Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[Fleetwood Mac]

Oh, and here’s another article telling us that witnesses can sometimes be mistaken…..how useful.

Not quite.

The articles inform us of which witnesses are most likely to be mistaken:

One of the most common times when memory errors arise is in the initial encoding phase, where often what happens is that we’re just not devoting enough effort or paying enough attention.

Food for thought when it comes to Albert, in his own words he had other things on his mind.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No matter how many times this is explained we still have someone deliberately avoiding the obvious. Here we have it yet again…

. I would also argue that since both Long and Cadoche were taking their respective routes regularly and at about the same time each day, they can be expected to have known whether it was a quarter past or half past the hour.

Furthermore, Long noted that she arrived at the market a few minutes after half past, which suggests that she was keeping track of the time.

As for Long's identification of the woman, I would suggest that that would be more difficult than distinguishing the number of bongs she heard.

Deliberately ignoring the fact that all that was required was a 5 or 6 minute difference in time between Cadosch and Long. No need for of the ‘heard the bongs wrong’ stuff.

The level of invention and manipulation on here is getting worse.

—————

Oh, and here’s another article telling us that witnesses can sometimes be mistaken…..how useful.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Another article informing us that memory does not work in the way we imagine, and it comes with an interesting inference:

Why we remember — and forget. And what we can do about it — Harvard Gazette

Neurologist Andrew Budson and neuroscientist Elizabeth Kensinger not only explain how memory works, but also share science-based tips on how to keep it sharp as we age in their new book. They go on to state:

Many people think that forgetting is bad and that an optimal memory system is one where forgetting doesn’t occur. Forgetting is important because if every time that we were trying to make a prediction about the future or understand what is going on right now, we had to sift through everything that’s ever happened to us, it would be inefficient. There’s tremendous utility in pruning because it allows us to use the pieces of our past that are most likely to be relevant for understanding what’s going on right now or what might happen tomorrow or next year.

One of the most common times when memory errors arise is in the initial encoding phase, where often what happens is that we’re just not devoting enough effort or paying enough attention.

The article suggests that we are hard-wired to forget in the interests of our well-being, which has obvious implications for Albert: his brain may have discarded information as a matter of course and there's nothing that the Albert existing outside of his brain could have done about that.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

OK, we're back on topic. Sort of.

I do not recall this topic being the topic under discussion.

I'm now a bit confused, because what this seems to be suggesting is that you actually sort of support an even LATER ToD than Albert suggested.

I do not follow that.

I think Phillips' estimate is correct.

You can't seriously be arguing that Long's memory would have been expected to be good enough to count the bongs and keep that in her head, but not good enough to recall a woman she saw in the street as being the woman she later saw on the slab?

I would argue that since Cadoche could not remember seeing the couple, it is possible that Long got the date wrong.

I would also argue that since both Long and Cadoche were taking their respective routes regularly and at about the same time each day, they can be expected to have known whether it was a quarter past or half past the hour.

Furthermore, Long noted that she arrived at the market a few minutes after half past, which suggests that she was keeping track of the time.

As for Long's identification of the woman, I would suggest that that would be more difficult than distinguishing the number of bongs she heard.

[rjpalmer]

Surely if one of those memories is likely to be impacted it would be the bongs?

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

[A P Tomlinson]

I have no idea why you think I should get back on the subject of Albert's reliability.

I do not recall that it was being discussed.


The passageways that led to the two respective backyards were situated side by side. This means that, if the activity that Cadosch claims that he had heard was actually caused by the murder of Annie Chapman, then he was literally only two or three of feet away from the murderer and his victim! Yet he heard no other noises and couldn't tell exactly from where the voice came from even though when he heard it, just as he walked through the back door, he was closest to where Chapman's body was discovered. Also, the killer must have possessed an incredible amount of cool daring, or a total lack of disregard for his own safety, if he continued the attack on his victim even though there were obvious signs of someone moving about in the adjacent yard only feet away. All of this does not seem plausible.

Secondly, there is trouble with the entire time frame between Cadosch's and Mrs. Long's stories.

