Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[Scott Nelson]

I interpreted the article to be indicating that he encountered the man seven minutes after leaving Mitre Sq, and was back at Mitre Sq seven minutes later, although I admit that is not the way it reads. I attributed that to it being poorly written. JMO.

That's how I interpret it as well, George. Watkins beat was 14 to 15 minutes total, seven minutes after leaving Mitre square he's encountering a man emerging from St. James Passage, seven minutes later he makes the rest of his round and finds the body.

The Landgon story, written about 24 years afterwards, confuses the total beat time as only 7 minutes. Another account of this story, which I unfortunately can't place, clarifies that after the St. James encounter, an additional 7 minutes lapsed before Watkins discovers the body on his return to the square. That was according to city police calculations mentioned in the other article.

Watkins, for whatever reason, didn't recount any of this at the inquest.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

seven minutes after leaving Mitre square he's encountering a man emerging from St. James Passage

The encounter could hardly have happened in that location seven minutes after Watkins left the Square.

[Scott Nelson]

Anything could have happened after he left the square - a brief sojourn down Sugar Bakers Yard, a stop to chat with the Firemen in the hut in St. James Place before continuing his patrol.

Now stop responding to me. I'm not interested in arguing with you.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Anything could have happened after he left the square - a brief sojourn down Sugar Bakers Yard, a stop to chat with the Firemen in the hut in St. James Place before continuing his patrol.

Now stop responding to me. I'm not interested in arguing with you.

And I suppose your chat with the firemen doesn't count as 'invention'!

Watkins was not delayed on that particular beat by anything or anyone, and you know it, because we have his timings.

I suggest the reason you're not interested in arguing with me is that you don't want to admit it when you lack a satisfactory response.

I have put it to you eight times in eight separate posts that you made an elementary mistake about Joseph Hyam Levy and you have never even responded.

Don't tell me that's because you're not interested in arguing with me!

[A P Tomlinson]

And I suppose your chat with the firemen doesn't count as 'invention'!

Watkins was not delayed on that particular beat by anything or anyone, and you know it, because we have his timings.

I suggest the reason you're not interested in arguing with me is that you don't want to admit it when you lack a satisfactory response.

I have put it to you eight times in eight separate posts that you made an elementary mistake about Joseph Hyam Levy and you have never even responded.

Don't tell me that's because you're not interested in arguing with me!

You are doing it again.
Starting fights just to win them.
Please don't make this go the way the Richardson thread did.
Accept the argument is pointless and finished, pretend you won and move on.
Just try.

[Fleetwood Mac]

That is still not what the study said.

The study mentioned in the article shows that when people were deliberately given misinformation about what they had witnessed, 47% remembered it as being part of the original event. The flip side of that is that even when given deliberate misinformation, 53% of people continued to recall that part of the event correctly.

And that deliberate misrepresentation of one part of the event did not affect people's memories of the rest of the event.

You're making a point of 'deliberately given': it's not relevant.

You cannot undertake a test without introducing test criteria, all tests across all disciplines do that. It is an accepted means of verifying a proposition.

Essentially, you're questioning the methodology and the ability of people who undertake such studies to arrive at informed conclusions based upon the test. You're not only questioning the tests mentioned in the article, but pretty much all types of tests across all disciplines.

It seems world opinion is divided on this matter. You think the test is not valid because test criteria was introduced. The rest of the world, including assorted scientists and the like, do not agree with you.

And, ultimately, hundreds of such studies, undertaken by qualified people; have concluded that witness testimony is often unreliable. I think I'm going to place my faith in those studies rather than in your attempt to undermine all test situations and studies.

As for '47%......one part of the event', these are innocuous situations with not much going on except a road sign, to use one example from the article. That road sign was central to the test and there wasn't much else to remember. 'Very similar to Albert in that he went on a minute's walk twice and heard a couple of noises. Again, not much going on in Albert's event.

I reckon it's an eye-opener that 47% of people in that test situation erroneously recollected the main event in the test.

