Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[GBinOz]

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

Hi Jeff,

You have presented valid case for the possibility that Cadosch's memories were contaminated by the police in their questioning of him. An equally valid case would be that Cadosch created false memories from what he gleaned in the press as to what may have happened. On the day of the murder The Star published detailed descriptions by Amelia Richardson as to exactly where the body was found, opinion that she had been killed on that spot, and details of her injuries. John Richardson had provided an interview in which he stated he was sure the body was not there at ten minutes to five o'clock (as an aside he also stated "The police, by the doctor's order, took possession on my leather apron and knife that were on the premises"). In relation to Cadosch's testimony at the inquest regarding packing cases falling against the fence, the Star reported on the people who were paying to view the site even though "all that can be seen are a couple of packing cases from beneath which is the stain of a blood track".

Modern psychological experts may suggest that Cadosch had, from the press reports, formulated in his mind a scenario of how the murder was likely to have been actually committed. I would consider a firm possibility that the questions asked by the coroner regarding the conversation heard from the bottom of the yard and the scuffle came from Cadosch's police statement. So, the expert theory might suggest that the memories of conversations heard previously in that yard and the bump of packing cases heard previously, particularly with their mention in The Star, could have created false memories for the day in question.

It has previously been accepted that expert forensic opinion has cast doubt on the reliability of the medical evidence, so it would be inconsistent to minimise or discount the expert psychological opinion on the unreliability of witnesses due to the creation of false memories. Such discrimination could be interpreted as cognitive bias, or as Herlock puts it, trying to shoehorn a particular ToD into place.

As you say, there is no way of knowing what was said in statements to police, but I think that, in the light of expert opinion, the witness testimony can not be considered to be any more reliable than that of the doctor.

Best regards, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

You have presented valid case for the possibility that Cadosch's memories were contaminated by the police in their questioning of him. An equally valid case would be that Cadosch created false memories from what he gleaned in the press as to what may have happened. On the day of the murder The Star published detailed descriptions by Amelia Richardson as to exactly where the body was found, opinion that she had been killed on that spot, and details of her injuries. John Richardson had provided an interview in which he stated he was sure the body was not there at ten minutes to five o'clock (as an aside he also stated "The police, by the doctor's order, took possession on my leather apron and knife that were on the premises"). In relation to Cadosch's testimony at the inquest regarding packing cases falling against the fence, the Star reported on the people who were paying to view the site even though "all that can be seen are a couple of packing cases from beneath which is the stain of a blood track".

Modern psychological experts may suggest that Cadosch had, from the press reports, formulated in his mind a scenario of how the murder was likely to have been actually committed. I would consider a firm possibility that the questions asked by the coroner regarding the conversation heard from the bottom of the yard and the scuffle came from Cadosch's police statement. So, the expert theory might suggest that the memories of conversations heard previously in that yard and the bump of packing cases heard previously, particularly with their mention in The Star, could have created false memories for the day in question.

It has previously been accepted that expert forensic opinion has cast doubt on the reliability of the medical evidence, so it would be inconsistent to minimise or discount the expert psychological opinion on the unreliability of witnesses due to the creation of false memories. Such discrimination could be interpreted as cognitive bias, or as Herlock puts it, trying to shoehorn a particular ToD into place.

As you say, there is no way of knowing what was said in statements to police, but I think that, in the light of expert opinion, the witness testimony can not be considered to be any more reliable than that of the doctor.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Indeed, information read from the press can influence one's memory for events. An interesting question, though (and one I'm embarrassed to not actually know the answer to), is to what extent someone like Cadosche who would have no particular memory associated with the offense if nothing actually happened other than he went to the loo twice, end up creating such false memories due to hearing about a crime. Generally, what I'm familiar with, is the modification of existing memories, either to inappropriately sharpen one that was initially hazy or to do the opposite or to modify a detail, etc - basically to start with something and mould/alter it while directly talking about it. I do know that under the proper conditions, where an experimenter deliberately tries to implant a false memory for something that didn't happen is possible. In the studies that come to mind, though, the "false event" is generally one that was supposed to happen in someone's childhood rather than something from a day or two prior. Also, the experimenter has to engage the person to try and recall this false event (the usual set up is that the person is told that the experimenter has obtained some stories from the person's past by previously talking to older family members and so forth - to the person has to be led to believe it is a true story, even though at first they can't remember it - a surprising percentage of people, however, do eventually "remember" the event and start filling in details!). I'm just not aware how easy it is to do as you suggest (transport sounds from a different day resulting in the person now believing they witnessed something about the crime they just read about - rather than already having a reason to believe their memory is about the crime, and the news altering their memory - not sure if I'm being clear here, sorry).