Albert Cadosch claimed that the activity he heard, supposedly the actual murder itself, happened between 5:20 and sometime before he left the house, say 5:30. Elizabeth Long claimed that she saw Annie Chapman alive and talking to a man on Hanbury Street just seconds after 5:30. They can't both be right and as the two tales don't really dovetail at all, this is a problem that casts doubt on one or both of these witnesses.

The easiest course of action at this point is to just ignore the discrepancy in times or to attempt to explain it away. Wynne Baxter admitted in his summing up during the inquest that "there is some conflict in the evidence about the time at which the deceased was despatched. It is not unusual to find inaccuracy in such details, but this variation is not very great or very important." ¹⁶ He resolved the issue in his mind by suggesting that perhaps if Albert Cadosch "is out of his reckoning but a quarter of an hour, the discrepancy in the evidence of fact vanishes, and he may be mistaken, for he admits that he did not get up till a quarter past five, and that it was after the half hour when he passed Spitalfields clock." ¹⁷

Baxter's reasoning makes little sense considering that whatever Cadosch heard, he heard before 5:30 that morning and thus several minutes before Mrs. Long turned onto the street. In order for the two times to mesh, or at least to be driven together like the proverbial square peg hammered into the round hole, Mrs. Long must have been off by fifteen or twenty minutes since she has to be placed in Hanbury Street at about the time that Cadosch awoke.

One theory has it that instead of hearing the brewery clock strike the half hour, it actually struck the quarter hour and so Mrs. Long was merely mistaken about the time.

Forget for a moment that Mrs. Long would probably have heard this clock strike on every working day but somehow didn't realize that it struck the quarter hour. Also forget that she stated at the inquest that she arrived at the market a few minutes after 5:30 which would mean that the two blocks she had to cover between Hanbury Street and work would have to have take her fifteen minutes to cover! The real problem with this neat solution is that it doesn't take into consideration how clocks actually work.

Some clocks strike the half hour as well as the hour (a single bong signifying the half hour) while some clocks give you hour, quarter hours and half hour. These clocks, the type that it is suggested the brewery had, do not strike, they chime. A good example is the Westminster clock which chimes four notes to signify the quarter hour; eight notes signify the half hour; twelve notes the three-quarter hour and sixteen notes the top of the hour. This is followed by the bonging of the hour. This is not just a possible confusion over a single note or bong but confusing the difference between four notes and eight. It is difficult to see how Mrs. Long was unable to distinguish the difference between 5:15 and 5:30 on such a clock.

In the end, given the basic facts offered to us, there is a disturbing discrepancy between what Elizabeth Long and Albert Cadosch said.


https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-doubt.html

OK, we're back on topic. Sort of.

I'm now a bit confused, because what this seems to be suggesting is that you actually sort of support an even LATER ToD than Albert suggested.
You can't seriously be arguing that Long's memory would have been expected to be good enough to count the bongs and keep that in her head, but not good enough to recall a woman she saw in the street as being the woman she later saw on the slab?
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.

There IS a discrepancy, there are quite a few in the case related to time, and recollection of times in particular, (you are familiar with how Christer has tried to nail down the use of "about" to mean whatever he wants it to mean) but the only people who find it disturbing in this instance are those trying to discredit the witnesses.

I am not trying to defend a Suspect Theory, or support a later ToD because I need it to suite one.
If I thought there was strong evidence that pointed to 4.30, that was better than the witness statements, I'd have no problem in changing my opinion and saying so.
But it doesn't.
And the attempts to prove 4.30 are weak and manipulate the evidence in order to achieve it. They rely on a man who said that it took 15 minutes to perform the acts of brutality on Chapman, being more accurate on his barely functional knowledge of how to establish a time of death, and dismissing any evidence that contradicts him.

[JeffHamm]

That's why I am doubtful of Joseph Lawende's description of a couple strangers seen for a few moments in poor lighting. Either Lawende had exceptional night vision and memory or his memory filled in the blanks. I have a lot more confidence in Levy, who only recalled the couple's heights and disagreed with Lawende on that.

