Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[GBinOz]

Hi Jeff,

I posted these extracts on my post # 115, but have reposted them here for the convenience of discussion.

Lloyd's Weekly News 9 Sep:
On visiting the house next door to the tragedy, 27, our representative saw Mr. Albert Cadosen, a carpenter, who resides there and works in Shoe-lane, Fleet-street. He says: I was not very well in the night and I went out into the back yard about 25 minutes past five. It was just getting daylight, and as I passed to the back of the yard I heard a sound as of two people up in the corner of the next yard. On coming back I heard some words which I did not catch, but I heard a woman say "No." Then I heard a kind of scuffle going on, and someone seemed to fall heavily on to the ground against the wooden partition which divided the yard, at the spot where the body was afterwards found. As I though it was some of the people belonging to the house, I passed into my own room, and took no further notice.

Daily News 10 Sep:
At twenty minutes past five a lodger went into the yard and noticed nothing to excite his suspicion.

The lodger who came down at 5.25 fancied he heard a slight scuffle, with the noise of someone falling against the pailings, but he took no notice of that. They take very little notice in Hanbury street, even of strangers to the house, who sometimes turn in for a sleep on the stairs before the markets open.

Albert Cadosch, who lodges next door, had occasion to go into the adjoining yard at the back at 5.25, and states that he heard a conversation on the other side of the palings, as if between two people. He caught the word “No,” and fancied he subsequently heard a slight scuffle, with the noise of a falling against the palings, but thinking that his neighbours might probably be out in the yard, he took no further notice and went to his work.

Daily Telegraph Inquest Report of Sep19 published Sep 20:
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.

Cadosch testified that he reported to police after he returned home from work on the day of the murder. He must have heard rumours of what happened to warrant going to the police. The next day, and the day after that, he was reported in the press. Is it likely that he told the press a markedly different story to that which he told the police? He told Lloyd's that he heard a sound as of two people up in the corner of the next yard. The coroner posed a specific question on this statement, which Cadosch denied. Would the coroner have been referring to Cadosch's police statement, or the press statement. You suggested before that the police might have asked "how long were you in the loo the first time? how long between visits?" but if he told the police and the press the same story, there was, at that stage, only one visit to the loo. In his original statements he shows no confidence that he has seen or heard anything of importance - "I though it was some of the people belonging to the house", "noticed nothing to excite his suspicion", "but thinking that his neighbours might probably be out in the yard, he took no further notice".

Come the inquest, he is even less confident of his memories. He is unsure of where the now single word came from, and when the coroner poses the vital question:
It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings?, he reverts to memories from times previous to the day of the murder, and adds that he wasn't paying attention anyway - 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.

IMO, I can see a case for a man who saw nothing, and heard nothing out of the ordinary, having his memory play tricks on him by reasoning that there was a murder next door, and he was there around a rumoured time of the murder, so he really should have witnessed something of use to the case. JMO.

Best regards, George

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Three points: although Cadoche was reported to have heard a conversation, he testified to having heard only one voice; the fact that Elizabeth Long was also known as Durrell and that the Maidman Street victim also went by two surnames, suggests that Lechmere's use of two surnames was hardly unusual; if Long's purpose in going to the market was to mind carts, she would presumably have needed to have a pretty good idea of what time it was when she was making her way there.

One more thing: she testified that she reached the market a few minutes after 5.30.
I suggest she was in the habit of doing that and also in the habit of hearing the half past the hour chime on her way to work.

[GBinOz]

Those who are unsure about the testimony of Elizabeth Long may care to have a look at this video by Elizabeth Loftus, and her relating of the story of Steve Titus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB2OegI6wvI&ab_channel=TED

Cheers, George

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Those who are unsure about the testimony of Elizabeth Long may care to have a look at this video by Elizabeth Loftus, and her relating of the story of Steve Titus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB2OegI6wvI&ab_channel=TED

Cheers, George

There was a strange case in England a few decades ago which was featured on the BBC's Rough Justice series.

