Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Many criminal cases have shown the unreliability of witnesses. Unfortunately, with this case, that is the main evidence we have to go by... outside of what little forensic evidence there is. I believe that forensics ( however crude they may be) trumps witnesses when they conflict. I'm sure that I am in the minority here.

I know this killer took unprecidented chances but its still odd that someone would attempt something like this in daylight and when, even a lunatic, would know that people would be going to the privy and stirring about the building... let alone the prostitute herself who probably used that same location as an 'office' several times before and would also not want to be interrupted. This was not some dark street or passage where people who came across a pros at work would simply mind their own business; this was the backyard of a residence with the likely prediction that such early morning activity by these very residents would take place.

(Chris Malone)

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-crime-scenes/10222-john-richardson

[JeffHamm]

It is inherently unlikely, just as it is inherently unlikely that the murderer would look for a victim at about 5.30 a.m., and that he would fail to make use of tap water to clean his hands if he could see it.

No, it's not inherently unlikely. In fact, it is probably more likely that she could be out at that hour and nobody recognized it was the murder victim they saw than the other way round. It would help if you could explain why you though it was unlikely though, rather than simply restate your assumption it is unlikely. I've suggested reasons for why I think it is likely that she could be seen and nobody come forward, for example. I don't expect you agree with those reasons, but if you can offer no reasons to support your assertion, then there's not much of a conversation to be had.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I’m sorry that the phrase ‘half-arsed’ made you cry. Christ PI, it’s the same as saying ‘half-baked.’

Just move on. Ditch the tactics and stick to the subject of the thread.

You could have used the word half-baked, but you chose not to do so.

Words matter.

You are the one who consistently will not stick to the subject of the thread.

You have not ditched your tactic of using insult and condescension instead of reasoned argument and you browbeat anyone who stands up to you.

You are the one who should move on.

[Herlock Sholmes]

According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, the word you used in # 491 is 'slang, often vulgar' and it looked vulgar to me.


You are the one who needs to grow up.

I’m sorry that the phrase ‘half-arsed’ made you cry. Christ PI, it’s the same as saying ‘half-baked.’

Just move on. Ditch the tactics and stick to the subject of the thread.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

‘Lavatorial language?’

Are you a Victorian Governess? Grow up.

Yet again you are reducing a thread with the same obvious tactic of making false accusations. Move on and stick to the topic PI.

According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, the word you used in # 491 is 'slang, often vulgar' and it looked vulgar to me.


You are the one who needs to grow up.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’d suggest that there’s probably little more to say on this topic. Strange enough considering that it was about Cadosch and yet it’s been drawn into another tedious attempt at shoehorning an earlier ToD via the ‘digestion’ route which is a complete non-starter of course.

Boring repetition serves no purpose and it looks like FM is going to grace us with yet another tedious study adding to the meaningless generalities in a desperate attempt to recoup very obvious losses.

The evidence is massively in favour of a later ToD. The evidence tells us this. No…the evidence screams this at us.

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm following your example.
Rather than accept the possibility of one particular news report, you chose to set the bar so high as to only accept the actual telegram referred to in the press report as proof which report is the correct one. Knowing full well that such a artifact is hardly likely to exist, you can settle back in what you perceive as a secure argument.
Namely, that I cannot meet the challenge.

So, I am playing you at your own game.
If I was to produce a copy of the telegram, would you have sufficient knowledge to determine if it was real, or fake?
I think we both know you do not have that ability - so the question then becomes one of 'why ask for something you cannot validate'?

All this is a distraction from the fact you chose to believe a newspaper story, and use it in an argument, without conducting the minimal research.

If such a telegram were still in existence then that would prove what you originally posted I have no doubt that it would show some form of an official stamp, or at least be worded in the format you have suggested, but in its absence, it leaves us to deliberate over the various newspaper reports.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't accept that kind of response.

If you want to write incessant insults and use lavatorial language, I suggest you spend your time somewhere more suited to your tastes.

‘Lavatorial language?’

Are you a Victorian Governess? Grow up.

Yet again you are reducing a thread with the same obvious tactic of making false accusations. Move on and stick to the topic PI.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I’m not interested in your whining.

I don't accept that kind of response.

If you want to write incessant insults and use lavatorial language, I suggest you spend your time somewhere more suited to your tastes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You have been baiting me almost ever since I started posting here and you know it.

I have been messaged by posters advising me not to respond to your provocations.

I told you many times to stop provoking me, but you obviously get a kick out of it.





That is exactly what you do.

That is why you overstate it by saying it is proven / a fact / a certainty / end of story etc.





For some reason, when I made a slip and wrote Chapman instead of Long, that has to be a bad sign of confusion on my part, but you are permitted the twin luxury of referring to someone else as me and of using lavatorial language.

What does that say about you?






There you go again, overstating your case.






I would like to finish it but you will not allow me to.