Maybe, although Lawende's description of the man is still on the generic side compared to Hutchinson's, and on the whole his description isn't really more detailed than many of the descriptions we have scattered about. On the other hand, I suspect all of the descriptions we do have access to contain, to one degree or another, some errors due to memory distortions. A comparison of all the various descriptions more or less leaves us with the impression of someone who was not wealthy but not dirt poor either (the various "shabby genteel" type descriptions), and fairly run of the mill, so didn't really stand out. That's surprisingly common for most modern serial killers too, they tend not to stand out all that much.

Estimations of age and height do have error ranges, and for age it's pretty huge. I forget the range at the moment for height, but it is in the order of multiple inches (so two people seeing the same 5'7" individual could report different heights like 5'5" vs 5'9", one estimating 2" too short and the other 2" too tall. the wide disparity between them reflecting each erring in opposite directions, but erring by the same amount.

One thing, of course, the less information a person gives, like Levy, the less information there is to be wrong (or right of course). So the more someone tries to recall, the more likely it is that something will be wrong, but at the same time, the more correct information one may obtain too (as not everything recalled will be a memory error). It's a bit of a catch 22.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

When you get back on the subject of Albert's reliability, (throw Richardson and Long in there if you want...) I'l be back.

I have no idea why you think I should get back on the subject of Albert's reliability.

I do not recall that it was being discussed.


The passageways that led to the two respective backyards were situated side by side. This means that, if the activity that Cadosch claims that he had heard was actually caused by the murder of Annie Chapman, then he was literally only two or three of feet away from the murderer and his victim! Yet he heard no other noises and couldn't tell exactly from where the voice came from even though when he heard it, just as he walked through the back door, he was closest to where Chapman's body was discovered. Also, the killer must have possessed an incredible amount of cool daring, or a total lack of disregard for his own safety, if he continued the attack on his victim even though there were obvious signs of someone moving about in the adjacent yard only feet away. All of this does not seem plausible.

Secondly, there is trouble with the entire time frame between Cadosch's and Mrs. Long's stories.

Albert Cadosch claimed that the activity he heard, supposedly the actual murder itself, happened between 5:20 and sometime before he left the house, say 5:30. Elizabeth Long claimed that she saw Annie Chapman alive and talking to a man on Hanbury Street just seconds after 5:30. They can't both be right and as the two tales don't really dovetail at all, this is a problem that casts doubt on one or both of these witnesses.

The easiest course of action at this point is to just ignore the discrepancy in times or to attempt to explain it away. Wynne Baxter admitted in his summing up during the inquest that "there is some conflict in the evidence about the time at which the deceased was despatched. It is not unusual to find inaccuracy in such details, but this variation is not very great or very important." ¹⁶ He resolved the issue in his mind by suggesting that perhaps if Albert Cadosch "is out of his reckoning but a quarter of an hour, the discrepancy in the evidence of fact vanishes, and he may be mistaken, for he admits that he did not get up till a quarter past five, and that it was after the half hour when he passed Spitalfields clock." ¹⁷

Baxter's reasoning makes little sense considering that whatever Cadosch heard, he heard before 5:30 that morning and thus several minutes before Mrs. Long turned onto the street. In order for the two times to mesh, or at least to be driven together like the proverbial square peg hammered into the round hole, Mrs. Long must have been off by fifteen or twenty minutes since she has to be placed in Hanbury Street at about the time that Cadosch awoke.

One theory has it that instead of hearing the brewery clock strike the half hour, it actually struck the quarter hour and so Mrs. Long was merely mistaken about the time.

Forget for a moment that Mrs. Long would probably have heard this clock strike on every working day but somehow didn't realize that it struck the quarter hour. Also forget that she stated at the inquest that she arrived at the market a few minutes after 5:30 which would mean that the two blocks she had to cover between Hanbury Street and work would have to have take her fifteen minutes to cover! The real problem with this neat solution is that it doesn't take into consideration how clocks actually work.

Some clocks strike the half hour as well as the hour (a single bong signifying the half hour) while some clocks give you hour, quarter hours and half hour. These clocks, the type that it is suggested the brewery had, do not strike, they chime. A good example is the Westminster clock which chimes four notes to signify the quarter hour; eight notes signify the half hour; twelve notes the three-quarter hour and sixteen notes the top of the hour. This is followed by the bonging of the hour. This is not just a possible confusion over a single note or bong but confusing the difference between four notes and eight. It is difficult to see how Mrs. Long was unable to distinguish the difference between 5:15 and 5:30 on such a clock.