Furthermore, you keep saying the article 'undermines my position':

1) I don't have a 'position' except to say that a wealth of studies tell us that witness testimony is often unreliable.
2) The article acknowledges that witness testimony is often unreliable, that's why the authors quote studies/tests which demonstrate that. The authors tell you in the opening statement that it is essential to have jurors aware of the misinformation effect because it is very real, but it should be balanced, i.e. not moving from one extreme to another whereby all witness testimony is discarded. The authors are suggesting there is a middle ground and that should be kept in mind in the interests of sifting the reliable from the unreliable.

As for your 'appeal to authority' comment, clearly you do not understand the concept. It is entirely legitimate to provide statistics and commentary providing the people drawn upon are qualified in that field and the study quoted is relevant to the subject. The reason I introduced 'appeal to authority' on the other thread was because quite a few were appealing to Baxter, you may have been one of them (can't remember). Now that was a fallacious argument because Baxter was no authority. That's what 'appeal to authority fallacy' means: appealing to someone whose opinion is no more qualified than yours or mine.

Finally, I've read a few of your posts on this subject and given the invalid arguments you're conjuring up, they suggest that you're entrenched in a position and unwilling to consider anything outside of that entrenched position, even though a cursory google would give you link after link with the headline: "witness testimony is often unreliable". That being the case, this isn't much of a discussion and I'll leave you to sit in your entrenched position.

[Fleetwood Mac]

nothing in the study shows any science that someone in the position of the three witness who put Chapman alive after 4.30 would be impacted by.
They were not influenced by the misniformation, triggers and issues covered.

I reckon you may have a lack of understanding on what 'the misinformation effect' is.

There are various reasons and factors generating the misinformation effect, such as: leading questions and even very subtle changes in the words that make up the questions, the eye-witness didn't take much notice of what was going on around him/her and so the event was never fully encoded into the memory and information gleaned after the event filled the gaps, information gleaned after an event is more recent in the memory and so it's easier to retrieve, discussing the event with other people after the event, reading newspapers, information heard at an inquest. 'Just a few of many factors that can effect the process of encoding, storing and recollecting an event.

This is very relevant to Albert in that by his own admission, he had other things on his mind and this wasn't an out of the ordinary event. There is a case to suggest that the event would not have been fully encoded in Albert's mind and information he received after the event, filled the gaps. Albert, of course, was subject to various forms of information from various sources, after the event.

And, Elizabeth's and John's statements do not add weight to the idea that Albert was not impacted by the misinformation effect. On the contrary, that was information Albert gleaned after his event which suggested to him that Annie was still alive after half four in the morning, meaning information that could have led him to fill in gaps in his memory.

Here is an interesting article:

Eyewitness Testimony and Memory Biases | Noba (nobaproject.com)

It draws upon approximately 25 texts/studies/tests. It describes the various ways in which the misinformation effect happens and includes the various means of testing, some of which do not involve 'being deliberately fed misinformation'. It concludes:

To conclude, eyewitness testimony is very powerful and convincing to jurors, even though it is not particularly reliable. Identification errors occur, and these errors can lead to people being falsely accused and even convicted. Likewise, eyewitness memory can be corrupted by leading questions, misinterpretations of events, conversations with co-witnesses, and their own expectations for what should have happened. People can even come to remember whole events that never occurred.

Anyone who simply dismisses these tests/studies/articles, undertaken by qualified people, must surely not want to believe it because it's a spoke in the wheel of going 'round the houses in discussions that demand witnesses are taken at face value.

As I said, I reckon it's very important and welcome information for this case as opposed to being inconvenient, the reason being it places appropriate emphasis and value on the various forms of information at our disposal.

YES... we ALL know that witnesses can be unrelibale.

We do but that's not the premise of the OP. You're introducing a fallacious argument. The OP is a look at Albert, a look at what studies suggest, and looking at the two; is there reason to doubt that Albert's recollection of the event is that which happened in its entirety, and to what extent should it be doubted.

We know that hundreds of studies state witnesses are often unreliable, we know that the misinformation effect happens as a result of many factors and information received from many sources, we know that some of those tests and studies do not include 'being deliberately fed misinformation', we know that this wasn't an out of the ordinary event for Albert and he had other things on his mind, we know Albert was subject to information from various sources after the event.

