Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[Wickerman]

If Phil Sugden's analysis is correct, it was after 2.00 a.m. about a month earlier.

So this has nothing to do with Mrs Fiddymont?

I'll go back and see what Sugden has to say, though it must be pointed out we have more resources available to us than Phil Sugden did when he began his research.
The Newspaper Archive was a manual search back then, so he only used a couple of newspaper stories when researching his book, whereas we can access a dozen or more to get a broader overview of each case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Swanson agreed with me that there was such evidence.

The police did not agree with you.

And Lawende, who had indicated that the man he saw was a sailor, was asked by police to try to identify two men, both of whom just happened to be sailors.

I suppose you think the police were biased against sailors.

You’re making things up again. Lawende did not say that the man was a sailor.

Lawende:

[Coroner] Would you know him again? - I doubt it.

Great witness.

[Herlock Sholmes]

She obviously was confident that she would find a customer well before that time, but it seems that we have an abundance of posters who not only know by how much the clocks were wrong, and when they were out by that much, but they also have a better idea than Chapman herself had of how long it would have taken her to find a customer.

I’ll repeat - any person posting on here that will not allow for a margin for error on timings cannot and should not be taken seriously. It’s reasoning of an infantile nature and detrimental to the subject as a whole. If you can’t accept something so elementary then how can you hope to assess something more complex?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You’re making things up again. Lawende did not say that the man was a sailor.

Lawende:

[Coroner] Would you know him again? - I doubt it.

Great witness.

I am not making things up.

If anyone is making things up, it is you, making up the supposed fact that I am making things up.

I have never claimed that Lawende said that the man was a sailor.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am not making things up.

If anyone is making things up, it is you, making up the supposed fact that I am making things up.

I have never claimed that Lawende said that the man was a sailor.

Ah, you’re quibbling over the word ‘indicated.’ I should have guessed.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I’ll repeat - any person posting on here that will not allow for a margin for error on timings cannot and should not be taken seriously. It’s reasoning of an infantile nature and detrimental to the subject as a whole.

Some people may be amused by your remarks about 'being taken seriously' and 'reasoning of an infantile nature'.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Ah, you’re quibbling over the word ‘indicated.’ I should have guessed.

Not at all.

I leave the quibbling to you, Herlock.

[Fleetwood Mac]

No. It is a recognition that when you don't know something you need to recognize you don't know something. Once you recognize that, you will realise how much you are basing your inferences on things you don't actually know.

No it is not. It is an appeal to recognize that when we don't know something we should recognize we don't something.

The evidence tells us she ate potatoes at the doss house. That in no way tells us how many times she ate.

Again, demonstrably a straw man argument.

Nobody is suggesting that the evidence of Annie eating in the doss house 'tells us how many times she ate'. This is you, Jeff, manipulating someone else's point of view in an attempt to present your point of view as a stronger one, i.e. argue against your invented straw man as opposed to argue against that which is being put before you.

It has been put before you countless times that of course it is possible that Annie ate after a quarter to two and at no point have I suggested that the evidence we have tells us how many times Annie ate.

What I have said is that the evidence we have tells us that she did eat at a quarter to two in the morning; we have no evidence to suggest she ate later. That's not the same as saying she couldn't possibly have eaten later and not the same as claiming it categorically tells us how many times she ate.

Broadly, what we have here is two points of view, although there may be nuanced arguments somewhere in between:

1) The evidence of Annie eating at a quarter to two in the morning, and easily digested food in potatoes, suggests she was not alive when Albert walked into the yard.

2) We don't know what happened after a quarter to two and so the evidence of Annie eating at a quarter to two isn't compelling at all, and in fact, it doesn't mean anything in terms of when Annie lost her life.

The reason why you are appealing to ignorance, is not in suggesting that Annie could have eaten later, nor in claiming there is no evidence to suggest that Annie didn't eat later; but because you're claiming those two arguments are of equal worth. That's why it's appeal to ignorance. You believe they're arguments of equal worth when in fact one has a source, the other doesn't. That is the very definition of a fallacious argument.

We're discussing the probable based upon information at our disposal, bear that in mind.

It is a point against Annie being alive when Albert walked into the yard. It's not the final analysis by a long chalk and that's because there is a lot of information to consider beyond the evidence of Annie eating and her stomach contents at the time of her death.

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.

I read quite a few of your posts on this subject a while back. I thought they were a mix of fair points and dousing the thread in statistics, monumentally long posts and the like; to the point it was difficult to decipher the thrust of your posts.

Back to your studies.

