Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[Trevor Marriott]

As for proving your point, I would say not.
Your view appears to be that none are reliable, that we can't trust any press report.
Yet, one of them is correct, and you are dismissing it along with all the incorrect ones.
It only takes a bit of work, collating all the variations, understanding just how many original reports were published, then which newspapers copied each other.
We can narrow it down, until we end up with one example that fits the requirements.

And how do you that the one you finish up with is the correct version?

As opposed to your approach of throwing them all out and replacing the report with some speculation of your own.

Where am I speculating I originally asked if there was any corroboration to the newspaper reports. The purpose of asking that question may have been a pointer to the actual TOD

Do you know what a telegram from 1888 actually looks like, would you be able to judge, or even accept it as factual?

Well when you produce what you believe to be the telegram I might accept it as being factual

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Two obvious reasons come to mind. If the friend was a prostitute or even just someone from the same social class there was a reluctance to trust or to get involved with the police. Also that person would naturally have understood that her ‘evidence’ would have been little more than background and wouldn’t have been any use in identifying the killer. So what incentive would she have had for coming forward?

You wrote:

it wouldn’t have been at all unusual for her to have had some item of food on her person.


but there is no evidence to support what you wrote.


You say she may have eaten the food on her person.

That is very convenient.


You then come up with an excuse as to why a friend of hers would not have come forward, based on her class.

Yet there were witnesses who testified at the inquests of the victims, and they were not exactly members of the aristocracy.

Neither of your arguments is valid.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No food was found on her person.


There wouldn’t have been if she’d eaten it.



Why did the friend not come forward?

Two obvious reasons come to mind. If the friend was a prostitute or even just someone from the same social class there was a reluctance to trust or to get involved with the police. Also that person would naturally have understood that her ‘evidence’ would have been little more than background and wouldn’t have been any use in identifying the killer. So what incentive would she have had for coming forward?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hello P.I. -- A small, but relevant point. You constantly refer to Chapman as being "broke." Can I ask: what is your source for this?

Do you concede that there is an important distinction between "not having sufficient money" and being entirely "broke"?

I did write that she was almost broke because she may have had something left.

As I pointed out, the amount of money given to her by her sister would have just about covered the cost of the potatoes and beer she bought.

I suggest that had she had rather more than that then she would have been able to afford something rather more substantial than potatoes.

It may be that she intended to put whatever was left towards the cost of her bed.

She must have been almost broke.

[rjpalmer]

Being broke at 1.50 a.m. would make it unlikely.

Hello P.I. -- A small, but relevant point. You constantly refer to Chapman as being "broke." Can I ask: what is your source for this?

The last person to see her at the lodging house was John Evans, the deputy.

Here are two accounts of his deposition:



And:




Do you concede that there is an important distinction between "not having sufficient money" and being entirely "broke"?

[Wickerman]

Well if that is correct it just proves my point about the unreliability of newspaper reports do you have a copy of that official telegram? If it is not now in existence we can only discuss the conflicting newspaper reports

As for proving your point, I would say not.
Your view appears to be that none are reliable, that we can't trust any press report.
Yet, one of them is correct, and you are dismissing it along with all the incorrect ones.
It only takes a bit of work, collating all the variations, understanding just how many original reports were published, then which newspapers copied each other.
We can narrow it down, until we end up with one example that fits the requirements.

As opposed to your approach of throwing them all out and replacing the report with some speculation of your own.

Do you know what a telegram from 1888 actually looks like, would you be able to judge, or even accept it as factual?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In a period of time that is a complete blank the suggestions that Annie might or might not have eaten are of equal value

The suggestion that you made, that Chapman may have slept outside next to a friend who offered her food, which she then ate, is not of equal value to the suggestion that, being broke and desperate for money, and, having just eaten, her sole aim was, as she had said, to earn enough money to pay for a bed for the rest of the night, and that she was murdered before she could eat again.