On the other hand, perhaps, as you say, there is a possibility that the "no" and "fence noise" were events from a different day, and the press reports about the crime resulted in a temporal translation, placing the "no" during his first visit to the loo and the "fence noise" on the other, and now Cadosche believes he witnessed the crime through overhearing aspects of it.

I guess my issue with that sort of thing boils down again to the fact that, despite each of the "information sources" being by themselves unreliable (meaning Richardson, Long, Cadosche, and Phillips) due to the nature of the witness testimony and/or ToD estimation procedures, when one factors in variability associated with their testimonies, none of them actually end up creating any real conflict. All 4 of them provide information that is considered consistent with an actual ToD around 5:25 ish, and we can swap them in and out however we want and that time window is always "acceptable". The idea that, for example, Cadosche just happens to have heard a conversation and fence noises recently in order to later misremember them as being on that day starts bringing in coincidences that feel a bit like stretching it. Long, on the other hand, I think should be viewed with the most caution even though her testimony easily fits in (clocks out of sync/she misrecalls the 5:15 chime as the 5:30, take your pick, either is entirely plausible and within reason). And I hold reservations about her because seeing people in that area is not uncommon (as she herself says), and misidentifications from a "confrontation" type identification procedures are also not uncommon. As such, suggesting she "coincidently fits in" doesn't feel like such a stretch to me, but rather is the sort of thing that we should be on the look out for. Richardson, though, as you know, I have no problems with his testimony, and as I've not really been swayed by any counter-arguments to my "orange spot" theory, I find it very hard to accept that he could have missed the body if it was there. And if it wasn't there, that does led support to Cadosche actually hearing what he heard on the day he said he heard it.

If we were dealing with various independent people, all with "corrupted memories", I find it unlikely that all of their corruptions would align so well. I suppose you could argue that Cadosche's "corruption" originated from Richardson, explaining how they go together though.

Such explanations are just too complicated for me, however, as when taken as is, there is simply no conflict in what the information as presented once one recognizes the known error variation in the details we have. All of these ideas we're discussing are about how to make wrong information all coordinate in order to prevent the errors from revealing themselves by conflicting.

- Jeff

P.S. Oh, and by the way, I'm not pushing the "police degraded his memory" idea, rather I presented it only because it seems to me that if we are going to speculate on such things that idea seems far more likely to occur, for the reasons I mentioned - but without the transcripts there is no way to evaluate whether it did or did not.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Indeed, information read from the press can influence one's memory for events. An interesting question, though (and one I'm embarrassed to not actually know the answer to), is to what extent someone like Cadosche who would have no particular memory associated with the offense if nothing actually happened other than he went to the loo twice, end up creating such false memories due to hearing about a crime. Generally, what I'm familiar with, is the modification of existing memories, either to inappropriately sharpen one that was initially hazy or to do the opposite or to modify a detail, etc - basically to start with something and mould/alter it while directly talking about it. I do know that under the proper conditions, where an experimenter deliberately tries to implant a false memory for something that didn't happen is possible. In the studies that come to mind, though, the "false event" is generally one that was supposed to happen in someone's childhood rather than something from a day or two prior. Also, the experimenter has to engage the person to try and recall this false event (the usual set up is that the person is told that the experimenter has obtained some stories from the person's past by previously talking to older family members and so forth - to the person has to be led to believe it is a true story, even though at first they can't remember it - a surprising percentage of people, however, do eventually "remember" the event and start filling in details!). I'm just not aware how easy it is to do as you suggest (transport sounds from a different day resulting in the person now believing they witnessed something about the crime they just read about - rather than already having a reason to believe their memory is about the crime, and the news altering their memory - not sure if I'm being clear here, sorry).

