Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[A P Tomlinson]

Are you describing what was later known as a bicycle clip?



Though this was used in the 50's (& before?) to trap the hem of your trousers to your leg so it didn't touch the chain.

ALMOST. I cant find the exact thing I'm looking for, though oddly enough when you search for "Gaiter Clip" it throws up about a hundred images of a car part that is not disimilar.
If you take that bike clip, and bend one of the little hooks inward, and then flatten both hooks a bit it would be more like the thing I'm talking about. Or just a piece of wire like an old coat hanger would be made from, but bent into a circle with a hook at each end that would interlock. (To be honest, knowing my dad's side of the family the things we were using in the 1970s probaby either WERE Victorian, or made from coat hangers...)
You would clip one of the hooks under the other and they would hold fast. You put them on at the top of the calf and below the knee over the legging and fold the top over. You wouldn't want to do too much crouching wearing one or you'd probably lose a foot.
But if you got a strong enough bike clip style that would probably work. It may be that the bike clip evolved from the gaiter spring/clip.

Consdering the lack of importance I think it has as a clue, I can't muster the mental energy to research it any further.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Feel free to show that Albert Cadosch's recollection of events is opposed by a photograph of the event

Within the human mind, there is a process from event to recollection/statement. That being: encoding, storing and retrieval. It's not akin to a photograph because the human mind and memory is subject to many factors and influences which can divorce the recollection from the event. Human memory and the human mind simply isn't like taking a photograph and storing it for posterity.

What we have at our disposal is Albert's recollection of the event. That's a fact. We do not have a video of the event.

That is the starting point for the discussion. It's just getting started, let's see where it goes.

Here is an extract:

Myth: Eyewitness Testimony is the Best Kind of Evidence – Association for Psychological Science – APS

The claim that eyewitness testimony is reliable and accurate is testable, and the research is clear that eyewitness identification is vulnerable to distortion without the witness’s awareness. More specifically, the assumption that memory provides an accurate recording of experience, much like a video camera, is incorrect. Memory evolved to give us a personal sense of identity and to guide our actions. We are biased to notice and exaggerate some experiences and to minimize or overlook others. Memory is malleable.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

May I point out that Cadoche's evidence was entirely aural.

He did not say that he saw the fence move.

[Fleetwood Mac]

May I point out that Cadoche's evidence was entirely aural.

He did not say that he saw the fence move.

This is a simple but effective point.

It's such an innocuous event. A noise here; a noise there.

Albert himself tells us it wasn't anything out of the ordinary and he had other things on his mind.

We think of the murder and then we put the details together, but it wasn't like that for Albert. 'No reason to take notice; no reason to analyse what was going on around him.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Here's an interesting article referencing studies:

RE-EVALUATING THE CREDIBILITY OF EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY: THE MISINFORMATION EFFECT AND THE OVERCRITICAL JUROR | Episteme | Cambridge Core

It's concerned with 'the misinformation effect' and 'the contamination effect', broadly, witnesses recollecting information in an event that did not happen in that event.

One study found that misinformation was remembered as being a part of the original event 47% of the time.

Misinformation or contamination can come from a variety of sources, including at an inquest or via discussing the event with others.

This study is concerned with an event as opposed to identification of a suspect.

The article informs us that:

Hundreds of studies have now been undertaken demonstrating the robustness of this phenomenon (Howe and Knott Reference Howe and Knott2015), which has become labelled the misinformation effect because it occurs due to the influence of misinformation provided after an event.

[Herlock Sholmes]

“While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29.”

In that tiny yard? With him being so close to the fence? He hears a noise coming from elsewhere but mistakes it for a noise from a fence right next to him? What lengths are you prepared to go to in order to try and dismiss this witness? It’s been done with Richardson, it’s been done with Long and why? Some altruistic search for the truth? Or a desperate attempt to eliminate THREE inconvenient witnesses because some people have a preconception and seek to shape the evidence to conform to that preconception?

The chances of all three witnesses being wrong?

Somewhere between ‘not very’ and ‘no chance.’

And no amount of articles that proclaim generalities will change that. We get the message that witnesses can be mistaken. Buildings can explode. People can be serial killers. So what?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Just in case of any possible misunderstanding, I have never dismissed Cadoche as a witness.

I was simply pointing out that if the sound he heard of something falling against the fence was caused by the body of Annie Chapman collapsing against it, and the fence was in full view of Cadoche, then one could reasonably expect him to have seen the fence move.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And just in case of any possibility of misunderstanding, I have never suggested that the noise was Annie’s body falling against the fence.

There’s also no suggestion in any of the evidence that Cadosch was looking at the fence when the noise occurred. Indeed it seems far likelier that he wasn’t. He was heading for the door so would have been looking toward the door.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

And just in case of any possibility of misunderstanding, I have never suggested that the noise was Annie’s body falling against the fence.

