Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

[Herlock Sholmes]

i wonder what the chances are that three independent corroborating witnesses all have "false memory creation" that just happens to falsely corroborate all there false memories. lol.

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

i wonder what the chances are that three independent corroborating witnesses all have "false memory creation" that just happens to falsely corroborate all there false memories. lol.

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

i wonder what the chances are that three independent corroborating witnesses all have "false memory creation" that just happens to falsely corroborate all there false memories. lol.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Both this thread and the Richardson one were pretty much a waste of time. All we needed was this:

[Coroner] Did you notice whether there was any object outside? - I could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there then.

That’s game over. Forget the waffle. Forget the inventions. Forget the increasingly imaginative ways of trying to show how he could have missed a mutilated corpse in a small space behind a door that you could have pushed a coster’s cart under. We have it in a sentence. A man with absolutely no reason to lie looks into a yard, he can see all around, there is no body there. Even before he’d put his feet onto the flags he’d have seen the body when he pushed it open to allow himself to descend (unless someone is going to suggest that he pushed it open with his face - which frankly wouldn’t surprise me on here)

Has anyone ever read of such lengths being gone to in trying to discredit witnesses? I struggle to think of another example that comes close - anyone would think that some have some bias in their desire to do this. We have only three non-professional witnesses relevant to the ToD, and would you believe it, they were all making it up or else mistaken or morons. Does the fact that we know that a Victorian doctor’s ToD estimation help? No, of course it doesn’t because it’s back to the kindergarten we go with efforts to show that modern day textbooks should all be re-written or that (and this is a cracker) that you can assess a ToD estimate by looking at a completely different body - you couldn’t make this silliness up)

Basically this comes from three misconceptions:

1. That just because a Victorian doctor was a competent professional then he was a miracle worker. He could accurately, by touching a body and by noting a commencement of stiffening, assess a Tod accurately and reliably. Even when he himself admitted the possibility of error. Modern day authorities with their advances in knowledge are ignored. This isn’t error or poor judgment. It’s dishonesty which cannot be dressed up politely. We have the evidence all around us from those authorities. But no….tear up the papers, re-write the textbooks because a couple of posters on Casebook believe that their ‘knowledge’ renders all of this obsolete. Could anything be more of an embarrassment to the subject?

2. That they can somehow second guess how a Victorian serial killer would or would not have acted. Despite not knowing who he was. Despite not knowing his character traits. Despite not knowing his level of intelligence. Despite not knowing if his own circumstances were any different on September 8th than they were on other days. Yet we still have oracles on here claiming to be able to tell us with confidence what he would or wouldn’t have done. Again…you simply couldn’t make this up!

3. That they can somehow second guess how a Victorian slum-dwelling prostitute would or wouldn’t have acted. The tea leaves have been cast; the crystal ball has been polished to gleaming and the Ouija board has been taken from beneath the monopoly board in the cupboard. I’d say that more nonsense has been written about what Long ‘would’ have done after leaving the lodging house than anything - and that’s up against some exceptionally strong competition!

These three ‘misconceptions’ aid in promoting a ‘preconception.’ The result……a never ending tirade of complete guff.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Indeed. I've heard that bongs often impact the memory...and not in a good way.

Having caught up with this thread it'd be a blessed relief...

[GBinOz]

The following is offered as an example of false memory creation.
Star 10 Nov:
A HUNDRED HIGHLY CIRCUMSTANTIAL STORIES,
which, when carefully sifted, prove to be totally devoid of truth. One woman (as reported below) who lives in the court stated that at about two o'clock she heard a cry of "Murder." This story soon became popular, until at last half a dozen women were retailing it as their own personal experience. Each story contradicted the others with respect to the time at which the cry was heard. A Star reporter who inquired into the matter extracted from one of the women the confession that the story was, as far as she was concerned, a fabrication; and he came to the conclusion that it was to be disregarded.

Also offered, as general interest for discussions, are Carl Sagan's baloney detection rules:

1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses.
7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.
9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

You are rght George, I apologise. I got that "amphitheatre of echoes" comment lodged in my head and associated it with FM's science...

Apology accepted AP, and thank you for your honesty.

[A P Tomlinson]

It appears we are being presented an opportunity to practically examine the reliability of memory.