No such friend ever came forward.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

But now you say that it wasn't your intention to suggest that nobody coming forth implies she wasn't seen.

So why did you include such things if, as you now claim, you recognize that nobody coming forth does not mean she wasn't alive?

I argued that it is unlikely that Chapman

may have wandered about for three and a half hours without anyone noticing her and reporting having seen her

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

exactly herlock. or the Appeal to Big Latin Words fallacy ...

their position is de facto(see i can use latin too!) absurd.

But it is not absurd to write:

you know you did that intentionally

?


How can you know that I know why I did something?

Is that your idea of logic?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

it wouldn’t have been at all unusual for her to have had some item of food on her person.

No food was found on her person.

how can we know that she didn’t sleep next to a friend and how can we know that friend didn’t offer to share a bit of food.

Why did the friend not come forward?

[Abby Normal]

Is there a logical fallacy that explains people who mistakenly accuse people of using them? And if not, I suggest they call it the Fleetwood Mac Fallacy.

In a period of time that is a complete blank the suggestions that Annie might or might not have eaten are of equal value. You say it they aren’t. Fine. Everyone on here but PI knows that you’re hopelessly wrong. Something that you gave a definite talent for.

exactly herlock. or the Appeal to Big Latin Words fallacy. lol. you and Jeff are absolutely one hundred percent correct. and actually more correct. the problem of their position is they are trying to use an unknown (we dont have any idea what chapman was doing in the hours preceeding her death) to bolster their argument for a later time of death by saying she didnt eat anything during that time. your/ our position does not try to use that unknown to bolster a position, only to try and explain thats its a wash and their mistake in thinking. their position is de facto(see i can use latin too!) absurd.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

At its root, we're disagreeing on the fundamentals of a logical argument, including your persistent use of logical fallacies, and that which constitutes arguments of equal worth.

You believe that speculation with no supporting evidence is an argument of equal worth when compared with an argument underpinned by evidence, i.e. the evidence of Annie eating at a quarter to two in the morning.

As I said, in the event you claimed "we just don't know and so it is possible", then I would agree.

But, that's not what you're doing, you're claiming: "we just don't know and that's sufficient to propose it as an argument of equal worth", which is illogical and essentially means that no matter what any poster puts forward on this board, on any aspect of this case; you cannot accept it as being probable providing you consistently employ the logic you're employing here.

I agree entirely, but I do not mean that there is anything unusual about it.

The approach you describe has been employed against the arguments I put forward ever since I started posting here just over a year ago.

Fanciful ideas were regularly presented as if they were more sensible than those I had presented, which at the same time were torn to shreds.

[New Waterloo]

I think I have found a great example of where people (especially before wrist watches were commonly available) had different perceptions of time. I was reading an entry on another thread, (When and how was it made public that Eddowes gave the fake name Mary Ann Kelly?)

When I saw the press article from

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Pall Mall Gazette - 11 October 1888

Police constable Roberts deposed that on Sunday night, at ten minutes to nine, before the murder, the deceased was lying on the footway in High-street, Aldgate, drunk, and surrounded by a crowd of people. He set her up against the shutters and she fell down again. He obtained assistance and conveyed her to he Bishopsgate police-station, when she was asked what her name was. She replied, "Nothing!" She was then wearing an apron which he identified as the one produced, a portion of which was found on the body and another portion in Goulston-street after the murder.

P.C. Bifield said he remembered the deceased being brought into the station on the Saturday night at about quarter to nine o'clock, drunk. She remained at the station until one o'clock in the morning and gave her name as being Mary Ann Kelly, of Fashion-street. Deceased told him she had been hopping in Kent.

These are the reports from two Police Officers. The arresting Officer PC Roberts states that Eddowes was drunk on the pavement at ten minutes to nine and PC Bifield at the station states that he remembers Eddowes being brought into the station at about quarter to nine!