Do I have any of that wrong?

If not, then I'd suggest there is room to doubt that Albert's recollection of the event was that which actually happened in its entirety, and it follows too much emphasis is placed upon witnesses such as Albert.

To what extent can Albert be doubted, well, I reckon that remains under discussion.

[A P Tomlinson]

I reckon you may have a lack of understanding on what 'the misinformation effect' is.

There are various reasons and factors generating the misinformation effect, such as: leading questions and even very subtle changes in the words that make up the questions, the eye-witness didn't take much notice of what was going on around him/her and so the event was never fully encoded into the memory and information gleaned after the event filled the gaps, information gleaned after an event is more recent in the memory and so it's easier to retrieve, discussing the event with other people after the event, reading newspapers, information heard at an inquest. 'Just a few of many factors that can effect the process of encoding, storing and recollecting an event.

This is very relevant to Albert in that by his own admission, he had other things on his mind and this wasn't an out of the ordinary event. There is a case to suggest that the event would not have been fully encoded in Albert's mind and information he received after the event, filled the gaps. Albert, of course, was subject to various forms of information from various sources, after the event.

And, Elizabeth's and John's statements do not add weight to the idea that Albert was not impacted by the misinformation effect. On the contrary, that was information Albert gleaned after his event which suggested to him that Annie was still alive after half four in the morning, meaning information that could have led him to fill in gaps in his memory.

Here is an interesting article:

Eyewitness Testimony and Memory Biases | Noba (nobaproject.com)

It draws upon approximately 25 texts/studies/tests. It describes the various ways in which the misinformation effect happens and includes the various means of testing, some of which do not involve 'being deliberately fed misinformation'. It concludes:

To conclude, eyewitness testimony is very powerful and convincing to jurors, even though it is not particularly reliable. Identification errors occur, and these errors can lead to people being falsely accused and even convicted. Likewise, eyewitness memory can be corrupted by leading questions, misinterpretations of events, conversations with co-witnesses, and their own expectations for what should have happened. People can even come to remember whole events that never occurred.

Anyone who simply dismisses these tests/studies/articles, undertaken by qualified people, must surely not want to believe it because it's a spoke in the wheel of going 'round the houses in discussions that demand witnesses are taken at face value.

As I said, I reckon it's very important and welcome information for this case as opposed to being inconvenient, the reason being it places appropriate emphasis and value on the various forms of information at our disposal.



We do but that's not the premise of the OP. You're introducing a fallacious argument. The OP is a look at Albert, a look at what studies suggest, and looking at the two; is there reason to doubt that Albert's recollection of the event is that which happened in its entirety, and to what extent should it be doubted.

We know that hundreds of studies state witnesses are often unreliable, we know that the misinformation effect happens as a result of many factors and information received from many sources, we know that some of those tests and studies do not include 'being deliberately fed misinformation', we know that this wasn't an out of the ordinary event for Albert and he had other things on his mind, we know Albert was subject to information from various sources after the event.

Do I have any of that wrong?

If not, then I'd suggest there is room to doubt that Albert's recollection of the event was that which actually happened in its entirety, and it follows too much emphasis is placed upon witnesses such as Albert.

To what extent can Albert be doubted, well, I reckon that remains under discussion.

I'll try and keep this as short and simple as I can.

Firts of all, I've read it, I understand it, and I can see how the study is all about witnesses who have been subjected to "Misniformation" triggers and effects, rather than the control group who weren't.
I don't doubt the results. In fact most of them seem like "statin' the bleedin' obvious" (Fawlty Towers reference..) in terms of how people who are misled by figures of authority are more likely to be unreliable than those who weren't. And how the more their misinformation is reinforced, the more believable they become to juries.
No statistics in the report or study are given as to the reliability of the control group.
The general reliability of witness testimony is not being questiond. Simply those who have been subjected to misinformation.

I'll be up front and honest and say that I would have much more faith in them if the main Doctor being quoted wasn't using the study to dsicredit victims of childhood sexual abuse, and to defend the likes of Ghislaine Maxwell and Harvey Weinstein, but that is a personal bias on my part.