You insist on employing condescension rather than reason.

Some people may think that someone who uses the word certainty and claims it is a fact that Chapman was murdered at about 5.30 a.m. appears to have claimed for himself psychic powers and already vacated the real world.

I’m not interested in your whining.

[Fleetwood Mac]

An interesting article on processing and recollecting sound:

Echoic Memory: The Definitive Guide with Real-Life Examples! (magneticmemorymethod.com)

Echoic Memory is the distinct sensory memory that temporarily holds representations of sounds that we hear, queued for processing further into short term memory. This temporary storage process is completely automatic, and requires no conscious effort.

Most of the auditory information we receive into echoic memory fades away, because focused attention is required to process the auditory information into short- and long-term memory.

Echoic memory is constantly “on,” meaning that your brain automatically picks up sounds and stores them, albeit briefly. Of course, the critical step in processing sounds into short-term and long-term memory is your attention to those sounds, otherwise known as “active listening”.

Based on sensory memory duration studies, the consensus of behavioral scientists is that echoic memory lasts for approximately 2 to 4 seconds.

Throughout your life, your brain constantly queues up sounds around you and presents them in a non-stop stream of echoic memories. While most of these memories are discarded, echoic memory is integral in our navigation of our environment through verbal communications and other nonverbal stimuli.

Again, I'd say this article illustrates that memory does not work in the fashion the layman assumes. Broadly, the initial sound lasts for seconds, most of that sound is discarded from memory within seconds, and whether or not the sound makes into a short-term or long-term memory depends upon the attention paid to that sound.

'Very interesting and suggests: "a sound nearby, he must have recollected that sounds as it actually was", is not a foregone conclusion.

'Think I'll have a look for more articles on this.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The only one provoking is you PI. It’s why I’ve be pm’ed by posters saying exactly that.

You have been baiting me almost ever since I started posting here and you know it.

I have been messaged by posters advising me not to respond to your provocations.

I told you many times to stop provoking me, but you obviously get a kick out of it.

What you rely on isn’t reasoned thinking. What you do is form an opinion and then defend it at all costs.

That is exactly what you do.

That is why you overstate it by saying it is proven / a fact / a certainty / end of story etc.

you and PI are absolutely determined that you know more about that period than others do purely due to some half-arsed alleged deductions.

For some reason, when I made a slip and wrote Chapman instead of Long, that has to be a bad sign of confusion on my part, but you are permitted the twin luxury of referring to someone else as me and of using lavatorial language.

What does that say about you?

And all of this is due to your determination to try and move the likelihood toward an earlier ToD - a position which has almost zero merit because the evidence points clearly and exceptionally strongly toward a later ToD - so much so at to be close to a certainty.

There you go again, overstating your case.

So let’s finish this PI. If you and FM want to claim psychic powers then it’s up to you but the rest of us prefer the real world.

I would like to finish it but you will not allow me to.

You insist on employing condescension rather than reason.

Some people may think that someone who uses the word certainty and claims it is a fact that Chapman was murdered at about 5.30 a.m. appears to have claimed for himself psychic powers and already vacated the real world.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you did not address your posts to me, I would not have to answer them.

You just will not stop provoking me, and everyone who has read our exchanges knows it.

Another difference between you and me is that I rely on reasoned argument, whereas you rely on condescension, such as claiming that I am embarrassing myself, am being silly, am biased, am quibbling, write nonsense and drivel, manipulate evidence, and am making things up again - and that is only during the last 24 hours.

The only one provoking is you PI. It’s why I’ve be pm’ed by posters saying exactly that.

What you rely on isn’t reasoned thinking. What you do is form an opinion and then defend it at all costs. Here we are discussing a vacuum. A complete absence of information and yet you and PI are absolutely determined that you know more about that period than others do purely due to some half-arsed alleged deductions. And all of this is due to your determination to try and move the likelihood toward an earlier ToD - a position which has almost zero merit because the evidence points clearly and exceptionally strongly toward a later ToD - so much so at to be close to a certainty.

So let’s finish this PI. If you and FM want to claim psychic powers then it’s up to you but the rest of us prefer the real world.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Why would that be unlikely though?

It is inherently unlikely, just as it is inherently unlikely that the murderer would look for a victim at about 5.30 a.m., and that he would fail to make use of tap water to clean his hands if he could see it.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If you’re going to keep pursuing this nonsense please address them to someone else. Honestly PI I’m embarrassed for you and I can’t think why you would put yourself through this. Just stop being biased.

If you did not address your posts to me, I would not have to answer them.

You just will not stop provoking me, and everyone who has read our exchanges knows it.

Another difference between you and me is that I rely on reasoned argument, whereas you rely on condescension, such as claiming that I am embarrassing myself, am being silly, am biased, am quibbling, write nonsense and drivel, manipulate evidence, and am making things up again - and that is only during the last 24 hours.