Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

What is the truth that you seek to rely on ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Maybe the kind of truth relied upon by many religious fundamentalists and true believers.

To such people, everything else is a lie.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The timings that are given should be viewed as falling within ranges, since it's clear that estimated timings won't always be exactly right. Just because they sometimes are doesn't mean that they always are. If we give an allowance for 10 minutes Cadosch's estimated time for hearing the "no" was 5:25, that would men a range of 5:15-5:35. If Long thought she saw the couple at 5:31, that would be 5:21-5:41 if we assume that she heard the 5:30 chime rather than the 5:15 chime, which is assuming a lot. So the beginning of Long's range is 14 minutes earlier than the end of Cadosch's range. All that is needed to show that there's no conflict between Cadosch and Long is that there is a possible timing where they fit. It's beside the point that one can come up with other timings where they conflict.

Thank you for taking the trouble to answer my post.

I was of course waiting for Jeff to answer, but it may be that he thinks that after his making a remark about my alleged ignorance, it is I who have rubbed him up the wrong way and not vice-versa.

I am sure that your estimate of 14 minutes is an over-estimate, because Cadoche's estimate was obviously earlier than 5:25.

He indicated that it was very soon after 5:20.

What you say is beside the point is obviously not beside the point!

What is the point of giving a range if you are going to disregard most of it?

If Cadoche heard the 'no' between 5:12 and 5:32 and Long passed by at 5:21 to 5:41, then by the time the couple could have finished their conversation, walked to number 29, gone through the passage and into the yard, the Long range for hearing 'no' is at least 5:23 to 5:43.

That means most of the Cadoche rage for hearing the 'no' is too early.

The odds are still against the discrepancy between the two timings being resolved.

You wrote:

... if we assume that she heard the 5:30 chime rather than the 5:15 chime, which is assuming a lot ...

Is it?

Is it as great an assumption as the assumption that she arrived at the market early, even though she testified that she arrived there at about 5:32, and the evidence suggests that she went there regularly at about the same time?

Is it as great an assumption as the assumption that Cadoche arrived late for work without any of his colleagues or superiors noticing it, and even though he must have gone to work at about the same time each day?

[Trevor Marriott]

To make a claim of a ‘discrepancy’ between Long and Cadosch in an attempt to discredit one or the other or both is based on a categorical dishonesty. It’s relies on a claim that clocks and watches at the time were all accurate and synchronise.

This claim cannot be honestly made. It’s not even a claim that can even be made in 2023. The only honest approach is to allow for a reasonable margin for error. Five minutes or so is well within that margin.

Its as simple as that. One side is true the other is a lie. I choose to go with the truth. Others choose other courses because it suits them to do so.

What is the truth that you seek to rely on ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Lewis C]

I am not going to reciprocate your insinuation that I am ignorant of how to deal with data.

I suppose I could say that you have 'rubbed me up the wrong way'.

What you are saying is ridiculous.

There was no such conflict in the testimony given at Catherine Eddowes' inquest.

In that case, there was no need to resort to the explanation that the clocks is (sic) open to error.

How can you say that when the timings agree, there is no problem, but when the timings do not agree, there is not a problem either?

Of course what I wrote is correct - and your comment about ignorance is completely uncalled for.

The clocks would have had to be wrong in just the right way.

Had they been wrong in the wrong way, then the two witnesses' evidence could still not be reconciled.

Surely you can see that?

The timings that are given should be viewed as falling within ranges, since it's clear that estimated timings won't always be exactly right. Just because they sometimes are doesn't mean that they always are. If we give an allowance for 10 minutes Cadosch's estimated time for hearing the "no" was 5:25, that would men a range of 5:15-5:35. If Long thought she saw the couple at 5:31, that would be 5:21-5:41 if we assume that she heard the 5:30 chime rather than the 5:15 chime, which is assuming a lot. So the beginning of Long's range is 14 minutes earlier than the end of Cadosch's range. All that is needed to show that there's no conflict between Cadosch and Long is that there is a possible timing where they fit. It's beside the point that one can come up with other timings where they conflict.

[Abby Normal]

About as likely as you swimming over to England tonight for a beer Abby.

on my way! cheers Gaffer! ive just past the Chesapeake lighthouse.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The thing that keeps getting ignored is that none of the testimony actually conflicts, and all of the testimony is consistent with a ToD of around 5:20. When I say none of the testimony, I means Richardson, Long, Cadosche, and Dr. Phillips.

