Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[A P Tomlinson]

They are not MY words.

They are Wolf Vanderlinden's words.

I reproduced them because an attempt has been made to make me look ridiculous for presenting the arguments I have, with plenty of personal remarks made about me, as if no right-thinking person would write what I have written.

I suggest if Vanderlinden were taking part in this discussion, he would not be treated like that.

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

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The witnesses are SO reliable that they create, in YOUR words (thank you for these) an "IMPOSSIBILITY of error."

They are not MY words.

They are Wolf Vanderlinden's words.

I reproduced them because an attempt has been made to make me look ridiculous for presenting the arguments I have, with plenty of personal remarks made about me, as if no right-thinking person would write what I have written.

I suggest if Vanderlinden were taking part in this discussion, he would not be treated like that.

[A P Tomlinson]

The murders of Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes were committed under similar conditions. Both bodies were found outside and with their clothing hiked up, although it is arguable that Eddowes was in a more open location and her body exposed more to the air. Both women were killed on nights with cool temperatures, although the night that Eddowes was murdered was a couple of degrees cooler. Both bodies had been extensively mutilated but Eddowes' more so. Both had lost a lot of blood.

In the Eddowes case the medical opinion is backed up by the impossibility of error. The victim was seen alive talking to her killer at 1.35 a.m. and then found dead at 1.45 a.m. We have Constable Watkins testimony that there was no body lying in Mitre Square at 1.30 and medical and police opinion that she was killed where she was found. We also have Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown's observations after he examined the body.

Dr. Brown stated that he was called to Mitre Square shortly after 2:00 a.m. and arrived there at around 2:20. By this time Catherine Eddowes had been dead for roughly forty minutes. Brown observed that "the body had been mutilated, and was quite warm - no rigor mortis." ³⁹ 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.


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

OK, aside from the nonsense about the Doctors yet again ignoring everything that has been said to you about disparity in bodies, and procdure and that even 21st century science can't come up with estimates like that... we have the impossibility of error being grounded in... wait for it... drum roll...

WITNESS TESTIMONY.

Not the flawless work of the Victorian Doctor... not the well established accuracy of 19th century post mortem procedures. (because they were rubbish!)

We KNOW when Eddowes died because the Doctors ass-pull time of death coincided with the witness testimony!

The witnesses are SO reliable that they create, in YOUR words (thank you for these) an "IMPOSSIBILITY of error."

The witness statements are the benchmark by which you judge the accuracy of the Doctor.

That's all you had to say!
So... back to Albert then?

[Fiver]

Do you think Levy was Anderson's witness?

Lawende is the most likely, followed by Schwartz, but we can't know for sure. I'm extremely doubtful that Levy was Anderson's witness.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The murders of Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes were committed under similar conditions. Both bodies were found outside and with their clothing hiked up, although it is arguable that Eddowes was in a more open location and her body exposed more to the air. Both women were killed on nights with cool temperatures, although the night that Eddowes was murdered was a couple of degrees cooler. Both bodies had been extensively mutilated but Eddowes' more so. Both had lost a lot of blood.

In the Eddowes case the medical opinion is backed up by the impossibility of error. The victim was seen alive talking to her killer at 1.35 a.m. and then found dead at 1.45 a.m. We have Constable Watkins testimony that there was no body lying in Mitre Square at 1.30 and medical and police opinion that she was killed where she was found. We also have Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown's observations after he examined the body.

Dr. Brown stated that he was called to Mitre Square shortly after 2:00 a.m. and arrived there at around 2:20. By this time Catherine Eddowes had been dead for roughly forty minutes. Brown observed that "the body had been mutilated, and was quite warm - no rigor mortis." ³⁹ 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.


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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Maybe ask yourself why that is.

I can tell you that it's NOT because your carefully crafted questions have stumped them.

You demand answers to your questions while swerving, avoiding and ignoring the ones asked of you. When you answer a question it is usually in the form of another question without actually giving an answer. Like when I asked how you KNOW theat Eddowes ToD is accurate, or why you put such faith in the patently flawed, long since disabused and replaced, over confidence at stating a ToD based on little more than guesswork?

