Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[Lewis C]

But is it not reasonable to assume that people were in the habit of arriving at work at about the same time each day?

For example, Lechmere said that he was in danger of arriving late and that he started work at 4 a.m.

For some jobs, a few minutes wouldn't matter. Mreover, in Long's case, the possibility being raised is that maybe she got to work earlier, which certainly wouldn't be a problem. It might be the case that Cadosch wouldn't really have been late in either case.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It is being suggested that the Brewery's clock was fast and the church's clock slow, in both cases by five minutes.

Even if one assumes that, according to their testimonies, Long passed the couple at 5.31 and Cadoche heard 'no' at 5.22, Chapman would have had one minute in which to finish her conversation, walk to number 29, walk through the passage, open the door to the yard, enter the yard and say 'no'.

If the Brewery's clock was slow and the church's clock fast, then the two testimonies cannot be reconciled.

If the Brewery's clock was fast and the church's clock slow, in both cases by four minutes, then the two testimonies cannot be reconciled.

I suggest that the Brewery's clock would have had to be fast and the church's clock slow, in both cases by at least six minutes.

I suggest also that that is nothing more than an assumption.

[Lewis C]

It is being suggested that the Brewery's clock was fast and the church's clock slow, in both cases by five minutes.

Even if one assumes that, according to their testimonies, Long passed the couple at 5.31 and Cadoche heard 'no' at 5.22, Chapman would have had one minute in which to finish her conversation, walk to number 29, walk through the passage, open the door to the yard, enter the yard and say 'no'.

If the Brewery's clock was slow and the church's clock fast, then the two testimonies cannot be reconciled.

If the Brewery's clock was fast and the church's clock slow, in both cases by four minutes, then the two testimonies cannot be reconciled.

I suggest that the Brewery's clock would have had to be fast and the church's clock slow, in both cases by at least six minutes.

I suggest also that that is nothing more than an assumption.

As I explained in post #698, any time you're dealing with ranges of times for 2 events, it's always possible to pick times within those ranges whereby the events cannot be reconciled, and clearly it would be nonsense to say that nothing can be reconciled with anything else. To establish that there's no conflict between 2 testimonies, it is only necessary to find one way within the ranges in which the testimonies don't conflict.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

To establish that there's no conflict between 2 testimonies, it is only necessary to find one way within the ranges in which the testimonies don't conflict.

This is our basic disagreement.

The fact that if certain conditions applied, the conflict between two testimonies would be resolved, does not of itself resolve the conflict!

[JeffHamm]

As I explained in post #698, any time you're dealing with ranges of times for 2 events, it's always possible to pick times within those ranges whereby the events cannot be reconciled, and clearly it would be nonsense to say that nothing can be reconciled with anything else. To establish that there's no conflict between 2 testimonies, it is only necessary to find one way within the ranges in which the testimonies don't conflict.

That's exactly it! Obviously, if it were possible, one would then test that possibility by going to the two clocks and working out what the relative time differences are between them. But at that point, one no longer needs to deal with ranges because by measuring the actual clock settings one no longer has to deal with a range of possibilities. However, when faced with unknown actual values, then as long as the ranges allow for a resolution one cannot conclude there is a conflict. As such, with regards to Long and Cadosche, we cannot conclude there is a conflict, and therefore given the information we have there is nothing to resolve.

That is how range information is interpreted. It's not an opinion, it is simply the method by which one analyses such noisy data. In an active police investigation today, of course, such noisy information is unacceptable and one would be sent out to clarify the settings on the clocks. That wasn't something the police did at the time, but methods have improved since then.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

However, when faced with unknown actual values, then as long as the ranges allow for a resolution one cannot conclude there is a conflict.

That is wrong.

One cannot conclude that there is no conflict on the basis of the twin assumptions that one clock was at least six minutes slow and the other clock was at least six minutes fast (but not vice-versa).

That is not evidence.

[JeffHamm]

That is wrong.

One cannot conclude that there is no conflict on the basis of the twin assumptions that one clock was at least six minutes slow and the other clock was at least six minutes fast (but not vice-versa).

That is not evidence.

Which is why I didn't say you could conclude there wasn't a conflict.

I said you cannot conclude there is a conflict. That's not the same thing.

But unless you can conclude there is a conflict, then there is no conflict to resolve. That's the problem. You have to be able to show the evidence is conflicting - you have to be able to conclude there is a conflict. It's trivial to find combinations from ranges that don't work, but if the ranges allow for a resolution, then the information we have cannot be shown to be in conflict. That is why it is an error to say that Long and Cadosche's testimony conflict, because they cannot be shown to conflict due to the imprecision of the information we have to work with.

