Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[Fleetwood Mac]

What I would like to know is: why is it that the clocks were so especially badly out of sync in the vicinity of Hanbury Street?

When I put forward the idea that Albert may have been mistaken in his recollection, I was repeatedly informed that I needed to demonstrate how the research related to Albert, which I did by the way but it was ignored when we were getting down to the details.

Here, we have the same people using a wider principle that 'the clocks weren't great and therefore we can't rely on them', but at no point have they demonstrated how and why the clocks in Hanbury Street were wrong.

We have a saying 'round these parts: if it's good enough for the goose, it's good enough for the gander.

My conclusion on a lot of the arguments put forward on this thread and some others, is that it's a case of when it suits.

You're quite right in that we should not unswervingly accept that the clocks were wrong.

Punctuality was very important for the Victorians, it was a part of their culture, more so than today; and of course:

1) They needed to have good time keeping in those days given the expanding railways and the possibility of trains smashing into another, and it was essential to manage complex industrial networks as well as a much larger working population. Time keeping had become very important by the late 19th century.

2) Supposedly this was an age of poor time keeping, but nobody mentioned it at the inquests. Witnesses were pressed for times, meaning they believed those times were important which in turn means they felt they could rely on the clocks and watches. Nobody at the inquests bothered to say: we must be careful with the times because we know that we're never sure what time it is, but according to theorists today it should have been obvious to them that the clocks and times were probably wrong and therefore not so important.

3) Publicans, for example, would lose their licence for not shutting up at the right time and that demanded knowing the time. It was very much a part of regulating the working classes in an age of temperance values (among the higher classes, at least espoused values anyway) and strict working times.

I think you touch on a good point in that an argument begins from a premise that the clocks must have been inaccurate.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The flaw in your argument is not in suggesting the possibility that the times were wrong, it's fallacious because you're moving them to coincide with one another and then claiming it's as likely a scenario as any other scenario.

That is quite correct.

But it is actually worse than that, because previously we were being told that it is virtually certain that Long did see Chapman and that Cadoche did hear her.

Now it seems to have been reduced to just an evens chance.

I would like to return to the issue I raised in #250.

There are no conflicts between the timings given at the Mitre Square inquest.

Lawende's and Levy's timings agree.
Watkins' and Morris' timings agree.
Watkins' and Sequeira's timings agree to within 5 minutes.
Watkins' and Collard's timings agree to within 2 minutes.

Harvey gave a timing based on the post office clock.

No one has questioned it.

What I would like to know is: why is it that the clocks were so especially badly out of sync in the vicinity of Hanbury Street?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Exactly.

Except that I would say the question is whether the clocks were wrong in a fashion that would have allowed Albert to hear 'no' minutes later than Elizabeth saw 'Annie'.

Aye, it's the balance of probability we're trying to get at here.

There is not much use in anyone arguing 'it's possible and therefore it is equally as likely'.

Employing that line of reasoning, we could just conjure up anything: Albert had the wrong day, Elizabeth didn't even walk that way and it was just a figment of her imagination, and so on. From there we'd appeal to ignorance: you cannot disprove it and therefore it is as an argument of equal worth.

There is a reason why 'it is possible and therefore of equal worth' is deemed to be an invalid argument in a reasonable discussion.

Whatever the facts and the evidence, we'd simply claim: it's possible, you cannot disprove it and therefore my claim is valid as yours; which of course would be a monumental barrier to knowledge and learning.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Then why should we assume that those effects on memory didn’t apply when Albert was retrospectively estimating periods of time?

Straw man argument.

It has been agreed that it is possible that Albert's time was not correct.

The flaw in your argument is not in suggesting the possibility that the times were wrong, it's fallacious because you're moving them to coincide with one another and then claiming it's as likely a scenario as any other scenario.

While we're on with memory distortion, in the event Albert's recollection did not match the event then it's all academic anyway.

I'd suggest that when you claimed Albert could not have had a memory error in relation to two sounds, it was a very inflexible, 'dismiss out of hand without consideration' argument; while here, your argument is very much 'anything is possible and so it's equally as likely'.

I reckon the approach and reasoning is inconsistent.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Of all the possibilities that might be relevant to two estimated times one is no more unlikely than another.