A man who had a strong alibi was nevertheless convicted of directing a robbery at a building society (similar to a bank).

An expert was able to convince the appeal court, by reference to a comparison of the layout of the actual robber's facial features as recorded on CCTV and those of the convicted man, that they could not possibly be the same person.

It should have been obvious to anyone that the two men were quite unalike: the robber was very broad shouldered and well built, whereas the accused was slightly built.

I would suggest it would have being similarly obvious that the broad-shouldered stout man seen by Schwartz could not possibly have been the slightly-built Aaron Kosminski.

[Herlock Sholmes]

im still waiting for somebody to tell me how three independent witnesses that all corroborate a later TOD and each other are somehow unreliable.

one branch might be able to be broken, but three bound together is almost impossible.

Exactly Abby. It’s not that the three witnesses were unreliable, because we have no evidence that they were, it’s simply a case of people believing that the murder must have taken place at 4.30 or earlier and so the three witness must be made to look unreliable. It’s a clear case of - start with a conclusion then shape the evidence to fit the facts. John Richardson is one of the strongest witnesses in the whole case. As is Cadosch. Did Long see Annie. Very probably.

Thats 100% of the witnesses for a later ToD. A yet monumental efforts are made to try and denigrate them.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There’s nothing in the detail of Cadosch’s statement that gives us reason to malign him. If he was simply spinning a tale just to boost his own self-importance then he’d have said more. He’d have been 100% sure about the ‘No,’ for a start. He also mentions that fact that he’s been ill which caused him to spend longer in the outside loo than normal which is hardly a detail one would add if this was just an ego trip. Also, if Cadosch was trying to fit his evidence to suit the fact that he’d found out about the murder why didn’t he state that the ‘no’ came from a woman? To doubt Cadosch we have to start from a position of wanting him to have been mistaken or a liar because evidence for this is missing (although we appear to trust implicitly the various newspaper reports despite the fact that we have evidence of their errors and exaggerations and despite the fact that it was them that had the motive to stretch the truth.) As Jeff has said, witnesses are usually honest. The same can’t always be said about the accuracy of reporters. For me, the reports of his inquest testimony trump the variously coloured and error-ridden stories that they produced.

And do we not think that the police would have questioned the neighbours? Asking if anyone had been in their yards talking or making sounds? Yet we don’t hear of the police saying that Cadosch probably heard Mr Cohen and Mr Smith talking in the backyard of number 25 do we? So it appears likely that they found no alternative explanation for what Cadosch heard. And what would Cadosch have known by the time that he talked to the police? Could he have been sure that someone hadn’t gone into the yard of number 29 after he’d left for work and before Davis found the body?

We have no reason to doubt him.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Exactly Abby. It’s not that the three witnesses were unreliable, because we have no evidence that they were, it’s simply a case of people believing that the murder must have taken place at 4.30 or earlier and so the three witness must be made to look unreliable. It’s a clear case of - start with a conclusion then shape the evidence to fit the facts. John Richardson is one of the strongest witnesses in the whole case. As is Cadosch. Did Long see Annie. Very probably.

Thats 100% of the witnesses for a later ToD. A yet monumental efforts are made to try and denigrate them.

Is it not possible to argue that in order for those three witnesses' evidence to be made to stand up, Phillips' evidence has to be discredited?

A case of starting with the conclusion that the murder was committed at about 5.30 p.m. and then looking for any angle from which to argue that Phillips must have been wrong?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is it not possible to argue that in order for those three witnesses' evidence to be made to stand up, Phillips' evidence has to be discredited?

A case of starting with the conclusion that the murder was committed at about 5.30 p.m. and then looking for any angle from which to argue that Phillips must have been wrong?

