Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[Herlock Sholmes]

She had received just enough money from her sister to cover the cost of the beer and potatoes.

I suppose you think her beer was left over and there are numerous ways she could have come across that too.

You’re just being silly now PI. I think that you realise the weakness of your position and like FM you just won’t admit it.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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

That hardly sounds like a prelude to entering number 29, let alone the back yard of it.

Why would she not have indicated number 29?

Why would he not instead have asked where her safe spot was?

And what would be safe about a place where people were likely to be up and about and where she was already known to the residents?

Is it not more likely that the conversation had nothing to do with entering number 29, which is why they were not even standing in front of it?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

So at that point would she have turned down the opportunity of food if she had it? Some leftover potato, a crust of bread whatever. There are numerous ways that someone in her position might have gained some small items of food….we don’t even know where she got the potatoes from……saying that she’d bought them would be an assumption. Maybe she met a friend (a fellow prostitute) and they bedded down together and the woman shared some food with her. Would Annie have turned it down? Unlikely.

She had received just enough money from her sister to cover the cost of the beer and potatoes.

I suppose you think her beer was left over and there are numerous ways she could have come across that too.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

No pathologist has said that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

And there is no evidence that she didn’t eat. Despite FM’s waffle they are both of equal value.

Why do you keep making the same points? Points that aren’t valid.

Fact - Annie left the lodging house at 1.45 and was found dead at 6.00. A gap of 4¼ hours.

Fact - Annie was malnourished.

Fact - We have no idea when Annie last ate before those few potatoes.

Fact - We have no clue about the amount of potatoes that she ate.

Fact - She was skint and was under the influence of alcohol.

Fact - She said that she was going to get the money for her bed.

Even you or FM can’t dispute the above….ok?

So why would we assume that a dirt-poor, homeless, seriously ill woman that often had to resort to prostitutes would eat a few potatoes and think “well that’s me full. I couldn’t possibly eat another morsel because I’m so full?”

Yes, her first aim was to get money for a bed and she assumed that this wouldn’t take long. As we know, alcohol doesn’t make for great judgment so perhaps she was a little over-optimistic? So one of two things happened. She either met a client but spent the money on other things or that she didn’t find a client. I tend to favour the latter but it’s an unknown so I’m speculating. So if she couldn’t find a client what could she do….would she keep walking the streets for hours or would she, at some point, give up and bed down for the night outdoors? I’d say bedding down was likely, but again, I’m not claiming this as proven because it can’t be.

So at that point would she have turned down the opportunity of food if she had it? Some leftover potato, a crust of bread whatever. There are numerous ways that someone in her position might have gained some small items of food….we don’t even know where she got the potatoes from……saying that she’d bought them would be an assumption. Maybe she met a friend (a fellow prostitute) and they bedded down together and the woman shared some food with her. Would Annie have turned it down? Unlikely.

None of the above is fanciful. None of it is suggesting opinion as fact. None of it is exaggeration.

In that gap we have no evidence for anything. She ate/ she didn’t eat gave absolutely equal validity unless you are trying to skew the evidence one way (which is very clearly what you and FM are trying to do on this point.

And finally….

Fact - We don’t know what the contents of Annie’s stomach were.

Fact - We know that digestion varies from individual to individual.

Fact - We know that certain illnesses retard digestion. Lung diseases for example……and we know that Annie had an advanced lung disease.

………

The people who are simply trying to ‘win’ an argument rather than taking a balanced, unbiased look at the evidence are Jeff, myself and others. You and FM are simply shoehorning. Looking for any desperate measure to try and boost the remarkable weak case for an earlier ToD.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Neither of which precludes her eating during the time for which we have no information.

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

[Fleetwood Mac]

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?).

We'll have to disagree on the main thrust of your post given that we've exhausted it.

I wanted to comment on your paragraph above:

We do have verification that Mary ate not too long before she was murdered: the medical evidence. That is reason enough to believe it.

Similarly, we have verification with regard to Annie eating at a quarter to two in the morning.

It is your proposition that lacks verification.

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.