Second. (I've asked this a few times, but you keep going back to suggesting I don't understand what I'm talking about)
Rather than simply lumping all witnesses in with the misniformation test group, please explain which of the "various reasons and factors generating the misinformation effect" apply to Albert.
Explain how you think his memory of the event is in doubt.
It is not enough to simply to state "Witnesses can be unreliable" as you quite rightly point out, we are discussing the validity of a specific witness.
Which of the triggers that the studies claim impact on witness credibility apply in this case.

I'm still somewhat at a loss to understand what about his story you consider unreliable, so to discuss it further it would really help if you elaborated and give me a clue as to what about him sparks the disparity.
What element or elements remove Albert from the reliable control group and puts him into the unreliable "Misinformation" group? Or, going back to your OP as requested, what details put him in Dr Loftus' "False Memory" category?

Lets discuss THOSE.
If your reply is once again simply that "Witnesses can be unreliable" without specifics or elabooration on the one person you chose to start a debate over, then it just becomes a pointless circular argument.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You are doing it again.
Starting fights just to win them.
Accept the argument is pointless and finished, pretend you won and move on.

If you made a point in response to another poster, refuting something he had suggested, and you repeated it seven times, and he never even made a response, would you feel the need to pretend that you won?

[A P Tomlinson]

If you made a point in response to another poster, refuting something he had suggested, and you repeated it seven times, and he never even made a response, would you feel the need to pretend that you won?

No, I'd just leave it and move on.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Firts of all, I've read it, I understand it

in terms of how people who are misled by figures of authority are more likely to be unreliable than those who weren't.

I'm not convinced you do. The reason being you say you understand it, but then talk exclusively of 'misled by figures of authority'. To remind you, the misinformation effect is subject to various types of information from various sources.

This is what I posted in the post to which you last replied:

There are various reasons and factors generating the misinformation effect, such as: leading questions and even very subtle changes in the words that make up the questions, the eye-witness didn't take much notice of what was going on around him/her and so the event was never fully encoded into the memory and information gleaned after the event filled the gaps, information gleaned after an event is more recent in the memory and so it's easier to retrieve, discussing the event with other people after the event, reading newspapers, information heard at an inquest. 'Just a few of many factors that can effect the process of encoding, storing and recollecting an event.

Do you agree with this? Do you agree with my brief of summary of that which qualified people are telling you? That being: the misinformation effect goes far beyond 'misled by figures of authority'.

The general reliability of witness testimony is not being questiond. Simply those who have been subjected to misinformation.

This part of your post is the giveaway that actually, you do not understand it.

You clearly believe that 'misinformation effect' is a result of witnesses being given false information and knowingly by the person giving that information. That is merely one means of many which results in the 'misinformation effect'. As I posted in the post to which you last replied, 'the misinformation effect' can be the result of simply conversations with people with no intent to deceive, reading a newspaper, the event was never fully encoded in the witness' mind because he or she wasn't taking a great deal of notice, simply a question phrased in a certain manner, or leading questions which don't have to be an intent to deceive at all but merely the style of the questioner who doesn't realise it's a leading question. There are all sorts of ways in which the 'misinformation effect' takes hold and it goes far beyond deliberately being fed misleading information by 'figures of authority'.

I've asked this a few times. Rather than simply lumping all witnesses in with the misniformation test group, please explain which of the "various reasons and factors generating the misinformation effect" apply to Albert. Explain how you think his memory of the event is in doubt. It is not enough to simply to state "Witnesses can be unreliable" as you quite rightly point out, we are discussing the validity of a specific witness. Which of the triggers that the studies claim impact on witness credibility apply in this case.

Did you actually read my last post? The one to which you have just responded?

I stated the following:

There are various reasons and factors generating the misinformation effect, such as: leading questions and even very subtle changes in the words that make up the questions, the eye-witness didn't take much notice of what was going on around him/her and so the event was never fully encoded into the memory and information gleaned after the event filled the gaps, information gleaned after an event is more recent in the memory and so it's easier to retrieve, discussing the event with other people after the event, reading newspapers, information heard at an inquest. 'Just a few of many factors that can effect the process of encoding, storing and recollecting an event.

