Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[Wickerman]

Interesting find. From context, it appears someone saw the couple or the prostitute reported the situation.

Fiver, see post 438, there was no woman with the stranger.

[Herlock Sholmes]

They were not just random; and I do not recall seeing a single one that gave an estimate of three and a half hours or more.

Perhaps you could inform us all what Dr Phillips identified the contents as PI?

[Fiver]

Star Sep 10:
Description of a Man "Wanted."

The series of murders which now even the police believe to be the work of one man, is engaging the attention of a large force of plain clothes detectives. At eight o'clock last night the Scotland-yard authorities circulated a description of a man who, they say, "entered the passage of the house, 29, Hanbury-street, at which the murder was committed with a prostitute, at two a.m., the 8th." They give his age as 37, height 5ft. 7in., and add that he is rather dark, had a beard and moustache; was dressed in a short dark jacket, dark vest and trousers, black scarf and black felt hat; and spoke with a foreign accent.

Interesting find. From context, it appears someone saw the couple or the prostitute reported the situation.

[GBinOz]

Yes, the difference, though, is that Long recalls seeing a man and woman outside of the crime scene that morning, at a time not long before the body was discovered. Hearing of that would result in her thinking she may have seen something related.

Hi Jeff,

From there, the mind starts leading the witness. This was my point in the example of Harriet Lilley:
Mrs Lilley added that, as soon as she heard of the murder, she came to the conclusion that the voices she heard were in some way connected to it.

Starting with the proposition "I was there, I must have witnessed something", the mind accommodates by adjusting memories accordingly.

Anyway, I appreciate that our views don't coincide on this. I just noticed that your turn of phrase (unintentionally) captured my opinion on the subject.

Best regards, George

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

We don't know if Chapman ate anything between that time and her death.

As far as I can recall, I have never claimed to know.

[Fiver]

It is not irrelevant at all.

It has been argued in other threads that it took a long time for Chapman to digest the potato.

Evidence says that Chapman ate potatoes. We don't know how many, but that's more than one. We don't know how well cooked the potatoes were. We don't know if Chapman ate anything between that time and her death.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Those are not scientific studies. They might be correct, but right now they're just random internet sites.

They were not just random; and I do not recall seeing a single one that gave an estimate of three and a half hours or more.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Those are not scientific studies. They might be correct, but right now they're just random internet sites.

Jeff has produced proper medical evidence which has, of course, been ignored Fiver.

[Fiver]

They are not assumptions.

The consensus is one hour.



What’s more, there are also starchy root vegetables, such as potatoes, which take up to 60 minutes to digest.

https://www.donat.com/how-long-does-...%20to%20digest.



Starchy vegetables such as potatoes digest in 60 minutes.

https://www.ndtv.com/health/these-foods-might-be-difficult-to-digest-read-here-to-know-about-them-1991576

Starches like potatoes spend about an hour in the stomach before moving on to the intestines

https://tiphero.com/food-digestion-times

potatoes: 60 minutes

https://www.9tofine.net/en/diet/digestion-time-of-different-foods/

Those are not scientific studies. They might be correct, but right now they're just random internet sites.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Desperate.

That's an unusual term for the statistically proven.

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).

[Herlock Sholmes]

We can be absolutely certain that serial killers do not usually kill in broad daylight, outdoors, and in a place where the community is active close by.

And that is statistically demonstrable.

Desperate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sexual serial murderers don't look for streetwalker victims at 5.30 a.m.

Invention. Provide categorical proof of this.

As I pointed out, Chapman was confident that she would have found a customer long before that time.

She was under the influence of alcohol. I was confident that England would reach the quarter finals of the cricket World Cup but they didn’t.

Nichols, Stride and Eddowes evidently did not need to wait that long, either.

Utterly irrelevant. I was in London in the pouring rain the other day less than a mile from where my friend was staying. It took me 40 minutes to get a cab….he found one in around a minute. What does that prove.

As ever, those who argue in favour of a late TOD have to fall back on the argument that this time the improbable happened.

And those that favour an earlier ToD have to invent things, manipulate the evidence, mangle the English language, nitpick, lie and make very silly suggestions.

It takes Chapman hours longer than she expected to find a customer,

Things sometimes take longer than expected. It’s called life. If you rely on points like this then you simply can’t get more desperate.

the murderer is out looking for victims hours later than usual,

Later that the one previous murder you mean. And the possibly 3 after it. Perhaps he’d left his copy of his Serial Killer Timetable at home that day?

the murderer is prepared to commit murder in a confined space even though it is getting light,

As opposed to risk-free serial killing.

Chapman is willing to go with him into number 29 even though she must be familiar with its occupants' habits,

Invention - it has been suggested by a woman who looked at the victims face briefly that Chapman might have sold items there before. The suggestion that Chapman, simp,y because of this, would have been aware of the inhabitants habits is simply infantile logic.

the murderer chooses not to use the tap water to clean his hands,

He probably heard Cadosch in the next yard. Why would he then stand in the middle of the yard washing his hands, away from the fence as cover? What if he thought wiping his hands on some cloth and simply walking with them in his pockets was a safer way of getting away quicker.

no-one reports having seen Chapman or the murderer enter, inside, or leave the house,

Silly point. She was found there so she must have entered. Duh.

no-one reports having seen Chapman for three and a half hours,

Yes, I’d have thought someone would have mentioned her on Facebook. A nondescript, drab, poverty stricken woman in a city teeming with nondescript, drab, poverty stricken women in the early hours. Either no one noticed her or whoever did didn’t want to get involved with the police. Another none point.

Chapman's body cools unusually quickly,

Invention.

rigor mortis of her limbs sets in unusually quickly,

Invention.

and the clocks have to be wrong to such a degree that Cadoche has to be able to hear the woman seen by Long.

And clicks can’t be 5 minutes wrong can they? More infantile logic.

And anyone who questions this long list of improbabilities having actually happened is treated as though he has a defective logical faculty and as if anyone ought to be able to appreciate that such coincidences happen in such abundance all the time.

You want a list of defective logic…..apart from the above…..ok……give me a while because I’m a little busy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi George

Prostitutes don't ply their trade at 5am

Chapman would not have been looking for punters till that time of the morning

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Proof of this? A don’t say x years of experience on the Force.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Sexual serial murderers don't look for streetwalker victims at 5.30 a.m.

We can be absolutely certain that serial killers do not usually kill in broad daylight, outdoors, and in a place where the community is active close by.

And that is statistically demonstrable.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Echoic memory is even further removed from anything we need consider than recognition memory studies.

Witness testimony is more based upon retrieval of information from one of the components of reference memory (older term was "long term memory")

This is demonstrably incorrect according to the research.

The research posted previously, informed us that one cause of the 'misinformation effect' is the event not being fully encoded into the memory, and during the process of event to recollection; the gaps are filled as a result of internal bias and external influences.

The most recent article I posted, told us that echoic memory lasts for seconds, and whether or not that sound moves from echoic memory into short or long term memory depends to a large degree on whether or not the person paid much attention to the event.

So, it is reasonably plausible that Albert's innocuous event, when in his own words he had other things on his mind, might not have been fully encoded, might not have made it into short term memory; and Albert filled the gaps.

Can happen, of course, but then that witness will generally stand out as their description of the events will just not "work" with others.

Nobody verified Albert's event. We are left with Albert's statement, his recollection of that event, and nobody else claimed to have heard a noise against a fence.

There are no "others to work with".