Can you point to even one post of mine where I specifically mention the memory of sound?

You are rght George, I apologise. I got that "amphitheatre of echoes" comment lodged in my head and associated it with FM's science...

[A P Tomlinson]

It's not my research/work. I've simply borrowed it and posted it here.

That's what people qualified in that field have concluded.

As for 'eliminating Albert', this is hyperbole.

I'm not attempting to do that, and the qualified people are not suggesting that either. I'm pretty sure that I've claimed Albert's recollection is open to doubt all along, including in the OP. Doubt is not akin to eliminating.

They have concluded that memory is malleable and should be treated with caution, and I'm merely posting their conclusions based on their years and research in that field.

But you have done nothing to apply any of it to any specific situation that you want to bring into question.

If you think that any of the science that you keep linking has merit in establishing a specific witness (in the case you chose to pursue, Albert Cadosch) experienced any of the triggers or situations that would cause the memory lapses, false memories and general befuddlement you want to apply to him, then show it.
I don't see his name in any of the linked reports, so I can't find which elements you want to apply. Unless you broadly want to discredit ALL witnesses by suggesting that the same memory problems would apply to absolutely everyone.

YOU chose to apply the science to Albert. But haven't done that yet. The science you keep referring to is pretty clear that for memory to be as flawed as you would have us believe Albert's was requires certain factors to cause the abnormality. The overwhelming majority of studies you linked referred to deliberate manipulation of memory as the key trigger, and others due to various stress points such as being overwhelmed by data input when witnessing a crime.

Unless you can support a premise that HE was special in some way you cannot discriminate between him and anyone else, and all you are effectively saying is that every single witness who possesses the capacity for a memory is exactly as reliable as any other.
And that sometimes memory is unreliable, but you can't show anything specific as to why Albert is any less reliable than... say... a couple of blokes leaving the pub at closing time around 1.30 in the morning.
If THAT is the point you've been trying to make all aong, maybe leave Albert's name out of it and call the thread, "Is memory reliable?" and most people will say, "Not completely..." Because despite the science, everyone reading this HAS a memory, and everyone they have ever known HAS a memory, and we all know that sometimes people forget things and that memory can be flawed. But without being able to give a valid reason why someone who cliams to have remembered something is wrong, you are merely waving studies around to cherry pick who you want to apply "They were wrong, because memory can be bad." to.
And that's not very scientific.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I was called to Buck's-row about four o'clock... Her hands and wrists were cold, but the body and lower extremities were warm.

(Mr. Henry Llewellyn)


[A doctor arrived] About twenty minutes after the constables came up... The doctor said the body was quite warm.

(LOUIS DIEMSCHUTZ)


I consulted my watch on my arrival, and it was 1.16 a.m... The neck and chest were quite warm, as were also the legs, and the face was slightly warm.

(Mr. Frederick William Blackwell)


I was called on Sunday morning last at twenty past one to Leman-street Police-station, and was sent on to Berner-street ... body still warm, face warm, hands cold, legs quite warm...

(Mr. George Baxter Phillips)


I was called shortly after two o'clock on Sunday morning, and reached the place of the murder about twenty minutes past two...

The body had been mutilated, and was quite warm - no rigor mortis.

(Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown)




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.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Remember George and FM have gone to GREAT lengths to show how the memory of sound is apparently a terrible thing in human beings, in order to eliminate Albert.

It's not my research/work. I've simply borrowed it and posted it here.

That's what people qualified in that field have concluded.

As for 'eliminating Albert', this is hyperbole.

I'm not attempting to do that, and the qualified people are not suggesting that either. I'm pretty sure that I've claimed Albert's recollection is open to doubt all along, including in the OP. Doubt is not akin to eliminating.

They have concluded that memory is malleable and should be treated with caution, and I'm merely posting their conclusions based on their years and research in that field.

[GBinOz]

Surely if one of those memories is likely to be impacted it would be the bongs?
Remember George and FM have gone to GREAT lengths to show how the memory of sound is apparently a terrible thing in human beings, in order to eliminate Albert.

It appears we are being presented an opportunity to practically examine the reliability of memory.

Can you point to even one post of mine where I specifically mention the memory of sound?