Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

More pointlessness.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We can thus say that, after roughly forty minutes, a body with extensive mutilations that was found under cool outdoor conditions was examined and described as being "quite warm." How do we reconcile this with the idea that the body of Annie Chapman was found to be almost completely cold after only the passing of twenty more minutes? We can't. It is very difficult to believe that in under twenty minutes almost all body heat would have dissipated into the morning air. This would be the work of a couple of hours, not minutes. Again, that observation is more in line with Dr. Phillips' opinion as to the time of death of Annie Chapman.

(Wolf Vanderlinden)


This time, there is no attempt to refute the arguments presented above, presumably because it has already been explained to me that the time of death of about 5.30 a.m. has already been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of most people who have posted their views here.

Let us take a look at what has been explained to me.

Chapman's body supposedly cooled unusually quickly because she had been eviscerated, with miles of her innards lying over her right shoulder.

Forgive me, but not only had Eddowes been eviscerated, but she had been eviscerated in an almost identical way: both women lost a kidney and uterus.

And not only that, but she too had her intestines thrown over her right shoulder.

Then we get the argument that Chapman died a violent death, which would have speeded up the onset of rigor mortis.

Excuse my naivety again, but did Eddowes not die a violent death too?

Then there is the clincher: the coolness of the morning.

Was it not a cool morning when Eddowes was murdered?

And when all the arguments have been parried, we get the fact that Eddowes had been very drunk and that MUST have kept her nice and warm, whereas sober Annie went almost stone cold.

Again, excuse my extreme naivety, but was not Chapman drunk too?

The rejoinder comes that there was no comparison: Eddowes was so drunk that her reading was off the seismograph.

So let us look at the evidence.

The police found Eddowes drunk and four and a half hours later, she was judged to be sober and released from the police station.

We can deduce from the evidence that by the time of her death, she had not drunk alcohol for more than five hours, although I would not put it past some posters - the kind whose tongues are habitually inside their cheeks when they reply to me - to suggest that she may have acquired some alcohol during that time or secreted a bottle on her person.

Now let us take a look at what happened with Chapman.

[Coroner] Was she the worse for drink when you saw her last? - She had had enough; of that I am certain. She walked straight. Generally on Saturdays she was the worse for drink.

So, we have evidence that Chapman was not sober when last seen, but Eddowes was.

Yet we were assured that Eddowes was still being warmed up.

And not only that, but the truth is that alcohol consumption causes an illusory rise in body temperature, but actually LOWERS it!

Another argument presented is that Chapman's body would have cooled more quickly, or that rigor mortis set in more quickly, because it appears that she was suffering from tuberculosis.

The fact that it appears that Eddowes had Bright's Disease, which leads to kidney failure, is conveniently left out of the equation.


The case for a time of death of 5.30 a.m. presented on this thread is not short of contrived arguments.

The above can and should be ignored on the grounds of being poorly informed.

Plus, why do you keep quoting Wolf Vanderlinden as if he’s some kind of holy text? Just a man with an opinion. Nothing more.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But Herlock cant see or wont accept that fact

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Because it’s untrue.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I would doubt it in this case because as I recall, the evidence seems to be that no one had sex with any of the Ripper victims shortly before their deaths. That leads me to believe that JtR wasn't looking to have sex with any of his victims, but merely acted like he was looking for it to get the women to take him to places where they were unlikely to be interrupted.

Hi Lewis,

Thanks for that. It wasn’t a point I was intending to push strongly.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Apart from the conveniently-forgotten fact that the testimonies of two of the three witnesses do not agree with each other and that a leap of faith is required to reconcile them.

A ‘fact’ that is only sustained by a lie.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The two witnesses only appear to not agree with each other if one fails to recognize that clocks and estimations of time in 1888 Whitechapel could sometimes be off by more than 5 minutes.

Why assume that the clocks are off in such ways that the discrepancy shrinks rather than widens?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Forgive me, but not only had Eddowes been eviscerated, but she had been eviscerated in an almost identical way: both women lost a kidney and uterus.

Chapman did not in fact lose a kidney.

Eddowes was even more extensively mutilated.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I think if you carefully scrutinize each of the witness's testimony how unsafe they are becomes even clearer

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

When it comes to Albert, he has been taken at face value because people do not understand the memory process, I didn't until a few days back.

Reading the articles and research, we are hard-wired to remember sound that may signal a threat or some sort of problem, and to forget innocuous incidents rapidly. It's an inbuilt survival strategy.

We are surrounded by sounds every minute of every day but how many do we remember? You'd remember the sound of a wolf because that's a threat but you wouldn't remember the sound of say a car passing on the road. We hear hundreds of cars passing on the road every day, but how many of those events do we remember the next day? It's not a threat, it's innocuous, and so those sounds do not make it into short term memory, they're discarded within seconds.

Albert was thinking about work and just going about his business of going to the toilet a couple of times in the early morning.

We are told by researchers that one of the most common errors in memory is that the event is not fully encoded into the mind because that person is not taking much notice.

Albert must be a prime candidate for that, like we all would be in his situation, simply because memory is malleable and we are hard-wired to remember certain events and forget others.

[Fleetwood Mac]

"They were wrong, because memory can be bad."

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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Nichols' legs were still warm half an hour or more after she had been murdered.

Stride's legs were still quite warm more than half an hour after she had been murdered.

Eddowes' body was still quite warm about 42 minutes after she had been murdered during the same night.

Yet we are being told that it is obvious that Chapman would have been cold after only an hour.