I don’t think so. As far as I’m aware no one has said that a Doctor couldn’t estimate a ToD and get it right. But he could also get it wrong for obvious reasons and as Jeff has pointed out a 5.30 ToD is still within an acceptable estimation range. The problem is that we have no way of double-checking his estimation so we’re left with a situation where Phillips is almost neutral. We can’t dismiss him on medical grounds as provably wrong and we can’t claim him as provably correct so what we have is three witnesses and all three of them point to a later ToD. How many cases do we have where, to arrive at a conclusion, we have to eliminate every single witness. We can’t put a figure on it of course but I come back to this - what are the chances of three entirely unconnected witness, none of whom had a reason to lie, and they were all mistaken or lying? That point alone makes a later ToD more likely.

[A P Tomlinson]

Is it not possible to argue that in order for those three witnesses' evidence to be made to stand up, Phillips' evidence has to be discredited?

A case of starting with the conclusion that the murder was committed at about 5.30 p.m. and then looking for any angle from which to argue that Phillips must have been wrong?

No its about weighing up 4 witnesses, three of whom have stories of their personal experiences that support each other, and one who used what has been known to be flawed undeveloped science for decades, that tells a different story.
I see no plausible reason to doubt the three, (none of the science presented by FM has any relevance to the circumstances Cadosch found himself in that day, beyond extreme reaching and stretching,) and plenty of widely understood science based reasons to doubt the other.

I have no idea of, or vested interest in, exactly what time she was killed, but the evidence suggests it was after Richardson visited the house, before Davis went to the yard and probably around the time Cadosch was in the yard of number 27.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

No its about weighing up 4 witnesses, three of whom have stories of their personal experiences that support each other, and one who used what has been known to be flawed undeveloped science for decades, that tells a different story.

Long's and Cadoche's stories do not support each other.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

As far as I’m aware no one has said that a Doctor couldn’t estimate a ToD and get it right. But he could also get it wrong for obvious reasons and as Jeff has pointed out a 5.30 ToD is still within an acceptable estimation range.

You are entitled to side with the witnesses, although I would point out that two of them do not necessarily agree with each other.

But if it were not for those witnesses' testimony, would you be questioning Phillips' estimate?

You argue that his methods were unscientific and unreliable, and that he was wrong, but the fact is that his estimate was reasonable and it is only because of the witness testimony that it was called into doubt.

That does not make his estimate wrong.

[A P Tomlinson]

Long's and Cadoche's stories do not support each other.

OK,
but do I think it more likely that Long got her quarter clock chimes out by 15 minutes, or that Albert Cadosche went straight to work after hearing nothing, then had a psychic storm upon hearing about the murder, and went to the police with a phantom memory that suddenly appeared in his head, which he somehow believed that he had believed all day? And that coincidentally Richardson had an equally confounding brain storm that caused him to forget seeing a body?
Yes, far more likely.

Of all them, Long is the most problematic, but the timescales in most of the murders are questionable. We have PC's giving times to the exact minute who are trusted implicitly, but we also have an Inspector (and professional horologist) who compiles a timeline based on multiple witnesses and books are written by "experts" on how there is a "Time Gap" effectively discounting his ability to count.
We also have witnesses who identify bodies by the clothes they wore with far less distrust than that applied to Long.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Cadosche's testimony, though, isn't exactly full of explicit and exotic details. And remembering you went to the loo twice that morning isn't exactly all that much of a stretch, nor is recalling you heard some people talking. At the time he may have heard more than just "No", but because he wasn't paying all that much attention, that's all he recalls later. A bump on the fence, while nothing unusual, still would be something not overly surprising to recall, particularly if it was just after he passed so came from slightly behind him and startled him slightly.

There's really nothing, though, that would generate those types of memory distortions from hearing about the crime. Hearing there was a murder next door isn't going to implant false memories of him hearing voices and/or noises on the fence. So I'm not sure how you see that first paragraph as being at all relevant to his testimony. But to each their own.