There’s also no suggestion in any of the evidence that Cadosch was looking at the fence when the noise occurred. Indeed it seems far likelier that he wasn’t. He was heading for the door so would have been looking toward the door.

I do indeed remember an earlier exchange we had, in which you suggested that the noise was caused by the murderer positioning himself between Chapman and the fence.

What I had in mind was something I read somewhere that Cadoche somehow indicated that the noise came from the very part of the fence where the body was found, but I cannot remember the source.

[JeffHamm]

This isn't what's under discussion.

The OP clearly states that Albert might not have recalled the event as it was, but then again he may have.

The OP is concerned with exploring whether or not too much emphasis has been placed on Albert's statement.

The discussion is just getting under way, I'm sure there'll be plenty of posts and so let's see where it goes in terms of the confidence that should be placed in Albert's statement.

Let's not introduce counter-arguments to arguments that nobody has put forward.

It was more of a caution related to the original topic rather than a counter-argument. Too often these types of discussions devolve into that erroneous conclusion, that because the literature shows witnesses can be wrong (and of course they can), that means all of these witnesses are wrong.

Can you post a link to this study.

It should be an interesting read and enable others to assess what it means in relation to the OP, and reply to you.

Not to the article directly as it is under copywrite and behind a paywall. I have access from work, but I can't post it here. I can give you a link to the publicly available abstract though, as those are open access. If you are near a university, you may be able to access the full article from their library if they allow for public access (which I suspect they won't, but it might be worth a try).

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

I do indeed remember an earlier exchange we had, in which you suggested that the noise was caused by the murderer positioning himself between Chapman and the fence.

What I had in mind was something I read somewhere that Cadoche somehow indicated that the noise came from the very part of the fence where the body was found, but I cannot remember the source.

I thought that it could perhaps have been the killer right arm or shoulder against the fence. Or perhaps, as Annie’s knees where turned outward, that he’d forcefully pushed her legs apart and her left knee struck the fence?

I can’t recall reading anywhere that he’d indicated a particular part of the fence PI but just because I can’t recall it it doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have said it. I don’t think that he ever did but if it can be found, and it’s reliable…. If he indicated a specific area of the fence though that still wouldn’t mean that he was looking at the fence when the noise occurred though.

[New Waterloo]

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the statements given by Long and Cadosch have not been made in good faith. Instead of trying to pull them apart why don't we rejoice at our luck in having these statements and look at what they say from a positive viewpoint. Why don't we go down the track (even if it is hard for us) of believing what they are saying and see where this takes us. If for once we fully accept Long then which suspect fits her description. In other words lets experiment with believing witnesses. If there is a conflict in times and overlaps of evidence ignore them. Cut out the clocks. What are we left with. It isn't as if we are short of witnesses. We keep being told JTR did his work without being seen and without any noise or clue. Is this true. He is there to been seen and identified.

Easier said than done you may say. Well to be honest I agree. But an idea.

NW

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If the murderer was seen in Hanbury Street, and is the dark foreigner in his 40s, then why was a fair man aged about 30 seen in Duke Street, when there was not even any conflict in any of the timings?

[Abby Normal]

has there been studies done on the reliability of witness accounts when they are corroberated by multiple witnesses? in my view the reliability goes up exponentially the more witnesses corroborate each other.

[A P Tomlinson]

has there been studies done on the reliability of witness accounts when they are corroberated by multiple witnesses? in my view the reliability goes up exponentially the more witnesses corroborate each other.

Most of the "memory and witnesses are unreliable" reports relate to the issues of detail around an event. (Hair colour, height, skin tone, build, age, gender, clothes, shoes, facial hair, what were they holding... in which hand... which direction did they come from, which direction did they go, what colour was the car that went past at the same time?)
Not "Did an event actually happen or not?" but "What precise details of the event can you recall?"

I'm not sure much study needs doing on "Did you remember anything from the other side of the fence on your walk across the yard this morning, or are the noises a later phantom memory created by stress, illness and whatever else might have been a problem we can come up with?" or "Would you remember if a body was at your feet or is there a high likelihood that you would you simply forget it the minute you walk away?"

I agree that Long should be treated with the same level of concern as any witness who is basing an identification on a short interaction. Some are reliable - some aren't.
Dismissing tthem out of hand is bad practise.
There is no case to argue that they ARE unreliable as a standard model, and you need to compare them with other evidence to see if their identification is supported/damaged by that other evidence.

I've seen nothing from any of FM's links that would suggest memory or witness fallibility factor in to either Richardson or Cadosche beyond a manipulated effort to associate them in with the sort of witnesses who might have seen a criminal running away from the scene of a crime and who may struggle to get the details right.

Show me a test where 100 people were individually invited to do a memory test, and while each is walking up the corridor to the test (alone) someone suddenly bangs on the wall at the side of them from the other side. And then a few hours later the test is "Did you notice anything when you walked up that corridor?"
Then show me the results of how many remember the bang on the wall and we'll talk.