Now bearing in mind Eddowes has to be conveyed to the police station drunk clearly the times are well out. Possible by 15-20 minutes. The actual day is described as either Saturday or Sunday

There is only one arrest of the drunken Eddowes. There is a large discrepancy of times. These mistakes may have been made by the officers or the press. However what this tells us is that there are mistakes in the reported times, by witnesses, officers, the press etc.

It still happened. We must try to be less worrying about trying to get times spot on. We will never achieve this.

Yes times are important but more important when investigating a period where there are question marks over exact timings is what people actually witnessed. If we were to start looking at the precise time when Eddowes was actually arrested and taken to the police station then we would start to pull that apart to no real end.

Lets look at what we have with Chapman disregarding exact timing, see if we have leads as a result of this and see where we go

Lets also look at other possibilities with different suggested times and lets see where the various routes take us

NW

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Mentioning the clocks is an interesting sideline too, as is your incorrect assumption that the clocks were all reading the same time ... You are assuming that JtR would have washed his hands rather than simply wipe them on her clothes

Again, when I present an argument, you try to discredit it by claiming that it is an incorrect assumption.

I have never assumed that the clocks were all reading the same time.

As for your further claim that I am assuming that JtR would have washed his hands rather than simply wipe them on her clothes, I suggest you take up your objections to supposed assumptions with Wolf Vanderlinden.


There is one more interesting observation. If you believe that the killer murdered Annie Chapman at 5:30 that morning, you have to wonder at his bloodstained appearance as he walked the bustling streets on a market morning. I don't mean that he would be covered in blood but certainly his hands would have been bloody and merely wiping them would not make them clean. He took a huge and seemingly unnecessary risk since there was a water tap just feet away from him in the backyard at Hanbury Street. A tap which he didn't use. Perhaps he was afraid that the sound of flowing water might draw attention. There was, however, a convenient pan of water lying just underneath the tap and all he had to do was to dip his hands into the pan. He didn't do this either. Why? Perhaps it was because he didn't see the tap or the pan in the complete darkness that enveloped the yard at about, oh, let us say 3:30 to 4:30 a.m.? A time consistent with Dr. Phillips' opinion on the time of death.

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

That is just one of many arguments in favour of an earlier time of death.

They are not, as you make them out to be, mere assumptions.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is another fallacious argument. It's a non sequitur.

The evidence we have is this:

1) Annie ate at a quarter to two in the morning.

2) Mary had partially digested food in her stomach when examined.

We do not have any evidence to tell us Annie ate later and neither do we have evidence to tell us when Mary ate, with the exception that the food was partially digested and so that gives us a clue. That's it. That's the evidence. The rest is your speculation and employment of non sequiturs and other logical fallacies.

At its root, we're disagreeing on the fundamentals of a logical argument, including your persistent use of logical fallacies, and that which constitutes arguments of equal worth.

You believe that speculation with no supporting evidence is an argument of equal worth when compared with an argument underpinned by evidence, i.e. the evidence of Annie eating at a quarter to two in the morning.

As I said, in the event you claimed "we just don't know and so it is possible", then I would agree.

But, that's not what you're doing, you're claiming: "we just don't know and that's sufficient to propose it as an argument of equal worth", which is illogical and essentially means that no matter what any poster puts forward on this board, on any aspect of this case; you cannot accept it as being probable providing you consistently employ the logic you're employing here.

In the end, you and I could never have a reasonable discussion on any aspect of this case given that your logic is fallacious and you will fall back on "we just don't know" and claim "we just don't know" is an argument of equal worth.

That being the case, this has all been pointless.

I'll leave you to it.

Is there a logical fallacy that explains people who mistakenly accuse people of using them? And if not, I suggest they call it the Fleetwood Mac Fallacy.

In a period of time that is a complete blank the suggestions that Annie might or might not have eaten are of equal value. You say it they aren’t. Fine. Everyone on here but PI knows that you’re hopelessly wrong. Something that you gave a definite talent for.