On the other hand, perhaps, as you say, there is a possibility that the "no" and "fence noise" were events from a different day, and the press reports about the crime resulted in a temporal translation, placing the "no" during his first visit to the loo and the "fence noise" on the other, and now Cadosche believes he witnessed the crime through overhearing aspects of it.

I guess my issue with that sort of thing boils down again to the fact that, despite each of the "information sources" being by themselves unreliable (meaning Richardson, Long, Cadosche, and Phillips) due to the nature of the witness testimony and/or ToD estimation procedures, when one factors in variability associated with their testimonies, none of them actually end up creating any real conflict. All 4 of them provide information that is considered consistent with an actual ToD around 5:25 ish, and we can swap them in and out however we want and that time window is always "acceptable". The idea that, for example, Cadosche just happens to have heard a conversation and fence noises recently in order to later misremember them as being on that day starts bringing in coincidences that feel a bit like stretching it. Long, on the other hand, I think should be viewed with the most caution even though her testimony easily fits in (clocks out of sync/she misrecalls the 5:15 chime as the 5:30, take your pick, either is entirely plausible and within reason). And I hold reservations about her because seeing people in that area is not uncommon (as she herself says), and misidentifications from a "confrontation" type identification procedures are also not uncommon. As such, suggesting she "coincidently fits in" doesn't feel like such a stretch to me, but rather is the sort of thing that we should be on the look out for. Richardson, though, as you know, I have no problems with his testimony, and as I've not really been swayed by any counter-arguments to my "orange spot" theory, I find it very hard to accept that he could have missed the body if it was there. And if it wasn't there, that does led support to Cadosche actually hearing what he heard on the day he said he heard it.

If we were dealing with various independent people, all with "corrupted memories", I find it unlikely that all of their corruptions would align so well. I suppose you could argue that Cadosche's "corruption" originated from Richardson, explaining how they go together though.

Such explanations are just too complicated for me, however, as when taken as is, there is simply no conflict in what the information as presented once one recognizes the known error variation in the details we have. All of these ideas we're discussing are about how to make wrong information all coordinate in order to prevent the errors from revealing themselves by conflicting.

- Jeff

P.S. Oh, and by the way, I'm not pushing the "police degraded his memory" idea, rather I presented it only because it seems to me that if we are going to speculate on such things that idea seems far more likely to occur, for the reasons I mentioned - but without the transcripts there is no way to evaluate whether it did or did not.

Hi Jeff,

While it appears that we are forever on opposite sides of opinions, it is gratifying that we can discuss these matters in the spirit of debate.

The repressed memory from childhood is a theory that I have great difficulty in accepting. However, Loftus has cited an example where police photoshopped a suspect's vehicle into a crime scene and convinced him that he was actually there at the time of the murder. They created a memory that the subject eventually accepted as a valid memory, resulting in his incorrect conviction. In the case of Cadosch, I have the feeling that he thought he should have heard something relative to the case in that he was right there, and his sub-conscious filled in the gaps. Of course, while I base this opinion on expert theory, I could be totally wrong.

There are modern expert opinions that Victorian doctors were using antiquated methods to estimate ToDs, but empirical evidence would seem to indicate that they got it right on more occasions that would seem to be indicated by modern opinion. Likewise with the expert opinion on the nature of memory - possibilities exist but there are also possibilities to the contrary. It is these vagaries that prevent my opinion meter swaying too far in one direction or the other from the central position. Perhaps I could be perceived as indecisive, but I have difficulty understanding the analytical processes of those who are 100% convinced in either direction.

As always with our discussions, I feel enriched that my thought processes are being challenged by your analytical mind, and welcome our different opinions, however disparate they seem to be.

Best regards, George

[Fleetwood Mac]

So every witness who cannot be established to have a full and reliable recollection of events should be treated the same way as you keep trying to treat Cadosch.