That isn't saying we are able to state with certainty what the times were, we obviously can't. If we could we wouldn't be dealing with ranges we would have the actual information about what the two clock's synchronisations were, and at that point we would be able to know whether or not there was or was not a conflict in the stated times. (Note, if we had that information, we might still have to consider the possibility that Long has misrecalled what chimes she had heard, and to resolve that, we would have to be able to interview her, find out where she lived, be able to work out what time she left home, and track her movements, find out how fast she walks, and so forth, and from that work out what time it would be when she passed the Brewer's clock - again, all things we cannot do, so we are left with having to consider a range of memory accuracies - from she recalls the chimes correctly to she recalls the chimes incorrectly - and we cannot resolve that because there is no longer any way to get the specific details. We can try to estimate the time, but her actual residence seems to be unsure. Having examined the distance from various locations people have suggested for her residence, though, the distance from any of them would suggest she should have passed the Brewer's clock around 5:15, making a misrecall of the chime something one has to consider; well I suppose one doesn't have to, but certainly one should.)

But back to clock sync only, we don't have the information about the specific clock sync's, so we are left with ranges to deal with, and the ranges we have do not demonstrate a conflict, so we cannot say that their testimony's are in conflict and so we cannot say there is a conflict to resolve.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

At the Eddowes inquest:

Constable Long

[Coroner] Had you been past that spot previously to your discovering the apron? - I passed about twenty minutes past two o'clock.

Detective Halse

I came through Goulston-street about twenty minutes past two,

Do we consider this to be a problematic conflict?

Hypothetical Scenario.

There’s a fight in a street. Two days later one of the men dies as a result of his injuries. Two weeks later two witnesses came forward both of whom had gone on holiday abroad after seeing the fight so were unaware of the significance of their evidence. One witness says that she’d seen the fight at 1.50 pm and that she’d arrived at her time by the fact that she’d left her house at around 1.45 and the location was around 5 minutes away. The other witness said that he’d seen the fight a little after 1.30 pm and he took his time because he’d left his phone in his car and so had asked a passerby who told him that it was 1.30 around 2 minutes or so before he saw the fight.

So should the police doubt the validity of these two witnesses because there is an apparent 20 minute discrepancy between the two?

[Fleetwood Mac]

At the Eddowes inquest:

Constable Long

[Coroner] Had you been past that spot previously to your discovering the apron? - I passed about twenty minutes past two o'clock.

Detective Halse

I came through Goulston-street about twenty minutes past two,

Do we consider this to be a problematic conflict?

Hypothetical Scenario.

There’s a fight in a street. Two days later one of the men dies as a result of his injuries. Two weeks later two witnesses came forward both of whom had gone on holiday abroad after seeing the fight so were unaware of the significance of their evidence. One witness says that she’d seen the fight at 1.50 pm and that she’d arrived at her time by the fact that she’d left her house at around 1.45 and the location was around 5 minutes away. The other witness said that he’d seen the fight a little after 1.30 pm and he took his time because he’d left his phone in his car and so had asked a passerby who told him that it was 1.30 around 2 minutes or so before he saw the fight.

So should the police doubt the validity of these two witnesses because there is an apparent 20 minute discrepancy between the two?

1) Your 'hypothetical scenario' is speculation at best and not founded on any evidence. It follows that while it may have some interest for those who like to speculate, it is not relevant in a discussion on what may have happened based on the evidence.

2) Halse's and Long's statements do not tell you anything other than they gauged the time but they might not have been correct. The only doubt that arises from that is their time accuracy. That's all.

3) Most people would accept that Elizabeth, Albert and every other witness in the case may have had the time wrong. On the other hand, they may have been close to the mark.

I'd like to point out that your premise is this: they may have had the times wrong and that is good reason to believe that they were there at roughly the same time.

It does not follow, it is a fallacious argument.

Logically, in the event they had the time wrong it is equally plausible that the time difference between their arrival at Hanbury Street was more than 15 minutes.

I suppose your argument is a fallacy of inappropriate presumption, in that you're claiming the clocks were wrong and therefore that is good reason to believe Elizabeth and Albert were there at the same time, when in fact it is merely one possibility and no more likely than they had their times about right; or Elizabeth was there later than she suggested and Albert was there earlier than he suggested.

Long story short, the idea that the clocks were wrong and therefore we can accept Elizabeth and Albert were there at roughly the same time, is flawed and illogical.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I didn't say you could conclude there wasn't a conflict.

I said you cannot conclude there is a conflict. That's not the same thing.