This is very relevant to Albert in that by his own admission, he had other things on his mind and this wasn't an out of the ordinary event. There is a case to suggest that the event would not have been fully encoded in Albert's mind and information he received after the event, filled the gaps. Albert, of course, was subject to various forms of information from various sources, after the event.

We know that hundreds of studies state witnesses are often unreliable, we know that the misinformation effect happens as a result of many factors and information received from many sources, we know that some of those tests and studies do not include 'being deliberately fed misinformation', we know that this wasn't an out of the ordinary event for Albert and he had other things on his mind, we know Albert was subject to information from various sources after the event.

There you go, despite your claims that I'm stating: "witnesses are often unreliable and that's it", clearly I am not.

I reckon that where you're going is that unless you have a test study of a 19th century Victorian walking past a fence at half five in the morning, then you're going to suggest it doesn't apply to Albert. Well, that would be completely at odds with the hundreds of studies telling you that as a result of their studies, witness statements are often unreliable and should be treated with caution; and among those susceptible are those who experienced an innocuous event and in his own words had other things on his mind.

Do you still believe I'm simply stating: "witnesses are often unreliable and that's it"? Or can you see where I'm beginning to apply the findings of studies to Albert? That's just a start by the way, a conversation opener.

Do you want to reply to the points regarding the 'misinformation effect' and Albert's situation? Or is it more convenient to introduce fallacious arguments such as: "your only argument is that witnesses statements are often unreliable but we know that".

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I've asked this a few times ...

But you did not think of moving on?

[New Waterloo]

We have what we have with the witnesses. We will never resolve the time issues, we just have to find a way of analyzing what we have, not what we don't have. For example a real strength we have regarding the witnesses is that their memories did not fade with time, and little chance of being influenced too much.

Why? because for some reason the inquest during that era were held very quickly, often within a couple of days. Can you imagine all those people had to be contacted and given the time, paperwork prepared etc. Also there will be witnesses who could not be contacted about the inquests because they were away, out, at work etc. The inquests still went ahead by and large.

NW

[A P Tomlinson]

I'm not convinced you do. The reason being you say you understand it, but then talk exclusively of 'misled by figures of authority'. To remind you, the misinformation effect is subject to various types of information from various sources.

This is what I posted in the post to which you last replied:

There are various reasons and factors generating the misinformation effect, such as: leading questions and even very subtle changes in the words that make up the questions, the eye-witness didn't take much notice of what was going on around him/her and so the event was never fully encoded into the memory and information gleaned after the event filled the gaps, information gleaned after an event is more recent in the memory and so it's easier to retrieve, discussing the event with other people after the event, reading newspapers, information heard at an inquest. 'Just a few of many factors that can effect the process of encoding, storing and recollecting an event.

Do you agree with this? Do you agree with my brief of summary of that which qualified people are telling you? That being: the misinformation effect goes far beyond 'misled by figures of authority'.



This part of your post is the giveaway that actually, you do not understand it.

You clearly believe that 'misinformation effect' is a result of witnesses being given false information and knowingly by the person giving that information. That is merely one means of many which results in the 'misinformation effect'. As I posted in the post to which you last replied, 'the misinformation effect' can be the result of simply conversations with people with no intent to deceive, reading a newspaper, the event was never fully encoded in the witness' mind because he or she wasn't taking a great deal of notice, simply a question phrased in a certain manner, or leading questions which don't have to be an intent to deceive at all but merely the style of the questioner who doesn't realise it's a leading question. There are all sorts of ways in which the 'misinformation effect' takes hold and it goes far beyond deliberately being fed misleading information by 'figures of authority'.



Did you actually read my last post? The one to which you have just responded?

I stated the following:

There are various reasons and factors generating the misinformation effect, such as: leading questions and even very subtle changes in the words that make up the questions, the eye-witness didn't take much notice of what was going on around him/her and so the event was never fully encoded into the memory and information gleaned after the event filled the gaps, information gleaned after an event is more recent in the memory and so it's easier to retrieve, discussing the event with other people after the event, reading newspapers, information heard at an inquest. 'Just a few of many factors that can effect the process of encoding, storing and recollecting an event.