This is pretty much the 'invincible ignorance fallacy'.

1) You are told by the witnesses that they were there at different times.

2) Your argument supposes they were wrong in their estimate of the time.

3) Furthermore, your argument supposes that their timings were out in a fashion that moves one earlier to exactly coincide with the other, and the other later to exactly coincide with the other.

You have some hurdles to get over there, which render your argument the least likely.

That we have absolutely no cause to seek to dismiss the evidence of Long and Cadosch simply on the grounds that their timing estimates are a mere 5 or 6 minutes apart.

This is misrepresenting the facts, you have bent the times to '5 or 6 minutes apart'.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Aye, we're in agreement.

The inconsistency in approach is that articles/research by qualified people, tell us that a common memory error is when a person doesn't pay attention to what is going on around him/her, and that the mind automatically discards unimportant information within seconds; due to our inbuilt survival mechanism.

Albert went to the toilet twice and heard a noise against a fence and a "no", and in his own words he had other things on his mind. He had no idea that a crime had been, or was about to be, committed.

It is not a stretch to believe that Albert's brain was faced with irrelevant information when he had other things on this mind, and therefore there is room for doubt in terms of the recollection matching the event.

This has been dismissed out of hand by the very same people suggesting: the clocks may have been wrong and therefore we can accept that Albert and Elizabeth were at 29 Hanbury Street at more or less the same time.

There are fewer hurdles to get over in order to believe Albert was subject to memory error.

It is possible that Albert was mistaken in his recollection; it is possible that Albert and Elizabeth were at 29 Hanbury Street at more or less the same time.

Of the two, it is more probable that Albert was mistaken, simply because there are a fewer hurdles to get over, fewer leaps of faith; in that eventuality.

Then why should we assume that those effects on memory didn’t apply when Albert was retrospectively estimating periods of time?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Straw man response.

You presented your hypothetical scenario in an attempt to add weight to your point of view. I objected on the grounds that it is speculation at best and has no evidential basis for what may have happened. Nobody was discussing the definition of 'hypothetical' versus the definition of 'evidence'.

There is nothing wrong with a hypothetical scenario. You claim that I was giving it ‘to add weight’ which presupposes that you know my thoughts. I say that I made it simply as a means of illustrating a point.

Straw man argument.

Nowhere did I claim or suggest that 'we do not have to apply the same level of caution across the board'.

In response to your query on whether or not we should doubt Halse and Long, and your attempt to draw a parallel, I said that in the event their times were out; it merely tells you that they thought they knew the time but they didn't. It has no bearing on whether or not Elizabeth and Albert were at 29 Hanbury Street at more or less the same time.

I simply stated that Halse and Long had both estimated times which we cant assume to have been correct and that we have no way of confirming or refuting. The same applies to Cadosch and Long. We cannot confirm or refute either of their quoted times because we have no way of evaluating them.

Straw man argument.

Nobody is suggesting that all of the clocks were accurate.

The point that is being put before you is this: your claim that the clocks may have been wrong and therefore we should accept that Elizabeth and Albert were at 29 Hanbury Street at more or less the same time, is flawed, illogical and fallacious.

Again, this isn’t correct. In fact it’s a Straw Man argument. I’m not saying that we should accept that Long and Cadosch’s testimony aligned; I’m saying that we should accept the possibility that they were.

The part of your argument that is fallacious is not when you say the clocks may have been wrong: that is accepted.

The part of your argument that is fallacious is when you use that possibility to turn it into: Albert and Elizabeth were at 29 Hanbury Street at more or less the same time.

This in itself is clearly illogical. If you accept the fact that the clocks might have been wrong then it makes no sense to suggest that this couldn’t have had a bearing on Cadosch and Long’s times.

This appears to be at odds with your various posts that claim: "game over, everything else is biased crap".

You're left with the same flaw in your argument:

Albert and Elizabeth thought they knew the time. They may have been wrong. It does not follow that we can accept they were wrong in a fashion that puts them both at 29 Hanbury Street at more or less the same time. It is merely one possibility of several, and that being the case it is unlikely, on the balance of probability; that the clocks were wrong in a fashion that places them both at 29 Hanbury Street at more or less the same time.

