Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Levy didn't claim to have noticed as much ...

That is a considerable understatement.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I fail to see why you or anyone else should refuse to allow a similar margin for error in clocks and watches in a late Victorian slum?

You wrote elsewhere that Long was no idiot and must have known which day it was.

Well, she must have known the difference between the chime at a quarter past the hour and half past.

And Cadoche was not an idiot, either.

He had to get to work on time, just as Long needed to get to the market on time, since she was not going there as a casual shopper but as someone who regularly worked there.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

the Coroner's decision is final ... he knows far more than we do.

There is no opinion superior to that of the coroner at his own inquest.

That takes care of the fifteen-minute discrepancy, I suppose.

[A P Tomlinson]

I do not know where you get that discrepancy between Lawende's and Levy's evidence from.

From their statements at the inquest.

Joseph Lawende: I reside at No. 45, Norfolk-road, Dalston, and am a commercial traveller. On the night of Sept. 29, I was at the Imperial Club, Duke-street, together with Mr. Joseph Levy and Mr. Harry Harris. It was raining, and we sat in the club till half-past one o'clock, when we left.

Mr. Joseph Hyam Levy, the butcher in Hutcheson-street, Aldgate, stated: I was with the last witness at the Imperial Club on Saturday night, Sept. 29. We got up to leave at half-past one on Sunday morning, and came out three or four minutes later.

And you think it was possible for the police to keep track of times by means of something like the post office clock?

No, they would have worked from whoever first started recording the various times of people arriving and a detective would have established the timeline of the actice crimescene, and thus been far more acurate in their time keeping than a bunch of random strangers wandering around taking their times from remembering how long it had been since they heard a quarter chime from a clock tower.

Because the Mitre Square scene was found by a police officer, and no civilians were involved in reporting por securing it, it was far easier for the police to establish the events of the crime scene in am organised timeline.

Is that SO hard to makes sense or are we back in arguining for the sake it territory?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In answer to your #274, APT:

First, you did not quote the whole of Lawende's evidence about the timings.

If you had done so, the discrepancy would have all but disappeared.

Secondly, I do not accept your implication that the police harmonised in advance the timings given in evidence.

There are some minor discrepancies, which I included in my list.

How do you explain them?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You wrote elsewhere that Long was no idiot and must have known which day it was.

Well, she must have known the difference between the chime at a quarter past the hour and half past.

And Cadoche was not an idiot, either.

He had to get to work on time, just as Long needed to get to the market on time, since she was not going there as a casual shopper but as someone who regularly worked there.

You keep advancing the suggestion that she mistook the chimes. That has been suggested by others but it’s not what I’ve suggested (though it’s far from impossible.)

What I’ve suggested is that clocks can be fast or slow and we can’t assume that they were closely synchronised. What I’m talking about is a difference between the time that Long was working from and the time that Cadosch was working from. Cadosch estimated the time that he got up. He then estimated the time between his getting up and going outside. For All we know Cadosch could have been ‘knocked up’ so we can assume that a Constable would have done this at exactly the same time every day. So….for example…

Long hears the 5.30 chimes but the clock is around 5/6 minutes fast. Meaning that it’s more like 5.25 in reality.

Cadosch gets up at nearer 5.20 and goes into the yard at 5.25/5.26.

So with an entirely reasonable and very minimal margin for error (one that would have to be applied even today if clocks.watches couldn’t be double-checked) then there is absolutely no issue. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that they tie up perfectly.

Nothing about the above is exaggeration. Nothing is a manipulation of evidence. Sticking to quoted times however is a manipulation of evidence because it’s the application of far too rigid strictures.

Its not about the people it’s about the nature of clocks and watches and how people estimate periods of time.

[A P Tomlinson]

Ok, I wasn't sure just the way you worded it.
You're right of course, dark, fair, are hair colours, which must be a misnomer if ever there was one.

The form the police use for describing a suspect gives alternates for Complexion: Fair, Dark or Fresh.

That's pretty enlightening Jon, I'm surprised that it seems very "caucasian" centric for the 1880s. I wonder if they stick to those for someone who has genuinely darker skin such as African or Indian. (notice that "Jewish" is its own status for nose.)

I absolutely LOVE that a percieved way for Police to identify Germans was by "duelling marks".

I wonder if a witness described a suspect as "Dark" of complexion on the police report, that someone picking that report up may not be able to distinguish between a well tanned "indigenous" dock worker, a Jewish immigrant, or the son of an Indian Lascar whose family travelled over with the EIC post Rebellion in the 1850's.

I don't suppose there's any more of that you could point me to? I'd love to read anything that helps us understand some of the more detailed aspects of what boundaries, guidelines and standards the coppers were working within at the time.

[A P Tomlinson]

In answer to your #274, APT:

First, you did not quote the whole of Lawende's evidence about the timings.

If you had done so, the discrepancy would have all but disappeared.

Secondly, I do not accept your implication that the police harmonised in advance the timings given in evidence.

There are some minor discrepancies, which I included in my list.

How do you explain them?

What is the point? If you simply don't accept the stuff I write. I'm not getting into another of your rows for the sake of having a row.
We know that Abberline did exactly what I suggested happened at Mitre Square for the Nichols Murder. You don't want to believe a scene that involcved only Police staff would have done the same.
Fine.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Long testified that she reached Spitalfields Market a few minutes after 5.30.