In the end, given the basic facts offered to us, there is a disturbing discrepancy between what Elizabeth Long and Albert Cadosch said.

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-doubt.html

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You forgot to include the actual definition of vehemently.
Or, based on past evidence, more likely you read it, realised that the facts didn't match up with what you wanted to say and had to stretch for something else.

Anyone can type 'vehemently synonym' into a Google search bar and the first entry that appears is Thesaurus.com, which I cited.

I don't think many people would agree with you that any stretching would be required.

[A P Tomlinson]

Yes.

I think it was necessary.

And I think Fleetwood Mac's comment in # 554 should also be quoted:

And, it's a message board discussing a case from 150 years ago. It's not that important in the grand scheme of life and so tackling it like your life depends on it, seems disproportionate (and unhealthy).

In other words, less vehemence would be appropriate, whether towards me or towards Wolf Vanderlinden.

You forgot to include the actual definition of vehemently.
Or, based on past evidence, more likely you read it, realised that the facts didn't match up with what you wanted to say and had to stretch for something else.

When you get back on the subject of Albert's reliability, (throw Richardson and Long in there if you want...) I'l be back. I've followed you down this meandering path away from you having to actually defend your position far enough.

(I'll save you the trouble. Meandering: Synonyms: Drift, ramble, roam, snake, stroll, stray, twist, change, turn, be all over the map, get sidetracked)

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Oh bless... you went away and Googled THAT?

Yes.

I think it was necessary.

And I think Fleetwood Mac's comment in # 554 should also be quoted:

And, it's a message board discussing a case from 150 years ago. It's not that important in the grand scheme of life and so tackling it like your life depends on it, seems disproportionate (and unhealthy).

In other words, less vehemence would be appropriate, whether towards me or towards Wolf Vanderlinden.

[A P Tomlinson]

SYNONYMS FOR vehemently


angrily
boldly
brutally
ferociously
forcefully
frantically
furiously
madly
mightily
passionately
savagely
severely
viciously
wildly
awfully
forcibly
frenziedly
frighteningly
hard
horribly
impetuously
in a frenzy
irresistibly
like cats and dogs
maleficiently
malevolently
malignly
monstrous
no holds barred
riotously
roughly
stormily
tempestuously
terribly
threateningly
tigerishly
tooth and nail
turbulently
uncontrollably
venomously
with bared teeth


https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/vehemently

Oh bless... you went away and Googled THAT?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I would argue with anyone ... JUST as vehemently with them as I have with you.

SYNONYMS FOR vehemently


angrily
boldly
brutally
ferociously
forcefully
frantically
furiously
madly
mightily
passionately
savagely
severely
viciously
wildly
awfully
forcibly
frenziedly
frighteningly
hard
horribly
impetuously
in a frenzy
irresistibly
like cats and dogs
maleficiently
malevolently
malignly
monstrous
no holds barred
riotously
roughly
stormily
tempestuously
terribly
threateningly
tigerishly
tooth and nail
turbulently
uncontrollably
venomously
with bared teeth

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/vehemently

[A P Tomlinson]

You know perfectly well that they would not agree with him that it is likely that Chapman died at about 4.30 a.m.

I have been putting forward his arguments.

How well do you think they have gone down here?

I would argue with anyone who asserts that one group of witnesses are arbitrarily treated as the cause of an "Impossibility in error" while another group is arbitrarily treated as absolutely flawed, on the basis of supprting the medical opinions of Victorian Doctors on the mater of time of death estimates made at the scene of a crime, JUST as vehemently with them as I have with you.

I would hope they would have better supporting evidence than you, and FM have provided to establish that disparity!

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Why would they?
I completely agree!
The witnesses are ABSOLUTELY what make the ToD plausible!!!

You know perfectly well that they would not agree with him that it is likely that Chapman died at about 4.30 a.m.

I have been putting forward his arguments.

How well do you think they have gone down here?