This is exactly right. They should all be treated with caution. That doesn't mean their statements should be discarded, nor should they be taken at face value. As I stated in the OP: there is room for doubt with Albert but to what extent.

.
At the moment its still just a theory of "Psychology, innit!"

No. This is demonstrably not the case.

This is from the United States Department of Justice.

Eyewitness Evidence A Guide for Law Enforcement-Research Report (ojp.gov)

It includes:

Even the most honest and objective people can make mistakes in recalling and interpreting a witnessed event; it is the nature of human memory.

This Guide is supported by social science research. During the past 20 years, research psychologists have produced a substantial body of findings regarding eyewitness evidence.

It seems that while you believe it's 'pseudo science' or 'just psychology theory', the United States Department of Justice draws upon this research and considers it to be valuable knowledge towards the assessment of witness testimony.

I think there's a case to suggest that a few, certainly you and Jon, made up your mind before you even opened this thread; and you have no objective other than to dismiss it out of hand. That's not really the type of discussion I had in mind and given your approach I do not think this type of thread is suited to you.

I was more interested in taking an objective look at it and see where the discussion goes. Maybe somebody else will come on the thread to explore the points put forward in post 196.

[JeffHamm]

Hi George,

Hi Jeff,

While it appears that we are forever on opposite sides of opinions, it is gratifying that we can discuss these matters in the spirit of debate.

Well, to properly discuss things it helps if all sides are covered, provided both sides are heard.

The repressed memory from childhood is a theory that I have great difficulty in accepting.

Oh, the above stuff I mentioned has nothing to do with "repressed memories"; the researcher just told the person that their family provided them with information about an event from their childhood - the event didn't happen. The one I liked was when they asked the person to recount the time they went to Disney World when a child (which they had) and they met Bug Bunny (which they wouldn't as Bugs Bunny is not part if Disney). After setting it, with a conversation about how the person's parents had related the story to them, and so on and so forth, then the person would start to "recall" having met Bugs Bunny and would start to provide details. Not a repressed memory at all, just an entirely fabricated one. That can be done (doesn't work on every person, and I can't recall what percentage of people did create some degree of false memories, and I won't hazard a guess for that is all it would be. But, it is an interesting thing. It's also something that does require active convincing of the person that the event happened, which isn't really the situation for Cadosche reading the news.

However, Loftus has cited an example where police photoshopped a suspect's vehicle into a crime scene and convinced him that he was actually there at the time of the murder. They created a memory that the subject eventually accepted as a valid memory, resulting in his incorrect conviction. In the case of Cadosch, I have the feeling that he thought he should have heard something relative to the case in that he was right there, and his sub-conscious filled in the gaps. Of course, while I base this opinion on expert theory, I could be totally wrong.

Maybe, but what Cadosche thought, or even read/heard, is like not having the transcripts; since we don't have them we can either put anything we want into them, or we can just accept that we don't know. As I say, in my examples above I'm just pondering possibilities, not suggesting any of them should be viewed as facts. The possibilities are endless, so I can't say your musings are wrong, but I can't say they are right either (same as my own, they are just untestable ideas).

The one it does, though, is they show us that there are ideas that allow for either outcome, which is what happens when the information one has doesn't conclusively shut doors.

There are modern expert opinions that Victorian doctors were using antiquated methods to estimate ToDs, but empirical evidence would seem to indicate that they got it right on more occasions that would seem to be indicated by modern opinion.

Well, we're dealing with only a very small sample. Moreover, it is modern emperical evidence, based upon studies looking at trying to improve the reliability of estimating the ToD, that tells us that the doctors in 1888 couldn't be more accurate than +-3 hours; it isn't even possible now to do better than that. I know you find that hard to accept, but that's the way it is - truth is stranger than fiction, and common sense is often not sensible.

Likewise with the expert opinion on the nature of memory - possibilities exist but there are also possibilities to the contrary. It is these vagaries that prevent my opinion meter swaying too far in one direction or the other from the central position. Perhaps I could be perceived as indecisive, but I have difficulty understanding the analytical processes of those who are 100% convinced in either direction.

