cases as so much of the information we have seems to have sufficient ambiguity that it mostly hovers on the edge of useful). But as I've said, I would rather be correctly unsure, than incorrectly confident. Also, while I don't change everytime the wind changes direction, I can, and will, alter my thoughts in light of new evidence when it warrants (or, I suppose, when I deem it warrants change, but don't we all have to make our own decisions?).

As always, a fruitful and pleasant exchange. Thanks again.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Any suggestion or study that tells us that witnesses can be mistaken are little more than reminders of the obvious. How many times is it felt that we need reminding of the fact of the possibility human error? Of course this no more means that we should assume error than we should assume dishonesty (even though witnesses can lie.)

One thing that certainly is important is that we should begin and end on a level playing field as opposed to applying these principles selectively. It’s easy to name examples of this kind of selectivity:

It’s been suggested numerous that it’s significant that Amelia Richardson heard nothing from her location near the passage. That she didn’t hear anyone entering around 5.25/5.30. And yet it’s clear that she was awake before 3.00 and heard nothing either. And that she merely dozed from that point. And that she was awake again at 4.00 and shouted “good morning” to Thompson as he left for work. So why isn’t it considered important that she heard no earlier killer either?

Its recently been suggested as important that Mrs R identified Annie but why, when considering ‘witness reliability,’ is it ‘unimportant’ that she could barely bring herself to look at the victims face or that Phillips said: “The face was swollen and turned on the right side, and the tongue protruded between the front teeth.” So we have a brief and reluctant look at a woman’s swollen face as a now ‘reliable’ ID. Why is her ID anymore reliable that Long’s apart from the fact that she knew her. They were hardly bosom buddies. Yet I’ve heard no mentions of the possibility of her being mistaken (apart from by myself)

Then we’re constantly told how unreliable Long’s ID was and yet in this case no one appears to apply this principal Lawende who saw Eddowes in less favourable circumstances than Long saw the woman that she thought was Chapman. Remember that it was dark when Lawende made his ID and she was across a street (and he’d just left a club and so may have been under the influence of alcohol to some extent) but Long saw ‘Annie’ when it was light and at close quarters. So if we apply principals then Long should be considered at least as reliable if not more so than Lawende. But that’s not the case is it? It get assumed that she must have been mistaken.

And finally an example of error and the level playing field. We all accept that the interview between Richardson and Chandler wasn’t under exactly ideal circumstances. So why is Chandler always treated as free from the possibility of error (or even dishonesty?) How can we be sure that Richardson didn’t say that he’d “sat on the steps,” and Chandler either heard it as, or remembered it as, “stood on the steps?” It’s only a word after all. And yet the potential for error is only applied to one party in the discussion.

The treatment of Cadosch is like this. He heard a ‘no’ and a sound from a yard when, according to Phillips estimate, she should already have been dead. How often have we heard anyone favouring an earlier ToD accepting that he might have been correct? We’re regularly reminded of how he might have been wrong (often by the use of very strange reasoning) so why does no one who favours an earlier ToD ever say ‘well he could have been right.’ If they did then we have three witness who ‘could have been right.’

Quoting general principals is fine as long as it’s applied across the board and not selectively.

[GBinOz]

As always, a fruitful and pleasant exchange. Thanks again.

- Jeff

You're welcome Jeff. A pleasure, as always.

Best regards, George

[Trevor Marriott]

Any suggestion or study that tells us that witnesses can be mistaken are little more than reminders of the obvious. How many times is it felt that we need reminding of the fact of the possibility human error? Of course this no more means that we should assume error than we should assume dishonesty (even though witnesses can lie.)

One thing that certainly is important is that we should begin and end on a level playing field as opposed to applying these principles selectively. It’s easy to name examples of this kind of selectivity:

It’s been suggested numerous that it’s significant that Amelia Richardson heard nothing from her location near the passage. That she didn’t hear anyone entering around 5.25/5.30. And yet it’s clear that she was awake before 3.00 and heard nothing either. And that she merely dozed from that point. And that she was awake again at 4.00 and shouted “good morning” to Thompson as he left for work. So why isn’t it considered important that she heard no earlier killer either?

Its recently been suggested as important that Mrs R identified Annie but why, when considering ‘witness reliability,’ is it ‘unimportant’ that she could barely bring herself to look at the victims face or that Phillips said: “The face was swollen and turned on the right side, and the tongue protruded between the front teeth.” So we have a brief and reluctant look at a woman’s swollen face as a now ‘reliable’ ID. Why is her ID anymore reliable that Long’s apart from the fact that she knew her. They were hardly bosom buddies. Yet I’ve heard no mentions of the possibility of her being mistaken (apart from by myself)

Then we’re constantly told how unreliable Long’s ID was and yet in this case no one appears to apply this principal Lawende who saw Eddowes in less favourable circumstances than Long saw the woman that she thought was Chapman. Remember that it was dark when Lawende made his ID and she was across a street (and he’d just left a club and so may have been under the influence of alcohol to some extent) but Long saw ‘Annie’ when it was light and at close quarters. So if we apply principals then Long should be considered at least as reliable if not more so than Lawende. But that’s not the case is it? It get assumed that she must have been mistaken.

And finally an example of error and the level playing field. We all accept that the interview between Richardson and Chandler wasn’t under exactly ideal circumstances. So why is Chandler always treated as free from the possibility of error (or even dishonesty?) How can we be sure that Richardson didn’t say that he’d “sat on the steps,” and Chandler either heard it as, or remembered it as, “stood on the steps?” It’s only a word after all. And yet the potential for error is only applied to one party in the discussion.

The treatment of Cadosch is like this. He heard a ‘no’ and a sound from a yard when, according to Phillips estimate, she should already have been dead. How often have we heard anyone favouring an earlier ToD accepting that he might have been correct? We’re regularly reminded of how he might have been wrong (often by the use of very strange reasoning) so why does no one who favours an earlier ToD ever say ‘well he could have been right.’ If they did then we have three witness who ‘could have been right.’

Quoting general principals is fine as long as it’s applied across the board and not selectively.

The issues surrounding Identification have been raised before and I posted an old legal case ruling which is now used in criminal trial where identification is an issue the case is R V Turnbull 1976 and I would suggest this is a good guideline to determine the accuracy and relaibailty of the witness identification in these cases.

A mnemonic used to remember the various points is ADVOKATE: which stands for the following

Amount of time under observation: How long did the witness have the person/incident in view?

Distance: What was the distance between the witness and the person/incident?

Visibility: What was the visibility at the time? Factors include the time of day/night, street lighting, etc.

Obstruction: Were there any obstructions to the view of the witness?

Known or seen before: Did the witness know, or had the witness ever seen, the person before? If so where and when?

Any reason to remember: Did the witness have any special reason for remembering the person/incident? Was there something specific that made the person/incident memorable?

Time-lapse: How long has elapsed since the witness saw the person/incident?

Error discrepancy: Are there any errors or material discrepancies between descriptions in the first and subsequent accounts of the witness?

Applying these to the witness testimony in these cases I hope posters including you Herlock will now understand why I keep saying some of the witness testimony regarding identification is unsafe to rely on

www.trevormarriott.co.uk