Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[Herlock Sholmes]

Those experts did not examine Annie Chapman's body.

They cannot override Phillips' estimate.

A very strange point.

The people that wrote the quotes that you used didn’t see her body either. Earlier on in the thread FM claimed that no one was saying that Phillips methods weren’t unreliable and that no one was trying to skew the evidence in favour of his estimate but here you are doing exactly that.

I can’t stop you responding to this point PI but I’ve wasted far too much of my life on a point that should require no debate or discussion. Dr Phillips was using unreliable methods to estimate ToD. This is simply a fact. And Annie’s body can hardly be called average as far as the extent of her injuries can it?

Let this go PI. There’s so much in this case available for discussion. The validity of the opinions of the worlds authorities on forensic medicine isn’t one of them.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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/

And all of that is entirely irrelevant because…..and yes I’ll say it for the hundredth time……we don’t know what food Phillips found in Annie’s stomach.

Why are we doing this? Let it go.

[Herlock Sholmes]

How do we know Richardson was not using unreliable methods?

He said that he looked into a yard and could possibly have missed seeing the body had it been there. It’s not exactly detailed scientific analysis is it. Richardson is solid. He’s all that we need. That Chapman wasn’t there at 4.45 is proven.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

And all of that is entirely irrelevant because…..and yes I’ll say it for the hundredth time……we don’t know what food Phillips found in Annie’s stomach.

Why are we doing this? Let it go.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That is not evidence.

Yes it is.

Do you know what Annie did or didn’t do between leaving the doss house and her death?

Its a yes or no answer. One answer is a lie the other is true.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Yes it is.

Do you know what Annie did or didn’t do between leaving the doss house and her death?

Its a yes or no answer. One answer is a lie the other is true.

The fact that something cannot be proven is not, as you claim, the same thing as evidence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

And it can take a long time for certain people. And we don’t know the full extent of Chapman’s health conditions.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The fact that something cannot be proven is not, as you claim, the same thing as evidence.

It’s proof of an absence of knowledge. You and FM however are trying suggest what is ‘unlikely’ to have happened. The suggestion doesn’t remotely hold water. Yet again PI you are in a ‘defend at all costs’ position.

Id prefer to move on from arguing that black is white.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

And it can take a long time for certain people. And we don’t know the full extent of Chapman’s health conditions.

We do not know that Chapman, unlike most people, did not need hours to digest potato, or that her body did not cool unusually quickly after death, or that rigor mortis did not set in unusually quickly, or that Long did not mistake the quarter hour chime for the half hour chime, or that Long did not arrive at the market without realising that she was early, or that Cadoche did not arrive late at work without anyone noticing, or that Chapman did not have potatoes secreted on her person, which she just happened to eat before being murdered, or that Chapman did not walk around for about 3 1/2 hours without anyone noticing her and reporting it afterwards, or that the murderer would not have committed murder as it was getting light and somehow not noticed a supply of water with which to wash his hands.

What we do know, however, is that it is possible to think of any number of unlikely scenarios if one is determined enough.

[JeffHamm]

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/

I love how you adore Dr. Google, but completely ignore the studies that actually asked the question about how much food was in the stomach hours after death that I posted, complete with data, that shows you are mistaken in your assumptions

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I love how you adore Dr. Google, but completely ignore the studies that actually asked the question about how much food was in the stomach hours after death that I posted, complete with data, that shows you are mistaken in your assumptions

Which post and which assumptions are you referring to?

[JeffHamm]

Which post and which assumptions are you referring to?

It was an thread where these very same arguments were tried before, which are simply wrong.

I, and others, have presented actual data, from actual studies, on questions like stomach contents, rigor mortis progress, and so forth, none of which rules out any of the times we are considering and you post google searches that say what you want. It has also been explained to you where you are making assumptions. You ignore their explanations and deny the obvious, so I see no reason to simply restate what others have clearly said and you have not heard.

[GBinOz]

She said she intended to find a customer, she needed to find a customer, and she did find what she thought was a customer.

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.

[JeffHamm]

Nowhere did I state that Albert did not hear any sounds. You're making that up.

It's another fallacious argument, straw man fallacy:

The critic sets up a straw man or scarecrow and attacks that straw man instead. Critics usually attack another weaker position than the speaker's so that their own position may seem stronger.

I said our memory for sound is weak when compared with our memory for the visual. What Albert heard in terms of the recollection versus the event, is open to debate, it could be several things; and given that we do not have a video of the event, it's mere speculation.

My only point was to state that our memory for sound isn't great. That is supported by research undertaken by qualified people.

You say you do not disagree with the research and the conclusion. It follows that there is room for doubt in terms of Albert's recollection, given that the qualified people tell you: Bigelow and Poremba's study builds upon those findings by confirming that, indeed, we remember less of what we hear.

You want to believe, then believe, you don't want to believe then don't believe.

The research you are quoting doesn't mean what you want it to mean. I don't reference my memory research for that very reason - I do research similar to the recent ones you posted, and my research is far removed from witness testimony. I am sure if I wanted, I could twist and misrepresent quotes from research to support whatever claim I wake up wanting to make. But it is not helpful. Either take the the time to read the studies before you post them or hold off posting them until you have the time. Stop searching for quotes that don't mean what you can make them appear to mean.

All it does, actually, is demonstrate that your interpretations of the testimony is likely to be flawed. You have yet to demonstrate an ability to understand my comments, and quite often you need them re-explained. I suspect this post will also require going over.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It was an thread where these very same arguments were tried before, which are simply wrong.

I, and others, have presented actual data, from actual studies, on questions like stomach contents, rigor mortis progress, and so forth, none of which rules out any of the times we are considering and you post google searches that say what you want. It has also been explained to you where you are making assumptions. You ignore their explanations and deny the obvious, so I see no reason to simply restate what others have clearly said and you have not heard.

I have at times challenged those who claim I have made assumptions to state exactly what assumptions I have made, without even receiving a response.

In other instances, deductions I have made from the evidence have been called assumptions, although they evidently are not.

Those are certainly not cases of my denying 'the obvious'.

Again, you are talking about scenarios not being 'ruled out'.

I did not rule them out.

I pointed to a consensus about the time it takes to digest potato.

It is a fact that cooked potato is easily digested.

I do not need to have that nor anything else 'explained to me'.