They really would be worth posting in order to demonstrate your point. I do not recall you putting a good case forward to support the notion: "you are mistaken in your assumptions". There are a few people here who will hold their hands up in the event you put a good case forward. I am one of them. It's not a game for me. On the other hand, you may have given away your motives on the other thread when you stated: "nice play", when considering an opposing argument.

Either way, put forward the studies you have for consideration. I considered them last time 'round and I did not think you had much of a case at all. 'Happy to be proven wrong second time 'round.

On the other hand, it is widely accepted that potatoes is easily digested food, and we did have commentary from three qualified pathologists who all believed that Annie would not have been alive when Albert walked into the yard, in the event her last food was those potatoes at a quarter to two in the morning.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

What if she had said “I’ll find us a safe spot,” and he replied “will you?”

I do believe you were there, Herlock.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

... you're claiming those two arguments are of equal worth.

That kind of thing happens all the time on here.

Unlikely or farfetched scenarios are put forward as though they are just as reasonable as ones that flow from the evidence.

[Fleetwood Mac]

That kind of thing happens all the time on here.

Unlikely or farfetched scenarios are put forward as though they are just as reasonable as ones that flow from the evidence.

The most unattractive thing about this board is that it comes across as a game of don't concede or accept anything for many, no matter the foundations of the point of view.

When it comes to Annie, there is a whole lot of information to consider: some for a later time of death and some against.

Take the witnesses as an example. It is absolutely a point for a later time of death. They're not cast-iron by any stretch of the imagination, and that was the point of the OP. Add in that John Richardson's honesty is questionable.

But, all things considered, on balance; it remains a point for a later time of death.

On the other hand, what we're seeing here is people arguing vehemently until they're blue in the face a point of view that you quite rightly term 'unlikely'.

It's not really a serious discussion, and at times you're just going through the motions waiting for someone to turn up with a sensible opposing argument.

[JeffHamm]

Again, demonstrably a straw man argument.

Nobody is suggesting that the evidence of Annie eating in the doss house 'tells us how many times she ate'. This is you, Jeff, manipulating someone else's point of view in an attempt to present your point of view as a stronger one, i.e. argue against your invented straw man as opposed to argue against that which is being put before you.

It has been put before you countless times that of course it is possible that Annie ate after a quarter to two and at no point have I suggested that the evidence we have tells us how many times Annie ate.

What I have said is that the evidence we have tells us that she did eat at a quarter to two in the morning; we have no evidence to suggest she ate later. That's not the same as saying she couldn't possibly have eaten later and not the same as claiming it categorically tells us how many times she ate.

Broadly, what we have here is two points of view, although there may be nuanced arguments somewhere in between:

1) The evidence of Annie eating at a quarter to two in the morning, and easily digested food in potatoes, suggests she was not alive when Albert walked into the yard.

No, the evidence suggests she was alive on his first visit, as the evidence as stated is that he heard people in the yard. There is a debate concerning whether or not his locating those voices to the backyard of #29 might be mistaken, but as it stands, the evidence we have indicates she was alive at that time.

2) We don't know what happened after a quarter to two and so the evidence of Annie eating at a quarter to two isn't compelling at all, and in fact, it doesn't mean anything in terms of when Annie lost her life.

Agreed. We don't know what happened after 1:45, and Annie's eating of potatoes at that time doesn't allow us to make any inferences based upon the report that there was "some food" in her stomach during autopsy. Finally, you've gotten there.

The reason why you are appealing to ignorance, is not in suggesting that Annie could have eaten later, nor in claiming there is no evidence to suggest that Annie didn't eat later; but because you're claiming those two arguments are of equal worth. That's why it's appeal to ignorance. You believe they're arguments of equal worth when in fact one has a source, the other doesn't. That is the very definition of a fallacious argument.

There is no source for her eating or not eating after 1:45. Neither side has a source. We both agree she ate potatoes at 1:45, because that does have a source. But as you've just said in the preceding paragraph, that incident of eating "doesn't mean anything in terms of when Annie lost her life." it seems odd for you to now argue against yourself.

We're discussing the probable based upon information at our disposal, bear that in mind.

It is a point against Annie being alive when Albert walked into the yard. It's not the final analysis by a long chalk and that's because there is a lot of information to consider beyond the evidence of Annie eating and her stomach contents at the time of her death.

I read quite a few of your posts on this subject a while back. I thought they were a mix of fair points and dousing the thread in statistics, monumentally long posts and the like; to the point it was difficult to decipher the thrust of your posts.