There are a bunch of things that continue to be presented that are invalid. The argument that the times give by Long and Cadosche conflict is wrong. we know the clocks and memory is open to error and the give times fall within the known ranges associates with time error. That is all that matters, arguments like " but you have to say the clocks are out in this particular way .. " simply reflect ignorance of how to deal with data. It is not a valid concern and needs no rebuttal.

I am not going to reciprocate your insinuation that I am ignorant of how to deal with data.

I suppose I could say that you have 'rubbed me up the wrong way'.

What you are saying is ridiculous.

There was no such conflict in the testimony given at Catherine Eddowes' inquest.

In that case, there was no need to resort to the explanation that the clocks is (sic) open to error.

How can you say that when the timings agree, there is no problem, but when the timings do not agree, there is not a problem either?

Of course what I wrote is correct - and your comment about ignorance is completely uncalled for.

The clocks would have had to be wrong in just the right way.

Had they been wrong in the wrong way, then the two witnesses' evidence could still not be reconciled.

Surely you can see that?

[JeffHamm]

The thing that keeps getting ignored is that none of the testimony actually conflicts, and all of the testimony is consistent with a ToD of around 5:20. When I say none of the testimony, I means Richardson, Long, Cadosche, and Dr. Phillips.

There are a bunch of things that continue to be presented that are invalid. The argument that the times give by Long and Cadosche conflict is wrong. we know the clocks and memory is open to error and the give times fall within the known ranges associates with time error. That is all that matters, arguments like " but you have to say the clocks are out in this particular way .. " simply reflect ignorance of how to deal with data. It is not a valid concern and needs no rebuttal.

Also, the concern that witness memory is potentially influenced is not a reason to prefer anything given we also know that medical estimates of ToD also have wide ranges of error. One has to demonstrate the witness is wrong, not simply show they could be wrong.

All this doesn't mean the later ToD is proven, but it does mean the later ToD is far more supported than the earlier given what we know.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

When there is a discrepancy between timings, it has to be explained.

That happened in the testimony given at the Nichols inquest.

Edward Stow has consistently chosen to ignore it, but it cannot be ignored.

The other three timings were in agreement with one another.

The explanation for that is not necessarily that all three had the wrong time and that their timings were wrong in more or less the same way!

The explanation is of course that one of the witnesses got his timing wrong.

To allege that when I point out such a discrepancy, I am guilty of 'categorical dishonesty' is itself intellectually dishonest.

Unless there is a provable explanation for the discrepancy that enables one to resolve the conflict between the two witnesses' testimonies, then the discrepancy remains.

That is the only honest approach to take.



Now to the allegation that a certain poster has 'rubbed up' a large number of other posters 'the wrong way'!

As I pointed out the other day, some posters are refusing to respond to questions put to them even though the questions were put perfectly politely and entirely within the rules.

One of these posters who has allegedly been 'rubbed up the wrong way' addressed posts to me, but when I responded, reminding him that he had failed to respond to posts in which I refuted an argument he had put forward both in posts on this forum and in a dissertation of his, he made no response.

I have asked him to respond about eight times in total so far.

He is now being described as someone who 'won’t bother engaging on threads with' me.

Anyone can check our exchanges and see for himself that it is not true.

He is perfectly willing to address posts to me when it suits him, but he resolutely refuses to respond to posts in which I have refuted what he has written.

He has not been 'rubbed up the wrong way' at all.

It is just that he is unwilling to admit that he is wrong.

[Fleetwood Mac]

That's fairly simple, and if you'd read any of my posts to you regrding this you'd know that I have consistently said that I consider the science to be sound.

At one point, you stated it was pseudo science. I have no interest in hauling you over the coals and going back a few pages to prove the point.

It seems you are now saying: it is not pseudo science. Do I have this correct?

If so, we can move onto point 2.

[A P Tomlinson]

From my perspective, you've had these types of questions answered, and when answered you've rapidly moved onto some other objection rather than discuss that answer.

Assuming you're here for serious discussion, here's your opportunity.

As far as I can tell, your objections over the course of this thread have broadly been as follows, although there may be a few other bits I've missed:

1) It's pseudo-science.

2) I'm attempting to 'eliminate Albert'.

3) Memory errors largely occur because some other person has deliberately introduced false information during the process of memory encoding to memory recollection.

4) I've been unable to demonstrate how and why the articles/studies/widely accepted conclusions relate to Albert.

Feel free to add any other objections you have.

In the meantime, let's take the first objection and when resolved we'll move onto the next one, assuming you're here for serious discussion:

1) Explain how and why the research/articles I put forward is pseudo-science.