We can thus say that, after roughly forty minutes, a body with extensive mutilations that was found under cool outdoor conditions was examined and described as being "quite warm." How do we reconcile this with the idea that the body of Annie Chapman was found to be almost completely cold after only the passing of twenty more minutes? We can't. It is very difficult to believe that in under twenty minutes almost all body heat would have dissipated into the morning air. This would be the work of a couple of hours, not minutes. Again, that observation is more in line with Dr. Phillips' opinion as to the time of death of Annie Chapman.

(Wolf Vanderlinden)


This time, there is no attempt to refute the arguments presented above, presumably because it has already been explained to me that the time of death of about 5.30 a.m. has already been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of most people who have posted their views here.

Let us take a look at what has been explained to me.

Chapman's body supposedly cooled unusually quickly because she had been eviscerated, with miles of her innards lying over her right shoulder.

Forgive me, but not only had Eddowes been eviscerated, but she had been eviscerated in an almost identical way: both women lost a kidney and uterus.

And not only that, but she too had her intestines thrown over her right shoulder.

Then we get the argument that Chapman died a violent death, which would have speeded up the onset of rigor mortis.

Excuse my naivety again, but did Eddowes not die a violent death too?

Then there is the clincher: the coolness of the morning.

Was it not a cool morning when Eddowes was murdered?

And when all the arguments have been parried, we get the fact that Eddowes had been very drunk and that MUST have kept her nice and warm, whereas sober Annie went almost stone cold.

Again, excuse my extreme naivety, but was not Chapman drunk too?

The rejoinder comes that there was no comparison: Eddowes was so drunk that her reading was off the seismograph.

So let us look at the evidence.

The police found Eddowes drunk and four and a half hours later, she was judged to be sober and released from the police station.

We can deduce from the evidence that by the time of her death, she had not drunk alcohol for more than five hours, although I would not put it past some posters - the kind whose tongues are habitually inside their cheeks when they reply to me - to suggest that she may have acquired some alcohol during that time or secreted a bottle on her person.

Now let us take a look at what happened with Chapman.

[Coroner] Was she the worse for drink when you saw her last? - She had had enough; of that I am certain. She walked straight. Generally on Saturdays she was the worse for drink.

So, we have evidence that Chapman was not sober when last seen, but Eddowes was.

Yet we were assured that Eddowes was still being warmed up.

And not only that, but the truth is that alcohol consumption causes an illusory rise in body temperature, but actually LOWERS it!

Another argument presented is that Chapman's body would have cooled more quickly, or that rigor mortis set in more quickly, because it appears that she was suffering from tuberculosis.

The fact that it appears that Eddowes had Bright's Disease, which leads to kidney failure, is conveniently left out of the equation.


The case for a time of death of 5.30 a.m. presented on this thread is not short of contrived arguments.

[Lewis C]

You keep stating that I am trying to discredit them, that is not the case I am merely stating that those 3 witness testimony is unsafe to totally rely on. But you seem to accept their testimony without question, and you are so blinkered in that belief and are not prepared to accept anything or anyone that goes against your belief.

And as long as you keep believing in the testimony of those witnesses this thread is going to go and on with the same old same and to be honest its getting boring now

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

They can't be totally relied upon, but they can be relied upon with at least 80% certainty.

[Lewis C]

Apart from the conveniently-forgotten fact that the testimonies of two of the three witnesses do not agree with each other and that a leap of faith is required to reconcile them.

The two witnesses only appear to not agree with each other if one fails to recognize that clocks and estimations of time in 1888 Whitechapel could sometimes be off by more than 5 minutes. Furthermore, it doesn't even mater if they can be reconciled, because even if you throw out Long's testimony, Richardson and Cadosch are enough to make a later TOD easily the more likely possibility.

[Trevor Marriott]

Apart from the conveniently-forgotten fact that the testimonies of two of the three witnesses do not agree with each other and that a leap of faith is required to reconcile them.

But Herlock cant see or wont accept that fact

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

If you scrutinise them properly you see how reliable they are you and you can’t fail to notice what leaps of faith have to be taken and what poor thinking has to be employed in the quite deliberate attempt to discredit them.

You keep stating that I am trying to discredit them, that is not the case I am merely stating that those 3 witness testimony is unsafe to totally rely on. But you seem to accept their testimony without question, and you are so blinkered in that belief and are not prepared to accept anything or anyone that goes against your belief.

And as long as you keep believing in the testimony of those witnesses this thread is going to go and on with the same old same and to be honest its getting boring now

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Lewis C]

A thought.

Although I can’t quote any specifics at the moment (because I haven’t looked) isn’t it the case that some serial killers have used prostitutes at times without killing them? And isn’t it the case that an urge to kill can come upon a killer quite suddenly? Perhaps triggered by something the victim said or did or by something that triggered some kind of memory or impulse?

If the above are reasonable, and yes of course I’m speculating and speculation appears to only be acceptable on the earlier ToD side, then couldn’t it be at least possible that the killer didn’t initially intend to kill Annie, only to have sex with her? And if that’s plausible then might it not provide at least a potential explanation as to why he wasn’t so concerned about the location or the time of day? Because he wasn’t bothered about being disturbed whilst having sex and because he only decided to kill her when he was already in the yard and the urge to kill came over him?

Hi Herlock,

I would doubt it in this case because as I recall, the evidence seems to be that no one had sex with any of the Ripper victims shortly before their deaths. That leads me to believe that JtR wasn't looking to have sex with any of his victims, but merely acted like he was looking for it to get the women to take him to places where they were unlikely to be interrupted.