- Jeff

This doesn't address the points I put before you, in my opinion. What I mean by that is that memory does not work in the way people assume. It is a process of encoding, storing and retrieving information and during that process the recollection is subject to external influence and internal bias. Consequently, the recollection is oft times divorced from the event. The human memory is not a photograph taken for posterity. Your response is broadly: "nothing overly surprising to recall". This belies what qualified people are telling us, in that it is not simply: "heard a noise, should be able to recall" but rather a human process which is contaminated along the way. Between that 'heard a noise' and 'recall', qualified people are telling us that there is an awful lot that can divorce one from the other.

You are free to theorise of course, and to give an example: "there's nothing that would generate those memory distortions" but I suppose we're back to the concept of the 'appeal to authority'. The qualified people are telling you that there is a lot that could have distorted Albert's recollection during the process of encoding to recollection. You're not an authority on this subject, 'doesn't mean you're not entitled to an opinion, but your opinion simply does not carry the same weight as the qualified people who are informing you that your opinion and theorising is wide of the mark.

Anyway, I think it's probably time I introduced something else into the discussion. 'Move it on a bit as it's getting stuck in a rut.

[Fleetwood Mac]

AP’s opening line isn’t as off-putting as a tedious repetition of poorly judged logical fallacies.

Ad hominem.

And, 'stacking the deck fallacy': intentionally ignoring the evidence while proceeding to put forth an argument.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I posted these extracts on my post # 115, but have reposted them here for the convenience of discussion.

Lloyd's Weekly News 9 Sep:
On visiting the house next door to the tragedy, 27, our representative saw Mr. Albert Cadosen, a carpenter, who resides there and works in Shoe-lane, Fleet-street. He says: I was not very well in the night and I went out into the back yard about 25 minutes past five. It was just getting daylight, and as I passed to the back of the yard I heard a sound as of two people up in the corner of the next yard. On coming back I heard some words which I did not catch, but I heard a woman say "No." Then I heard a kind of scuffle going on, and someone seemed to fall heavily on to the ground against the wooden partition which divided the yard, at the spot where the body was afterwards found. As I though it was some of the people belonging to the house, I passed into my own room, and took no further notice.

Daily News 10 Sep:
At twenty minutes past five a lodger went into the yard and noticed nothing to excite his suspicion.

The lodger who came down at 5.25 fancied he heard a slight scuffle, with the noise of someone falling against the pailings, but he took no notice of that. They take very little notice in Hanbury street, even of strangers to the house, who sometimes turn in for a sleep on the stairs before the markets open.

Albert Cadosch, who lodges next door, had occasion to go into the adjoining yard at the back at 5.25, and states that he heard a conversation on the other side of the palings, as if between two people. He caught the word “No,” and fancied he subsequently heard a slight scuffle, with the noise of a falling against the palings, but thinking that his neighbours might probably be out in the yard, he took no further notice and went to his work.

Daily Telegraph Inquest Report of Sep19 published Sep 20:
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.

Cadosch testified that he reported to police after he returned home from work on the day of the murder. He must have heard rumours of what happened to warrant going to the police. The next day, and the day after that, he was reported in the press. Is it likely that he told the press a markedly different story to that which he told the police? He told Lloyd's that he heard a sound as of two people up in the corner of the next yard. The coroner posed a specific question on this statement, which Cadosch denied. Would the coroner have been referring to Cadosch's police statement, or the press statement. You suggested before that the police might have asked "how long were you in the loo the first time? how long between visits?" but if he told the police and the press the same story, there was, at that stage, only one visit to the loo. In his original statements he shows no confidence that he has seen or heard anything of importance - "I though it was some of the people belonging to the house", "noticed nothing to excite his suspicion", "but thinking that his neighbours might probably be out in the yard, he took no further notice".

Come the inquest, he is even less confident of his memories. He is unsure of where the now single word came from, and when the coroner poses the vital question:
It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings?, he reverts to memories from times previous to the day of the murder, and adds that he wasn't paying attention anyway - 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.