That's fairly simple, and if you'd read any of my posts to you regrding this you'd know that I have consistently said that I consider the science to be sound.
The issue I have is with the way YOU continue to avoid applying it scientifically.
You have not done anything more than repeat that the science shows that memory can be flawed. Anyone who has a memory will know that without the need for the repeated links to studies.
The studies you DO link to talk about HOW the specific effects are caused, and mostly (in the case of the ones you started out linking) talk about how the MisinformationEffect can be used by unscrupulous/incompetent forms of questioning that cause the witness to believe what they are told rather than what they saw. You have not shown how any of the specific triggers or illiciting effects that the study pretty clearly states are required ofr the effect to take place were a factor in the testimony of Cadosch.

When asked what those are you immediately switch to "You are challenging the work of experts!" mode rather than actually paying attention to the point being made and do not and will not start applying the science YOU keep citing in the testimony of the witness YOU chose to be the focal point of the thread.

While I'm here I'll do the rest.
2) You are dismissing the reliability of a witness based on nothing at all. You keep linking these studies, as if they are some catch all to all people and everyone's memory without reading them and understanding that they are specific in how various memory issues happen and the causes that can be identified. Without applying them and simply continuing to either post links or claim that anyone who asks you to be specific in the application of the science is attacking the scieence and not your failure to apply it.

3) NO... that's hogwash! That is what I said about the Misinformation Effect... to which it was entirely applicavblee because THAT is what the report you linked to discussed. Try readin them instead of just linking them.
It seems your memory is playing up... so go back to what you posted links to in your OP as grounds for considering Cadosch's testimony as unreliable. That was all about a very specific phenomenon known as "The Misinformation Effect" and specifically how it results from people being tricked/misled into giving false testimony. You still haven't shown how any of the marker, illiciting events or triggers explained in those reports would have applied to Albert. Some people have stepped in to try with "He might have..." or "What if he..." with no tangible statements to say "This thing DID happen and WOULD have caused a serious memory lapse or creating a false memory!"

Unless you can apply the science and explain it in the context YOU established it's worthless in any case taht is made to discount a witness based on memory issues.

4) You haven't taken any of the studies you linked to and said "X, Y, or Z event occuredm, which would have caused Albert to have forgotten/misremembered/created a false memory as shown by THIS piece of reasearch. You have simply held up the research and said "Look at this!" then left it. You seem to have an awful lot of this material, I can't believe that at no point you have been able to find ONE thing in there where you can say something along the lines of, "This statement of Alberts is flawed, because of THIS event, which will have caused a memory lapse/false memory as shown by THIS research!"

My objection remains the same as it always has been. You don't know how to aply the science YOU cite to the wtiness YOU chose to question the reliability of.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And my last post of the evening. A view in the mirror might be helpful for some. Im no stranger to a heated debate, I’ve never denied it. I hold my hands up to it…I should walk away sooner. But in the short space that a certain other poster have been posting the amount of posters that they have rubbed up the wrong way is staggering. So much so that many won’t bother engaging on threads with that person. In just over a year that person has probably fallen out with more individual posters than I have in 6 years of posting.

I said it last night but I intend to give this thread a wide berth. All meaningful discussion died long ago due to the terminal bias of some posters.

[Herlock Sholmes]

To make a claim of a ‘discrepancy’ between Long and Cadosch in an attempt to discredit one or the other or both is based on a categorical dishonesty. It’s relies on a claim that clocks and watches at the time were all accurate and synchronise.

This claim cannot be honestly made. It’s not even a claim that can even be made in 2023. The only honest approach is to allow for a reasonable margin for error. Five minutes or so is well within that margin.

Its as simple as that. One side is true the other is a lie. I choose to go with the truth. Others choose other courses because it suits them to do so.

[A P Tomlinson]

Chapman did not in fact lose a kidney.

Eddowes was even more extensively mutilated.

And in one third of the time, according to the Doctors...

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

But Herlock cant see or wont accept that fact

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

As you may have noticed, his 'refutation' of that fact is to accuse me of relying on a lie (# 664), which seems very close to calling me a liar.

He has also accused me of dishonesty (# 669), has accused me of invention and manipulation (# 637) and, four times in a single post, of invention (#552).

He consistently relies - and has done so for a long time - on personal attack rather than reasoned argument, and that is why I am no longer prepared to respond directly to his provocations.

[Herlock Sholmes]

ToD around 5.25/5.30.

All else requires dishonesty.