But unless you can conclude there is a conflict, then there is no conflict to resolve. That's the problem. You have to be able to show the evidence is conflicting - you have to be able to conclude there is a conflict... That is why it is an error to say that Long and Cadosche's testimony conflict, because they cannot be shown to conflict due to the imprecision of the information we have to work with... we cannot say that their testimony's are in conflict and so we cannot say there is a conflict to resolve.

I did not say that we can conclude that the two testimonies are in conflict.

I said that there is a conflict which would need to be resolved in order for the witnesses' testimonies to be taken to support one another.

That there is a conflict that needs to be resolved was acknowledged by the coroner:


There is some conflict in the evidence ... but this variation is not very great or very important... if he is out of his reckoning but a quarter of an hour, the discrepancy in the evidence of fact vanishes, and he may be mistaken ...


The discrepancy in the evidence cannot vanish, because there is no evidence that the brewery clock was six or more minutes fast nor that the church clock was similarly slow.

Consequently, the conflict remains unresolved.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I'd like to point out that your premise is this: they may have had the times wrong and that is good reason to believe that they were there at roughly the same time.

It does not follow, it is a fallacious argument.

I suppose your argument is a fallacy of inappropriate presumption, in that you're claiming the clocks were wrong and therefore that is good reason to believe Elizabeth and Albert were there at the same time, when in fact it is merely one possibility and no more likely than they had their times about right; or Elizabeth was there later than she suggested and Albert was there earlier than he suggested.

Long story short, the idea that the clocks were wrong and therefore we can accept Elizabeth and Albert were there at roughly the same time, is flawed and illogical.

That is what I myself have been arguing.

I summed up the argument by stating that in order for the two conflicting testimonies to be made to agree, the clocks would have had to be wrong in just the right way.

One would, for example, have had to be at least six minutes slow and the other at least six minutes fast, and not vice-versa.

That is a big assumption.

[Herlock Sholmes]

1) Your 'hypothetical scenario' is speculation at best and not founded on any evidence. It follows that while it may have some interest for those who like to speculate, it is not relevant in a discussion on what may have happened based on the evidence.

A hypothetical scenario can’t be based on actual evidence because it’s hypothetical. It’s the definition of hypothetical. You can’t have an hypothetical situation that isn’t speculation.

2) Halse's and Long's statements do not tell you anything other than they gauged the time but they might not have been correct. The only doubt that arises from that is their time accuracy. That's all.

And as they ‘might not have been correct’ Long and Cadosch’s times ‘might not have been correct.’ We can’t allow for reasonable error in one case and not another. We have to apply the same level of caution across the board.

3) Most people would accept that Elizabeth, Albert and every other witness in the case may have had the time wrong. On the other hand, they may have been close to the mark.

No one would deny that.

I'd like to point out that your premise is this: they may have had the times wrong and that is good reason to believe that they were there at roughly the same time.

It does not follow, it is a fallacious argument.

No, the premise is that we cannot and should not make the erroneous assumption that clocks and watches were all accurate and well synchronised. This isn’t the case in 2023 and it wasn’t the case in 1888. I can see nothing that should be considered controversial in any of this. A margin for error has to be allowed for. If we fail to apply this then it could lead to the dismissal of things that might have been the case, or the assumption of things that might not have been the case.

Logically, in the event they had the time wrong it is equally plausible that the time difference between their arrival at Hanbury Street was more than 15 minutes.

And that is what a margin for error is by definition. It works both ways. This is why when talking about the application of a margin for error we use a + and a - figure.

I suppose your argument is a fallacy of inappropriate presumption, in that you're claiming the clocks were wrong and therefore that is good reason to believe Elizabeth and Albert were there at the same time, when in fact it is merely one possibility and no more likely than they had their times about right; or Elizabeth was there later than she suggested and Albert was there earlier than he suggested.

You suppose incorrectly. I’m not claiming that the clocks were wrong, only that it’s reasonable and proportionate to consider the possibility that they might have been. Your position is the one where a positive is being claimed. I’m simply suggesting a possible.

Long story short, the idea that the clocks were wrong and therefore we can accept Elizabeth and Albert were there at roughly the same time, is flawed and illogical.

Its without a single flaw and entirely logical.

We can sum this up with me asking a very simple question requiring a yes or no answer….

Do you believe that we should assume that all clocks and watches in Victorian London were accurate and perfectly synchronised and that it would be unlikely in the extreme that there could have been a margin for error of 5 minutes or so?

[Herlock Sholmes]

One would have had to be at least six minutes slow and the other at least six minutes fast, and not vice-versa.