Of all the possibilities that might be relevant to two estimated times one is no more unlikely than another. You are trying to portray this as if times are being deliberately adjusted which clearly isn’t the case. We cannot adjust an unknown and there are too many unknown variables that have to be considered.

The accuracy of clocks.
The synchronicity of clocks.
Individuals abilities to estimate periods of time.
The way memory might affect the estimation of time periods.
The affects of other people (for example if Cadosch was ‘knocked up.’ We have no way of knowing if he was or wasn't but many were)

All of these might have come into play. What I, and others have been trying to do, is express something that shouldn’t need expressing. It should be a given. That we have absolutely no cause to seek to dismiss the evidence of Long and Cadosch simply on the grounds that their timing estimates are a mere 5 or 6 minutes apart. To do so would be completely illogical and detrimental to any reasonable assessment of the case. We cannot assume that there times actually aligned but we certainly can’t assume any likelihood that they didn’t.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Albert and Elizabeth thought they knew the time. They may have been wrong. It does not follow that we can accept they were wrong in a fashion that puts them both at 29 Hanbury Street at more or less the same time. It is merely one possibility of several, and that being the case it is unlikely, on the balance of probability; that the clocks were wrong in a fashion that places them both at 29 Hanbury Street at more or less the same time.

Exactly.

Except that I would say the question is whether the clocks were wrong in a fashion that would have allowed Albert to hear 'no' minutes later than Elizabeth saw 'Annie'.

[Fleetwood Mac]

That is what I myself have been arguing.

I summed up the argument by stating that in order for the two conflicting testimonies to be made to agree, the clocks would have had to be wrong in just the right way.

One would, for example, have had to be at least six minutes slow and the other at least six minutes fast, and not vice-versa.

That is a big assumption.

Aye, we're in agreement.

The inconsistency in approach is that articles/research by qualified people, tell us that a common memory error is when a person doesn't pay attention to what is going on around him/her, and that the mind automatically discards unimportant information within seconds; due to our inbuilt survival mechanism.

Albert went to the toilet twice and heard a noise against a fence and a "no", and in his own words he had other things on his mind. He had no idea that a crime had been, or was about to be, committed.

It is not a stretch to believe that Albert's brain was faced with irrelevant information when he had other things on this mind, and therefore there is room for doubt in terms of the recollection matching the event.

This has been dismissed out of hand by the very same people suggesting: the clocks may have been wrong and therefore we can accept that Albert and Elizabeth were at 29 Hanbury Street at more or less the same time.

There are fewer hurdles to get over in order to believe Albert was subject to memory error.

It is possible that Albert was mistaken in his recollection; it is possible that Albert and Elizabeth were at 29 Hanbury Street at more or less the same time.

Of the two, it is more probable that Albert was mistaken, simply because there are a fewer hurdles to get over, fewer leaps of faith; in that eventuality.

[Fleetwood Mac]

A hypothetical scenario can’t be based on actual evidence because it’s hypothetical. It’s the definition of hypothetical. You can’t have an hypothetical situation that isn’t speculation.

Straw man response.

You presented your hypothetical scenario in an attempt to add weight to your point of view. I objected on the grounds that it is speculation at best and has no evidential basis for what may have happened. Nobody was discussing the definition of 'hypothetical' versus the definition of 'evidence'.

And as they ‘might not have been correct’ Long and Cadosch’s times ‘might not have been correct.’ We can’t allow for reasonable error in one case and not another. We have to apply the same level of caution across the board.

Straw man argument.

Nowhere did I claim or suggest that 'we do not have to apply the same level of caution across the board'.

In response to your query on whether or not we should doubt Halse and Long, and your attempt to draw a parallel, I said that in the event their times were out; it merely tells you that they thought they knew the time but they didn't. It has no bearing on whether or not Elizabeth and Albert were at 29 Hanbury Street at more or less the same time.

No, the premise is that we cannot and should not make the erroneous assumption that clocks and watches were all accurate and well synchronised. This isn’t the case in 2023 and it wasn’t the case in 1888. I can see nothing that should be considered controversial in any of this. A margin for error has to be allowed for. If we fail to apply this then it could lead to the dismissal of things that might have been the case, or the assumption of things that might not have been the case.

Straw man argument.

Nobody is suggesting that all of the clocks were accurate.