This is very relevant to Albert in that by his own admission, he had other things on his mind and this wasn't an out of the ordinary event. There is a case to suggest that the event would not have been fully encoded in Albert's mind and information he received after the event, filled the gaps. Albert, of course, was subject to various forms of information from various sources, after the event.

We know that hundreds of studies state witnesses are often unreliable, we know that the misinformation effect happens as a result of many factors and information received from many sources, we know that some of those tests and studies do not include 'being deliberately fed misinformation', we know that this wasn't an out of the ordinary event for Albert and he had other things on his mind, we know Albert was subject to information from various sources after the event.

There you go, despite your claims that I'm stating: "witnesses are often unreliable and that's it", clearly I am not.

I reckon that where you're going is that unless you have a test study of a 19th century Victorian walking past a fence at half five in the morning, then you're going to suggest it doesn't apply to Albert. Well, that would be completely at odds with the hundreds of studies telling you that as a result of their studies, witness statements are often unreliable and should be treated with caution; and among those susceptible are those who experienced an innocuous event and in his own words had other things on his mind.

Do you still believe I'm simply stating: "witnesses are often unreliable and that's it"? Or can you see where I'm beginning to apply the findings of studies to Albert? That's just a start by the way, a conversation opener.

Do you want to reply to the points regarding the 'misinformation effect' and Albert's situation? Or is it more convenient to introduce fallacious arguments such as: "you're only argument is that witnesses statements are often unreliable but we know that".

You reckon that?
You are wrong.
I don't want to see any Victorian science or study, just to understand how you and all the science you keep presenting as hard evidence show that Albert is mistaken.

If the best you can come up with is "...he had other things on his mind and this wasn't an out of the ordinary event." then I'm not sure you have a case.
I'm sorry, but that argument is not supported by the links you keep posting, or any science on the subject of memory and witness fallibility I've ever watched or read. None of that vague and nebulous statement goes anywhere near touching the levels of "misinformation" cited by the writers of the reports.

At any given moment the instant prior to something unexpected happening, every coherent human being who has ever lived has had "other things..." on their mind.
It's the default state for the human brain.
It's no more of a distraction than whistling a tune, or checking your pockets for keys. At the moment something you don't expect happens, even if it has happened before, you subconsciously - then consciously, even if only momentarily, take note of it. It's the change between the two states that causes you to observe and remember.

In the circumstances you suggest, if there were any genuine cause to doubt him (which I still don't see,) he is far more likely to have FORGOTTEN hearing the sounds, rather than creating phantom memories out of thin air. I'd be more inclined to agree with that premise than that there was no sound, but his lack of focused attention, and the fact it had happened before, a long with hearing that a murder had happened... caused him to suddenly invent a memory. Which it seems like is the case you are arguing.

You wanted a discussion on his reliability.

Here goes.
Having read all the links and quotes you have posted I still see no reason to consider Cadosche's statements as unreliable. None of the links or quotes show any reason to doubt him. and the best argument that has been put forward is that, "he had other things on his mind and this wasn't an out of the ordinary event. There is a case to suggest that the event would not have been fully encoded in Albert's mind and information he received after the event, filled the gaps." Without offering WHY or how that "case" is to be made.
There was very little time between the event and his recollection, so time was not a factor, the way it is for witnesses who give their stories weeks and months after the event.
No one fed him misinformation to push him toward am initial false statement. (If there was, show it)
He gave his statement to the inquiry free from prejudicial lines of inquiry from the coroner/jury.
There is no traumatic event to cloud his judgement or over stimulate his memory. (He did not "witness a crime" and try to cram too many facets of the event into his head at once.)
He was not distracted by any external noise, activity or other stimuli at the time of the event.
He was familiar with the environment and would be very capable of determing the location and type of sounds that occured, (speach and an object hitting the fence)
He was not mentally incapacitated.
As far as we know he was not hearing impaired. (I'm sure it would have been a point made at the inquest if he had been)
If anything after going through all this process, I now consider him to be one of the most reliable witnesses we have.

Over to you.

[A P Tomlinson]

But you did not think of moving on?

You can't help yourself can you?