Statistical analysis is the main tool of how we extract generalizable information - basically, analytical statistics (as opposed to simple descriptive statistics) are the information one should work with. It avoids making inferences based upon anecdotal comparisons or "common sense", both of which tend to lead to incorrect evaluations.
And yes, I admit I do tend to be a bit verbose.

Back to your studies.

They really would be worth posting in order to demonstrate your point. I do not recall you putting a good case forward to support the notion: "you are mistaken in your assumptions". There are a few people here who will hold their hands up in the event you put a good case forward. I am one of them. It's not a game for me. On the other hand, you may have given away your motives on the other thread when you stated: "nice play", when considering an opposing argument.

The studies you've recently posted are not testing recall memory. Nor are they tests of the sort of things that Cadosche is testifying to. I pointed out that the methods of the study are testing a recognition memory for sounds, and that is a whole different ball game from the recollection of an episodic memory trace of one's morning. The studies are testing a different question, which is manifestly obvious when you examine the methodology of the studies. If you don't realize that is a good argument then so be it. You're posting them indicates you assume those studies are relevant, and they are not (with respect to Cadosche - as I say, you could possibly make a case they are relevant for Long, and how it then becomes possible for her to misrecall the chimes as being 5:30 when they were in fact the 5:15 chimes, but as that doesn't suit your desired goal of reaching an earlier ToD, you misapply those studies to Cadosche's testimony).

Either way, put forward the studies you have for consideration. I considered them last time 'round and I did not think you had much of a case at all. 'Happy to be proven wrong second time 'round.

If you didn't recognize the importance of the studies then I doubt you would recognize them now. I'm not concerned with whether or not you agree with the research, or the points I make, but rather I respond pointing out where you're misapplying research from an inappropriate area. Those reading can judge for themselves which side they feel has the stronger case.

On the other hand, it is widely accepted that potatoes is easily digested food, and we did have commentary from three qualified pathologists who all believed that Annie would not have been alive when Albert walked into the yard, in the event her last food was those potatoes at a quarter to two in the morning.

It is amusing to see you open with the claim I set up a straw man with regards to you claiming Annie only ate once. And yet, from your previous post you have:

The evidence suggests Annie ate once that night. It's not impossible that Annie ate again, but we do not have any evidence for that.

The bolded claim is what I was responding to, and pointing out the evidence we have does not suggest that at all. It only suggests we know she ate at least once, while your presentation is that she ate once (implying only once).

Yes, you do go on to say it is not impossible that she ate again, but rather than acknowledge that means we cannot leave out of considering that possibility, you dismiss it and say we do not have evidence for that. Which, as I've consistently said, that's because we do not have any evidence at all, so we also have no evidence she didn't eat.

Going with your presentation, we know that Kelly had eaten fish and potatoes based upon the analysis of her stomach contents. However, we have nobody verifying that she ate anything at all. According to you, because we have nobody saying she ate we must therefore go with the idea she didn't eat during that time we have no information, making the fish and potatoes a mystery (how could it be there if she didn't eat?).

With Annie, we do not know what the food was that was found in her stomach. It is never identified. Just because we happen to have testimony of her eating around 1:45 doesn't mean that is the food that was found in her stomach at autopsy. It just doesn't mean that. We don't know what the food was, and given there are many hours between her potatoes and when she's found dead that we do not know what she did, we have to consider the possibility that during those missing hours she ate something.

This isn't even all that complicated, so I am at a loss to understand why you find this so controversial?

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

According to you, because we have nobody saying she ate we must therefore go with the idea she didn't eat during that time we have no information ...

It is not just the fact that there is no evidence that Chapman ate during that time, but also the fact that we know she had already eaten and was almost broke.

[JeffHamm]

It is not just the fact that there is no evidence that Chapman ate during that time, but also the fact that we know she had already eaten and was almost broke.

Neither of which precludes her eating during the time for which we have no information. If one wishes to make the assumption she did not eat, that's fine, just acknowledge that assumption is being made. If one wishes to make the assumption she did eat, that's fine too, just acknowledge when that assumption is being made. I personally tend to make neither, and consider both possibilities to see how the conclusions may differ. Having looked at research into stomach contents, and what is found after various amounts of time has elapsed between the last meal and the time of death, it is clear it makes no difference in the end. Even if the "some food" is remnants of the potatoes she at at 1:45, finding a small amount of it is unsurprising, whether she was killed before or after 4:30. Of course, if she ate after she left the doss house, that unsurprising finding becomes even more unsurprising.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

I do believe you were there, Herlock.

No more than you were PI. Clearly you missed the words “what if,” that I began my obvious piece of speculation with.