I don't think anyone is truly 100% convinced, although I do think at times frustrating conversations results in people pushing their opinions more to the extreme ends. While I often argue that the later ToD is by far the better supported, which I think is true, that isn't the same as saying it is 100% the only possibility. There's a difference between referring to a theory as the far better supported one and calling it proven. It's better supported because all the information we have is actually consistent with that - so basically, there really isn't a problem to solve, while the earlier ToD is only possible if, by some coincidence, all 3 witnesses are fundamentally wrong. And while we can ponder about how maybe this and maybe that in order to describe a situation that gets Richardson to miss the body, Long to misidentify Annie in the morgue (actually, that one isn't that big a stretch), and Cadosche to create false memories, we then have to argue that all 3 of those ponderings happened despite having no actual evidence they did! Moreover, even then we're left with roughly a 50/50 chance that she was still killed later than 4:30 as her being killed earlier than 4:30! I just don't see the need to go with our "just so stories", when in fact none of the testimonies actually conflict with her being killed around 5:25ish. Doesn't mean that has to be the case, but as all the evidence we have is consistent with that, it becomes the best supported theory in my view.

As always with our discussions, I feel enriched that my thought processes are being challenged by your analytical mind, and welcome our different opinions, however disparate they seem to be.

Best regards, George

Fully agree. I always enjoy our back and forths. Neither of us move from our positions much, we're too old and grouchy for that, but that just makes it all the more interesting.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Fully agree. I always enjoy our back and forths. Neither of us move from our positions much, we're too old and grouchy for that, but that just makes it all the more interesting.

Hi Jeff,

too old and grouchy - Have you been talking to my wife?

Following our discussions, I usually contemplate our disparate views while sitting on our back deck, viewing the basaltic monolith known locally as Mount Dromedary, and the ancient rim of an old volcano known locally as Montague Island, consuming a pipe, or two, of aged English flake tobacco, and a glass or two? of Irish whiskey in the company of a beautiful woman who I met nearly sixty years ago, and am now privileged to call my wife. In the forty years that I have been interested in this case I have moved from my opinions on many occasions. However, given my current contemplative environment, I have become far more accommodating in my propensity to accept alternative opinions. Hence, while we disagree, from my perspective, it is not by much.

Best regards, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi George,

Hi Jeff,

too old and grouchy - Have you been talking to my wife?

I daresay if I have I wouldn't dare say! ha ha

Following our discussions, I usually contemplate our disparate views while sitting on our back deck, viewing the basaltic monolith known locally as Mount Dromedary, and the ancient rim of an old volcano known locally as Montague Island, consuming a pipe, or two, of aged English flake tobacco, and a glass or two? of Irish whiskey in the company of a beautiful woman who I met nearly sixty years ago, and am now privileged to call my wife. In the forty years that I have been interested in this case I have moved from my opinions on many occasions. However, given my current contemplative environment, I have become far more accommodating in my propensity to accept alternative opinions. Hence, while we disagree, from my perspective, it is not by much.

Best regards, George

On that I agree. Our opinions are generally just on the other side of a fence, where we meet and share our views. When the information is insufficient to ensure there's only one solution, and also is of a nature that one cannot objectively measure both a value and a measureable amount of error, one eventually reaches the point where the "error evaluation" does end up becoming entirely subjective. There are some things that just "don't sit right" with you that "sit fine" with me, and vice versa. Given that our estimations of the error, if you will, differ it is hardly surprising we evaluate things to different conclusions. I think we both recognize that we differ on things that are subjective in many ways, and moreover, there's no information to guide us and we eventually end up telling our "just so" stories to illustrate our ideas, and neither of us present them as if we've elevated ideas to the realm of facts.

Your evenings on the porch sound absolutely ideal. I could easily share a pipe and a nice whisky while taking in the view. But alas, I will have to content myself with my view to the harbour that I can see from my apartment balcony, even if it must be over the view of the city.