Not necessarily.

“I got up about a quarter past five in the morning, and went into the yard. It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think.”

We don’t know how Cadosch arrived at the estimation of the time that he got up. Many people were knocked up in the mornings. So one possibility was that the person that knocked him up was late arriving but Cadosch wasn’t aware of it. Another possibility is that he got up at say 5.18 and instead of a 5 minute gap between him getting up and going outside it was a 7 minute gap? Remember that when he was talking to the police this was some hours later.

My other point is this - why is it ok to suggest that Cadosch’s recollection of what he’d heard in the yard might have been at fault and yet when it’s suggested that his memory might have been very slightly at fault when recalling estimated periods of time this is slated as being unrealistic?

Did Cadosch have a selective memory?

Is a level playing field too much to ask?

[Fleetwood Mac]

A hypothetical scenario can’t be based on actual evidence because it’s hypothetical. It’s the definition of hypothetical. You can’t have an hypothetical situation that isn’t speculation.

Straw man response.

You presented your hypothetical scenario in an attempt to add weight to your point of view. I objected on the grounds that it is speculation at best and has no evidential basis for what may have happened. Nobody was discussing the definition of 'hypothetical' versus the definition of 'evidence'.

And as they ‘might not have been correct’ Long and Cadosch’s times ‘might not have been correct.’ We can’t allow for reasonable error in one case and not another. We have to apply the same level of caution across the board.

Straw man argument.

Nowhere did I claim or suggest that 'we do not have to apply the same level of caution across the board'.

In response to your query on whether or not we should doubt Halse and Long, and your attempt to draw a parallel, I said that in the event their times were out; it merely tells you that they thought they knew the time but they didn't. It has no bearing on whether or not Elizabeth and Albert were at 29 Hanbury Street at more or less the same time.

No, the premise is that we cannot and should not make the erroneous assumption that clocks and watches were all accurate and well synchronised. This isn’t the case in 2023 and it wasn’t the case in 1888. I can see nothing that should be considered controversial in any of this. A margin for error has to be allowed for. If we fail to apply this then it could lead to the dismissal of things that might have been the case, or the assumption of things that might not have been the case.

Straw man argument.

Nobody is suggesting that all of the clocks were accurate.

The point that is being put before you is this: your claim that the clocks may have been wrong and therefore we should accept that Elizabeth and Albert were at 29 Hanbury Street at more or less the same time, is flawed, illogical and fallacious.

The part of your argument that is fallacious is not when you say the clocks may have been wrong: that is accepted.

The part of your argument that is fallacious is when you use that possibility to turn it into: Albert and Elizabeth were at 29 Hanbury Street at more or less the same time.

I’m simply suggesting a possible.

This appears to be at odds with your various posts that claim: "game over, everything else is biased crap".

You're left with the same flaw in your argument:

Albert and Elizabeth thought they knew the time. They may have been wrong. It does not follow that we can accept they were wrong in a fashion that puts them both at 29 Hanbury Street at more or less the same time. It is merely one possibility of several, and that being the case it is unlikely, on the balance of probability; that the clocks were wrong in a fashion that places them both at 29 Hanbury Street at more or less the same time.

[Fleetwood Mac]

That is what I myself have been arguing.

I summed up the argument by stating that in order for the two conflicting testimonies to be made to agree, the clocks would have had to be wrong in just the right way.

One would, for example, have had to be at least six minutes slow and the other at least six minutes fast, and not vice-versa.

That is a big assumption.

Aye, we're in agreement.

The inconsistency in approach is that articles/research by qualified people, tell us that a common memory error is when a person doesn't pay attention to what is going on around him/her, and that the mind automatically discards unimportant information within seconds; due to our inbuilt survival mechanism.

Albert went to the toilet twice and heard a noise against a fence and a "no", and in his own words he had other things on his mind. He had no idea that a crime had been, or was about to be, committed.

It is not a stretch to believe that Albert's brain was faced with irrelevant information when he had other things on this mind, and therefore there is room for doubt in terms of the recollection matching the event.

This has been dismissed out of hand by the very same people suggesting: the clocks may have been wrong and therefore we can accept that Albert and Elizabeth were at 29 Hanbury Street at more or less the same time.

There are fewer hurdles to get over in order to believe Albert was subject to memory error.

It is possible that Albert was mistaken in his recollection; it is possible that Albert and Elizabeth were at 29 Hanbury Street at more or less the same time.

Of the two, it is more probable that Albert was mistaken, simply because there are a fewer hurdles to get over, fewer leaps of faith; in that eventuality.