The point that is being put before you is this: your claim that the clocks may have been wrong and therefore we should accept that Elizabeth and Albert were at 29 Hanbury Street at more or less the same time, is flawed, illogical and fallacious.

The part of your argument that is fallacious is not when you say the clocks may have been wrong: that is accepted.

The part of your argument that is fallacious is when you use that possibility to turn it into: Albert and Elizabeth were at 29 Hanbury Street at more or less the same time.

I’m simply suggesting a possible.

This appears to be at odds with your various posts that claim: "game over, everything else is biased crap".

You're left with the same flaw in your argument:

Albert and Elizabeth thought they knew the time. They may have been wrong. It does not follow that we can accept they were wrong in a fashion that puts them both at 29 Hanbury Street at more or less the same time. It is merely one possibility of several, and that being the case it is unlikely, on the balance of probability; that the clocks were wrong in a fashion that places them both at 29 Hanbury Street at more or less the same time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

One would have had to be at least six minutes slow and the other at least six minutes fast, and not vice-versa.

Not necessarily.

“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.”

We don’t know how Cadosch arrived at the estimation of the time that he got up. Many people were knocked up in the mornings. So one possibility was that the person that knocked him up was late arriving but Cadosch wasn’t aware of it. Another possibility is that he got up at say 5.18 and instead of a 5 minute gap between him getting up and going outside it was a 7 minute gap? Remember that when he was talking to the police this was some hours later.

My other point is this - why is it ok to suggest that Cadosch’s recollection of what he’d heard in the yard might have been at fault and yet when it’s suggested that his memory might have been very slightly at fault when recalling estimated periods of time this is slated as being unrealistic?

Did Cadosch have a selective memory?

Is a level playing field too much to ask?

[Herlock Sholmes]

1) Your 'hypothetical scenario' is speculation at best and not founded on any evidence. It follows that while it may have some interest for those who like to speculate, it is not relevant in a discussion on what may have happened based on the evidence.

A hypothetical scenario can’t be based on actual evidence because it’s hypothetical. It’s the definition of hypothetical. You can’t have an hypothetical situation that isn’t speculation.

2) Halse's and Long's statements do not tell you anything other than they gauged the time but they might not have been correct. The only doubt that arises from that is their time accuracy. That's all.

And as they ‘might not have been correct’ Long and Cadosch’s times ‘might not have been correct.’ We can’t allow for reasonable error in one case and not another. We have to apply the same level of caution across the board.

3) Most people would accept that Elizabeth, Albert and every other witness in the case may have had the time wrong. On the other hand, they may have been close to the mark.

No one would deny that.

I'd like to point out that your premise is this: they may have had the times wrong and that is good reason to believe that they were there at roughly the same time.

It does not follow, it is a fallacious argument.

No, the premise is that we cannot and should not make the erroneous assumption that clocks and watches were all accurate and well synchronised. This isn’t the case in 2023 and it wasn’t the case in 1888. I can see nothing that should be considered controversial in any of this. A margin for error has to be allowed for. If we fail to apply this then it could lead to the dismissal of things that might have been the case, or the assumption of things that might not have been the case.

Logically, in the event they had the time wrong it is equally plausible that the time difference between their arrival at Hanbury Street was more than 15 minutes.

And that is what a margin for error is by definition. It works both ways. This is why when talking about the application of a margin for error we use a + and a - figure.

I suppose your argument is a fallacy of inappropriate presumption, in that you're claiming the clocks were wrong and therefore that is good reason to believe Elizabeth and Albert were there at the same time, when in fact it is merely one possibility and no more likely than they had their times about right; or Elizabeth was there later than she suggested and Albert was there earlier than he suggested.

You suppose incorrectly. I’m not claiming that the clocks were wrong, only that it’s reasonable and proportionate to consider the possibility that they might have been. Your position is the one where a positive is being claimed. I’m simply suggesting a possible.

Long story short, the idea that the clocks were wrong and therefore we can accept Elizabeth and Albert were there at roughly the same time, is flawed and illogical.

Its without a single flaw and entirely logical.

We can sum this up with me asking a very simple question requiring a yes or no answer….