Anyway, I should probably make it an early night. I've a tonne of exams to grade. Some good, some bad, some unrecognizable with regards to content. Sigh. Such is life.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Your evenings on the porch sound absolutely ideal. I could easily share a pipe and a nice whisky while taking in the view. But alas, I will have to content myself with my view to the harbour that I can see from my apartment balcony, even if it must be over the view of the city.

Anyway, I should probably make it an early night. I've a tonne of exams to grade. Some good, some bad, some unrecognizable with regards to content. Sigh. Such is life.

Hi Jeff,

Should you find an occasion to visit Australia you would be most welcome to share a pipe and a nice whisky while taking in the view, and a face to face discussion of our views. You may be interested to know that "Such is life" were the final words of an Australian bushranger, known as Ned Kelly, as he stood on the gallows. . But I suspect that you may have known that when you made that comment.

Sleep well my friend.

Best regards, George

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I would consider a firm possibility that the questions asked by the coroner regarding the conversation heard from the bottom of the yard and the scuffle came from Cadosch's police statement.

Are you referring to this extract:

[Coroner] Had you heard any noise while you were at the end of your yard? - No.

[Coroner] Any rustling of clothes? - No.

[GBinOz]

Are you referring to this extract:

[Coroner] Had you heard any noise while you were at the end of your yard? - No.

[Coroner] Any rustling of clothes? - No.

Hi PI1,

Yes, those questions indicate to me a likelihood that the police statement that Cadosch made on the 8th was similar to his press statements on the 9th and 10th.

Cheers, George

[rjpalmer]

The one I liked was when they asked the person to recount the time they went to Disney World when a child (which they had) and they met Bug Bunny (which they wouldn't as Bugs Bunny is not part if Disney). After setting it, with a conversation about how the person's parents had related the story to them, and so on and so forth, then the person would start to "recall" having met Bugs Bunny and would start to provide details. Not a repressed memory at all, just an entirely fabricated one. That can be done (doesn't work on every person, and I can't recall what percentage of people did create some degree of false memories, and I won't hazard a guess for that is all it would be. But, it is an interesting thing. It's also something that does require active convincing of the person that the event happened, which isn't really the situation for Cadosche reading the news.

The trouble I have with the 'Cadosch's memory was contaminated' theory is that it is all doom & gloom. It only looks at one side of the equation. Yes, our memories can be 'contaminated' or distorted by later events or information.

But can't they also be clarified and corrected by additional information and later events? Aren't our initial impressions often wrong?

A man hears his wife coming home. A moment later, he becomes puzzled and goes to the front door. There are wet footprints on the steps and a parcel package. It wasn't his wife; it was the mailman.

There was nothing wrong with the man's hearing or his memory of what he had heard. He misinterpreted the event in the moment but given more information he corrected his mistake.

So, too, with Cadosch.

As I say, getting more information is not all doom & gloom and "contamination."

RP

[JeffHamm]

The trouble I have with the 'Cadosch's memory was contaminated' theory is that it is all doom & gloom. It only looks at one side of the equation. Yes, our memories can be 'contaminated' or distorted by later events or information.

But can't they also be clarified and corrected by additional information and later events? Aren't our initial impressions often wrong?

A man hears his wife coming home. A moment later, he becomes puzzled and goes to the front door. There are wet footprints on the steps and a parcel package. It wasn't his wife; it was the mailman.

There was nothing wrong with the man's hearing or his memory of what he had heard. He misinterpreted the event in the moment but given more information he corrected his mistake.

So, too, with Cadosch.

As I say, getting more information is not all doom & gloom and "contamination."

RP

Hi RJ,

Sure, our initial thoughts can be mistakes which later are corrected. However, if in your above example the man later recalls that "I heard the parcel delivery." and completely forgets that he originally thought it was his wife, only realising his mistake when he actually opened the door to find the parcel, then his memory for how the events, including his thoughts, has changed from the actual sequence. So, his memory in that case has been contaminated. Just because his memory for the cause initial sounds was wrong, because that is what he thought, if his memory of the events changes to make the "sound source factually correct" that means his "memory is not correct with respect to what he actually thought at the time". it's correct with respect to hearing sounds, their location, and so forth, but not what he thought was the "cause".