IMO, I can see a case for a man who saw nothing, and heard nothing out of the ordinary, having his memory play tricks on him by reasoning that there was a murder next door, and he was there around a rumoured time of the murder, so he really should have witnessed something of use to the case. JMO.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Interesting, and there are a couple of things one would have to consider with regards to Cadosche's apparent reduction in confidence at the inquest compared to the press reports.

I'm sure there are more than the two I'll mention here, but these are what immediately spring to mind.

First is what I mentioned in an earlier post. Let's say, for arguments sake, that the early press reports reflect Cadosche's memory at that time. He seems quite confident that the voices came from #29, and that the noise against the fence is something falling against it. The press doesn't go into his multiple loo visits, but they do order the "No" first and the "fence sounds" second, which would of course be the temporal order if he hears each of those on his two trips. Either he doesn't provide that detail to the press, or the press feel that such details are unfitting to refer to, etc. While the way the press reports it sounds like the No and Fence are very close in time, that would reflect the omitting of the two loo visit detail, while retaining the temporal order.

Anyway, in the press there's also some mention of sounds of a scuffle. That details doesn't come up in the inquest.

He goes to the police and gives his statement, and let's say he mentions all of those points in his initial statement. The police, as we know, would have Dr. Phillips 4:30 ToD estimate, so the police would already have some sort of idea in mind. Cadosche's statement runs against their working idea, and as we know, the police would put a lot of faith in the doctor's opinion. As such, they are likely to question Cadosche on these points, trying to work out how his information could arise if Annie's already dead by the time he's in his back yard. This is the sort of situation that very possibly results in the "Misinformation effect" as the police end up creating doubt in Cadosche's mind, and as a result, his memory becomes less certain as they insert various alternative ideas. If, for example, they start suggesting the "No" may have come from a different yard than #29, then Cadosche's initial memory of the location of the "No" could get contaminated, resulting in him becoming less certain of what he actually remembered. Similarly with the sounds of a "scuffle", and so forth. If we had the interview transcripts we could examine them to see if that might be the case, but of course without them, it is simply a possibility.

The other thing I would like to mention is simply the change in context as to when he's relating the information. People will present their "story" with much more confidence, and may embellish to improve the story, when speaking to friends, or the press, etc, but will haul back on those tendencies in the formal setting of an investigation or when testifying under oath at the inquest; and also when giving statements to the police. In other words, as in my first point, if we had the transcripts of his police statement and questioning, we would be able to tell if Cadosche initially maintained the same confidence he shows to the press - if not, then the change in context is probably a major factor here.

In some ways, though, his story is fairly consistent. He hears voices, recalls hearing the word "No", after that he hears a noise against the fence, and these happen around 5:20-5:25. I'm wondering if Baxter asking him at the inquest about hearing clothing (or something like that), is in reference to the "scuffle" detail? If so, perhaps he did intiially mention hearing a scuffle in his police statement, but has sense backed down. Depending upon how he was questioned, could be a result of the police "contaminating" his memory by creating doubt rather than reflecting what his "uncontaminated" memory was initially. Alternatively, the "scuffle" in the press may have been an embellishment he added in that context, which he did not include in his formal statements (again, our lack of those statements as given at the time is such a shame).

Anyway, despite the variation in the presentations, the overall account he gives remains pretty consistent, with some details omitted in the press (for which there could be many explanations), and the one detail about a "scuffle" lacking in his inquest statements (which also could have many explanations). His apparent confidence reduction at the inquest could simply be due to the change in context, or it could reflect doubt created by the police due to their questioning him based upon their idea that Annie must have been dead at that time, which would be an example of the "misinformation effect".

Sadly, we are left without the information we would need (his actual police statement and the questions they asked him at the time) to actually try and work out which, if either, of those ideas appears to be the better explanation.

- Jeff