It seems that nothing and no-one suggested to her that she had arrived early.

I would also point out that there is no evidence that the couple whom Long saw entered #29.

It is not even clear that the woman whom she saw was a prostitute.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

What is the point? If you simply don't accept the stuff I write. I'm not getting into another of your rows for the sake of having a row.

Of course I do not accept your comparison of the evidence given by Lawende and Levy, because it is wrong, as anyone can see by reading the court record.

They were more or less in agreement about the time at which they passed the couple, but anyone reading what you wrote would think otherwise.

Rather than admit that, you allege that I am trying to start a row.

[A P Tomlinson]

Of course I do not accept your comparison of the evidence given by Lawende and Levy, because it is wrong, as anyone can see by reading the court record.

They were more or less in agreement about the time at which they passed the couple, but anyone reading what you wrote would think otherwise.

Rather than admit that, you allege that I am trying to start a row.

You said it was the police timing you didn't accept... with no explanantion why.
I don't want you to give me one, because I'm not interested in demanding you answer my questions. And certainly don;t want to gte into the vortex of petty insiginifacnes you'll try to cling to to get a win.

Whether you accept or not that the Police measuring, recording and then summarising the times of people coming and going at an active crime scene would be better than the estimations given by normal people going about their everyday duty using different clocks, (quite a few of whom may have been under the influence of time spent in the pub) and their estimates of gaps between quarter chimes, is of no importance... that's your choice to make to simply not accept that it would happen.
It makes no sense, but...

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I'm not interested in demanding you answer my questions. And certainly don;t want to gte into the vortex of petty insiginifacnes (sic) you'll try to cling to to get a win.

That's rich coming from someone who says he doesn't want to get dragged into a row.

You still will not admit that you have misrepresented the evidence of the timing of Lawende's and Levy's passing by the couple in Duke Street.

As I noted, anyone can check the record and see that you got it wrong.

[Fleetwood Mac]

When you accept without question actual, across-the-board, forensic expertise (without claiming to know better) then perhaps I’ll read those pointless exercises in theoretical tedium.

Once again, you're cynically manipulating posters' comments.

Everybody on the John Richardson accepted that estimating a TOD accurately is problematic.

On the other hand, you are dismissing out of hand the research undertaken by qualified people, which is accepted as meaningful in that field; and utilised by organisations such as the United States Department for Justice.

You have a habit of making claims that actually apply to you far more than anyone else.

[Fleetwood Mac]

It might have escaped your attention, but the Coroner's decision is final.
The police submit evidence in order to influence his decision one way, or the other.
As the Coroner takes in all the evidence, which includes testimony not captured by the inquest recorder, or the various press in attendance, he knows far more than we do.
There is no opinion superior to that of the coroner at his own inquest.

It hasn't occurred to you that Baxter simply amalgamated a series of statements and gave his summary as he saw it.

He wasn't qualified in medicine nor police investigation. He divided his time between lawyer, translator, antiquarian and botanist. Quite a bit on his plate there with which to spare time for anything else.

The inquest wasn't a police room where they undertook investigations and poured over statements and events, i.e. indepth review and consideration.

Baxter was not undertaking a thorough investigation at all.

By way of comparison, Baxter believed that the murderer was attempting to obtain specific female organs for sale to doctors.

Is his decision on that final? Is his opinion superior on that?

Of course not. What you're doing is 'appeal to authority' given that Baxter was no authority. And of course, you cite this supposed authority when it suits, unless of course you believe Baxter was correct in his 'female organs for sale' conclusion.

[Fleetwood Mac]

You actually have to look at the research methods in order to understand the conclusions they present. Memory research is a bit complicated I'm afraid, and the aspects of it being investigated in these studies are not related to Cadosche's situation.

The other studies you mentioned are of more relevance, the work by Loftus and others, but as I've mentioned before, we can't really assess the testimonies without actually knowing what the interview questions were, or what news/conversations (if any) Cadosche was involved in. For all we know he was simply told there was "a murder next door this morning", and he immediately recalled hearing people talking in the yard next door and that something bumped the fence. Or, on the other extreme, he got into long and extensive conversations about it, was told all sorts of details, read the paper, etc, and from that built up an entirely false memory as he tried and tried to recall if he noticed anything when he went to the loo. Obviously, neither of those violate the principles of the universe, so either is possible. We have no information to indicate which of those is the more close to the actual situation that occurred, and if I were forced to guess, I would say the "truth" is somehwere between those two extremes.

Anyway, you're on the wrong track with these recent studies. They don't test the aspects of memory that would apply here.

- Jeff

In effect, you're not challenging me: you're challenging the qualified people who undertook the studies and the conclusion they formed.

They tell you their conclusion in that article: Bigelow and Poremba's study builds upon those findings by confirming that, indeed, we remember less of what we hear.

Your response can only mean that you disagree with them on their conclusion.

In terms of whether or not you're correct or they're correct, they're authorities in that field; you're not.

Take note: 'builds upon those findings and confirming'. This means that they are not the first to undertake studies and conclude that 'we remember less of what we hear'.