An important example in the JtR cases is that of Schwartz, where we're lucky to have it recorded how his initial statement to the police has him saying what he initially believed - that Lipski was shouted at Pipeman whom Schwartz thought was Broad Shoulder's accomplice who started to chase him. We then hear how Abberline pressed him on that point, questioning him carefully, and Schwartz eventually accepted that he now no longer know to whom Lipski was shouted. Now, if Schwartz had of testified at the inquest, we might only hear his now modified version at that point. With most witnesses we don't have similar reports, nor do we know what sort of questions or topics they were pressed on, but there's a good chance that they would be topics where the police had other ideas (as per Abberline, who suspected Lipski had been shouted at Schwartz himself, removing Pipeman from having any connection to the crime - but notice how Schwartz's initial belief would flow on to how he might interpret Pipeman leaving the area as well - Schwartz thinks he's being chased so recalls Pipeman moving quickly, while Pipeman might have just been going on his way and moving at a normal pace). But, while Schwartz's memory for the events "shouting of Lipski, Pipeman moving off, etc" remain the same, his view of the "intentionality" of those actions changes, which in turn changes the apparent relationship between B.S. and Pipeman to one of no relationship. But without understanding Schwartz's initial belief, his own actions at the time seem odd - why does he run so far?

I think if we're concerned about memory contamination, which is always something to keep in the back of one's mind, then one thing that should alert us to that possibility is if the witness seems to have information that would counter what the police believe. We would expect in that case something like Abberline's "very careful questioning on that point", and that is the sort of interview that could result in someone taking on board what the police believe and overwriting aspects of their memory with the new information from the interview. It is a shame we don't have records of the witness interviews and initial statements. I bet there were some very interesting details and comments in those that have been lost to us.

- Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

Another interesting article in relation to Albert:

Our memory for sounds is significantly worse than our memory for visual or tactile things | ScienceDaily

Researchers at the University of Iowa have found that when it comes to memory, we don't remember things we hear nearly as well as things we see or touch.

Although students' memory declined across the board when time delays grew longer, the decline was much greater for sounds, and began as early as four to eight seconds after being exposed to them.

In a second experiment, Bigelow and Poremba tested participants' memory using things they might encounter on an everyday basis. Students listened to audio recordings of dogs barking, watched silent videos of a basketball game, and, touched and held common objects blocked from view, such as a coffee mug. The researchers found that between an hour and a week later, students were worse at remembering the sounds they had heard, but their memory for visual scenes and tactile objects was about the same.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The trouble I have with the 'Cadosch's memory was contaminated' theory is that it is all doom & gloom. It only looks at one side of the equation. Yes, our memories can be 'contaminated' or distorted by later events or information.

But can't they also be clarified and corrected by additional information and later events? Aren't our initial impressions often wrong?

A man hears his wife coming home. A moment later, he becomes puzzled and goes to the front door. There are wet footprints on the steps and a parcel package. It wasn't his wife; it was the mailman.

There was nothing wrong with the man's hearing or his memory of what he had heard. He misinterpreted the event in the moment but given more information he corrected his mistake.

So, too, with Cadosch.

As I say, getting more information is not all doom & gloom and "contamination."

RP

Good points Roger. And of course none of this is being added or considered in the context of making a fair assessment of Cadosch’s testimony. It’s purely a ploy. An desperate attempt to denigrate this witness. As they’ve tried to do to Richardson. A phenomena that has been blatantly obvious through all Chapmen murder discussions. We don’t have a smidgeon of evidence to suggest that Cadosch might have been mistaken.

All that we’ve heard on this thread is the same old woeful nonsense that its impossible to express ‘politely.’ It’s people who are desperate to try and find any way of skewing the evidence toward an earlier ToD.

That Chapman was killed around 5.25/5.30 is overwhelmingly likely. I’d go so far as to say that it can fairly safely be stated fact.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That Chapman was killed around 5.25/5.30 is overwhelmingly likely. I’d go so far as to say that it can fairly safely be stated fact.

On the strength of the testimony of three witnesses, none of whom saw Chapman or her murderer enter or leave the premises where she was murdered?