Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[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]

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

Not at all.

I leave the quibbling to you, Herlock.

[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'.

[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]

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]

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?

[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.

[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]

And why would the murderer have asked Chapman, 'Will you?' outside in the street?

If he was asking her whether she was willing to provide a certain service, then that would suggest that she had not exactly shown any enthusiasm to go with him.

Is that believable, when she was almost broke and had, supposedly, spent the previous three and a half hours looking for a customer in order to get a chance to get some sleep at the lodging house?

PI, are there no lengths that you won’t go to to try and make a later ToD appear unlikely? It really does get worse. It’s like being on the Lechmere threads were people look at every single thing as a pointer to his guilt.

How can we possibly know what words passed between those two resulting in the “will you?” What if she had said “I’ll find us a safe spot,” and he replied “will you?” You’re actually trying to dismiss a witness on the strength of two words. Think about it PI. How can that be reasonable? Don’t you think that you’re getting carried away here?

And do you really think that if she found a customer at 5.30 that the money would have been saved for her evenings bed? More likely it would have been spent in the pub.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

... she had a bed at the common lodging house and stated she was going out to get some money to pay for the bed. So as she was not seen after leaving the lodging house we can draw an inference that she found a punter who would turn out to be her killer long before 5.30 am

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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There is no evidence that the couple that Lawende saw were Eddowes and her killer. They were a couple. They might or might not have been. But because you are biased you assume Lawende to be Mr. Super Witness and Long to be mistaken.

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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

But I say again who would be looking to use the services of a prostitute at 5.30am?

And why would the murderer have asked Chapman, 'Will you?' outside in the street?

If he was asking her whether she was willing to provide a certain service, then that would suggest that she had not exactly shown any enthusiasm to go with him.

Is that believable, when she was almost broke and had, supposedly, spent the previous three and a half hours looking for a customer in order to get a chance to get some sleep at the lodging house?

[rjpalmer]

Perhaps you can make the connection for us lay-folk, between a man seen entering the passage of No.29 at 2:00am, and a woman being found dead about 6:00am?

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

[Wickerman]

Thats not quite correct she had a bed at the common lodging house and stated she was going out to get some money to pay for the bed. So as she was not seen after leaving the lodging house we can draw an inference that she found a punter who would turn out to be her killer long before 5.30 am

But I say again who would be looking to use the services of a prostitute at 5.30am?

I think George posted an article which is interesting

Star Sep 10:
Description of a Man "Wanted."

The series of murders which now even the police believe to be the work of one man, is engaging the attention of a large force of plain clothes detectives. At eight o'clock last night the Scotland-yard authorities circulated a description of a man who, they say, "entered the passage of the house, 29, Hanbury-street, at which the murder was committed with a prostitute, at two a.m., the 8th." They give his age as 37, height 5ft. 7in., and add that he is rather dark, had a beard and moustache; was dressed in a short dark jacket, dark vest and trousers, black scarf and black felt hat; and spoke with a foreign accent.

If this can be corroborated then its game over for you and the other later TOD chaps.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Perhaps you can make the connection for us lay-folk, between a man seen entering the passage of No.29 at 2:00am, and a woman being found dead about 6:00am?

[rjpalmer]

It won’t be corroborated though Trevor.

You might recall that Phil Sugden dealt with this on pgs. 114-117 of his book in a chapter called "The Man in the Passage and other Chapman Murder Myths."

Sugden argues that the Star's version is misleading, and the man in the police telegram had been seen in the passage about a month earlier--ie., the 'man with a foreign accent' seen by "Mr. Thompson's wife."

Sugden also refers to Swanson's report of Oct 19, wherein the 'man in the passage' is conspicuous by his absence. Swanson only refers to Mrs. Long's suspect, which is odd if this other man had also been seen that morning.