It becomes very tiresome trying to have a meaningful dialogue when this happens ALL the time.

And that IS me done now.
I know you'll ignore everything I've just said like you do every other thing that is said to you that you dont like, and you'll want the final word.
So don't bother answering those questions, I'm moving on from this pointless exercise.

Well said AP.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I refer everyone to FM’s comment about no one denying that Phillips estimate was unreliable and yet here we are with one person doing exactly that. One person who feels that he knows better that all of the experts in all of the textbooks. Then we have the same adult trying to make a comparison between two completely different bodies despite being told (and shown the evidence) that this cannot be done. And yet here we are with someone desperately clinging to this. Isn’t it way past time that we had an honest, unbiased approach here? This is why any meaningful discussion died long ago. It’s because certain posters are rigidly and dogmatically stuck on Phillips unreliable estimate that they feel the need to plumb any embarrassing, infantile depths to defend their position. Ludicrous nit-picking, cringingly poor reasoning, distortion of the language, pointless generalities like ‘witnesses can be mistaken.’ all simply because they feel the need to try and ‘win’ every single point made.

That evidence massively favours an earlier ToD.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Maybe ask yourself why that is.

I can tell you that it's NOT because your carefully crafted questions have stumped them.

Of course it IS.

I have put the same point to one poster at least eight times and he has never replied.

I refuted what he wrote, he has no satisfactory answer, but he evidently does not wish to concede that he is wrong.

You have complained repeatedly that I want to win the argument.

What is wrong with that?

There are plenty of other people here who want to win arguments, but I have not noticed that you ever complain about that.

If someone refutes another person's argument and thereby wins the argument, what is wrong with that?

Or would you prefer that the loser is declared the winner?

[A P Tomlinson]

There is a growing list of posters who refuse to answer questions I have put to them.

Presumably they don't like to hear them.

Maybe ask yourself why that is.

I can tell you that it's NOT because your carefully crafted questions have stumped them.

You demand answers to your questions while swerving, avoiding and ignoring the ones asked of you. When you answer a question it is usually in the form of another question without actually giving an answer. Like when I asked how you KNOW theat Eddowes ToD is accurate, or why you put such faith in the patently flawed, long since disabused and replaced, over confidence at stating a ToD based on little more than guesswork?

It becomes very tiresome trying to have a meaningful dialogue when this happens ALL the time.

And that IS me done now.
I know you'll ignore everything I've just said like you do every other thing that is said to you that you dont like, and you'll want the final word.
So don't bother answering those questions, I'm moving on from this pointless exercise.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

Do you think Levy was Anderson's witness?

[Fiver]

It is not clear how hearing of the murder could, for example, adjust Long's memory for the face of the woman so that it then allows her to identify Annie. The events she describes are also fairly minimal, she doesn't get into unrealistically fine details (like say Hutchinson does), which one might expect if she was creating an entirely false memory.

- Jeff

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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That's why you answer questions with questions and keep pushing the discussion away from what you don't like to hear.

There is a growing list of posters who refuse to answer questions I have put to them.

Presumably they don't like to hear them.

[A P Tomlinson]

That does not make sense to me.

I know...
That's why you answer questions with questions and keep pushing the discussion away from what you don't like to hear.

I'll be back when we get back to something... anything... that shows that Albert was unreliable.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Because some people seem fixated on his accuracy, and refuse to accept that he could be wrong without him actually saying so. Even to the point where they try and make excuses for his caveat to suggest he wasn't really aware of his own fallibility, and because some coppers believed he was right, therefore he was right.

That does not make sense to me.

[A P Tomlinson]

Why then has so much faith been placed by so many posters in Phillips' caveat?

Because it is HIM aknowledging that he at the very least KNEW he wasn't sure.

Why do we need to emphasise that?
Because some people seem fixated on his accuracy, and refuse to accept that he could be wrong without him actually saying so. Even to the point where they try and make excuses for his caveat to suggest he wasn't really aware of his own fallibility, and because some coppers believed he was right, therefore he was right.

Sounds crazy, but they're out there.