Do you believe that we should assume that all clocks and watches in Victorian London were accurate and perfectly synchronised and that it would be unlikely in the extreme that there could have been a margin for error of 5 minutes or so?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I'd like to point out that your premise is this: they may have had the times wrong and that is good reason to believe that they were there at roughly the same time.

It does not follow, it is a fallacious argument.

I suppose your argument is a fallacy of inappropriate presumption, in that you're claiming the clocks were wrong and therefore that is good reason to believe Elizabeth and Albert were there at the same time, when in fact it is merely one possibility and no more likely than they had their times about right; or Elizabeth was there later than she suggested and Albert was there earlier than he suggested.

Long story short, the idea that the clocks were wrong and therefore we can accept Elizabeth and Albert were there at roughly the same time, is flawed and illogical.

That is what I myself have been arguing.

I summed up the argument by stating that in order for the two conflicting testimonies to be made to agree, the clocks would have had to be wrong in just the right way.

One would, for example, have had to be at least six minutes slow and the other at least six minutes fast, and not vice-versa.

That is a big assumption.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I didn't say you could conclude there wasn't a conflict.

I said you cannot conclude there is a conflict. That's not the same thing.

But unless you can conclude there is a conflict, then there is no conflict to resolve. That's the problem. You have to be able to show the evidence is conflicting - you have to be able to conclude there is a conflict... That is why it is an error to say that Long and Cadosche's testimony conflict, because they cannot be shown to conflict due to the imprecision of the information we have to work with... we cannot say that their testimony's are in conflict and so we cannot say there is a conflict to resolve.

I did not say that we can conclude that the two testimonies are in conflict.

I said that there is a conflict which would need to be resolved in order for the witnesses' testimonies to be taken to support one another.

That there is a conflict that needs to be resolved was acknowledged by the coroner:


There is some conflict in the evidence ... but this variation is not very great or very important... if he is out of his reckoning but a quarter of an hour, the discrepancy in the evidence of fact vanishes, and he may be mistaken ...


The discrepancy in the evidence cannot vanish, because there is no evidence that the brewery clock was six or more minutes fast nor that the church clock was similarly slow.

Consequently, the conflict remains unresolved.

[Fleetwood Mac]

At the Eddowes inquest:

Constable Long

[Coroner] Had you been past that spot previously to your discovering the apron? - I passed about twenty minutes past two o'clock.

Detective Halse

I came through Goulston-street about twenty minutes past two,

Do we consider this to be a problematic conflict?

Hypothetical Scenario.

There’s a fight in a street. Two days later one of the men dies as a result of his injuries. Two weeks later two witnesses came forward both of whom had gone on holiday abroad after seeing the fight so were unaware of the significance of their evidence. One witness says that she’d seen the fight at 1.50 pm and that she’d arrived at her time by the fact that she’d left her house at around 1.45 and the location was around 5 minutes away. The other witness said that he’d seen the fight a little after 1.30 pm and he took his time because he’d left his phone in his car and so had asked a passerby who told him that it was 1.30 around 2 minutes or so before he saw the fight.

So should the police doubt the validity of these two witnesses because there is an apparent 20 minute discrepancy between the two?

1) Your 'hypothetical scenario' is speculation at best and not founded on any evidence. It follows that while it may have some interest for those who like to speculate, it is not relevant in a discussion on what may have happened based on the evidence.

2) Halse's and Long's statements do not tell you anything other than they gauged the time but they might not have been correct. The only doubt that arises from that is their time accuracy. That's all.

3) Most people would accept that Elizabeth, Albert and every other witness in the case may have had the time wrong. On the other hand, they may have been close to the mark.

I'd like to point out that your premise is this: they may have had the times wrong and that is good reason to believe that they were there at roughly the same time.

It does not follow, it is a fallacious argument.

Logically, in the event they had the time wrong it is equally plausible that the time difference between their arrival at Hanbury Street was more than 15 minutes.

I suppose your argument is a fallacy of inappropriate presumption, in that you're claiming the clocks were wrong and therefore that is good reason to believe Elizabeth and Albert were there at the same time, when in fact it is merely one possibility and no more likely than they had their times about right; or Elizabeth was there later than she suggested and Albert was there earlier than he suggested.

Long story short, the idea that the clocks were wrong and therefore we can accept Elizabeth and Albert were there at roughly the same time, is flawed and illogical.