Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

Exactly.

Except that I would say the question is whether the clocks were wrong in a fashion that would have allowed Albert to hear 'no' minutes later than Elizabeth saw 'Annie'.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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'.

There is nothing wrong with a hypothetical scenario. You claim that I was giving it ‘to add weight’ which presupposes that you know my thoughts. I say that I made it simply as a means of illustrating a point.

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.

I simply stated that Halse and Long had both estimated times which we cant assume to have been correct and that we have no way of confirming or refuting. The same applies to Cadosch and Long. We cannot confirm or refute either of their quoted times because we have no way of evaluating them.

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.

Again, this isn’t correct. In fact it’s a Straw Man argument. I’m not saying that we should accept that Long and Cadosch’s testimony aligned; I’m saying that we should accept the possibility that they were.

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.

This in itself is clearly illogical. If you accept the fact that the clocks might have been wrong then it makes no sense to suggest that this couldn’t have had a bearing on Cadosch and Long’s times.

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.

Of all the possibilities that might be relevant to two estimated times one is no more unlikely than another. You are trying to portray this as if times are being deliberately adjusted which clearly isn’t the case. We cannot adjust an unknown and there are too many unknown variables that have to be considered.

The accuracy of clocks.
The synchronicity of clocks.
Individuals abilities to estimate periods of time.
The way memory might affect the estimation of time periods.
The affects of other people (for example if Cadosch was ‘knocked up.’ We have no way of knowing if he was or wasn't but many were)

All of these might have come into play. What I, and others have been trying to do, is express something that shouldn’t need expressing. It should be a given. That we have absolutely no cause to seek to dismiss the evidence of Long and Cadosch simply on the grounds that their timing estimates are a mere 5 or 6 minutes apart. To do so would be completely illogical and detrimental to any reasonable assessment of the case. We cannot assume that there times actually aligned but we certainly can’t assume any likelihood that they didn’t.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Then why should we assume that those effects on memory didn’t apply when Albert was retrospectively estimating periods of time?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Of all the possibilities that might be relevant to two estimated times one is no more unlikely than another.

This is pretty much the 'invincible ignorance fallacy'.

1) You are told by the witnesses that they were there at different times.

2) Your argument supposes they were wrong in their estimate of the time.

3) Furthermore, your argument supposes that their timings were out in a fashion that moves one earlier to exactly coincide with the other, and the other later to exactly coincide with the other.

You have some hurdles to get over there, which render your argument the least likely.

That we have absolutely no cause to seek to dismiss the evidence of Long and Cadosch simply on the grounds that their timing estimates are a mere 5 or 6 minutes apart.

This is misrepresenting the facts, you have bent the times to '5 or 6 minutes apart'.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Then why should we assume that those effects on memory didn’t apply when Albert was retrospectively estimating periods of time?

Straw man argument.

It has been agreed that it is possible that Albert's time was not correct.

The flaw in your argument is not in suggesting the possibility that the times were wrong, it's fallacious because you're moving them to coincide with one another and then claiming it's as likely a scenario as any other scenario.

While we're on with memory distortion, in the event Albert's recollection did not match the event then it's all academic anyway.

I'd suggest that when you claimed Albert could not have had a memory error in relation to two sounds, it was a very inflexible, 'dismiss out of hand without consideration' argument; while here, your argument is very much 'anything is possible and so it's equally as likely'.

I reckon the approach and reasoning is inconsistent.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Exactly.

Except that I would say the question is whether the clocks were wrong in a fashion that would have allowed Albert to hear 'no' minutes later than Elizabeth saw 'Annie'.

Aye, it's the balance of probability we're trying to get at here.

There is not much use in anyone arguing 'it's possible and therefore it is equally as likely'.

Employing that line of reasoning, we could just conjure up anything: Albert had the wrong day, Elizabeth didn't even walk that way and it was just a figment of her imagination, and so on. From there we'd appeal to ignorance: you cannot disprove it and therefore it is as an argument of equal worth.

There is a reason why 'it is possible and therefore of equal worth' is deemed to be an invalid argument in a reasonable discussion.

Whatever the facts and the evidence, we'd simply claim: it's possible, you cannot disprove it and therefore my claim is valid as yours; which of course would be a monumental barrier to knowledge and learning.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The flaw in your argument is not in suggesting the possibility that the times were wrong, it's fallacious because you're moving them to coincide with one another and then claiming it's as likely a scenario as any other scenario.

That is quite correct.

But it is actually worse than that, because previously we were being told that it is virtually certain that Long did see Chapman and that Cadoche did hear her.

Now it seems to have been reduced to just an evens chance.

I would like to return to the issue I raised in #250.

There are no conflicts between the timings given at the Mitre Square inquest.

Lawende's and Levy's timings agree.
Watkins' and Morris' timings agree.
Watkins' and Sequeira's timings agree to within 5 minutes.
Watkins' and Collard's timings agree to within 2 minutes.

Harvey gave a timing based on the post office clock.

No one has questioned it.

What I would like to know is: why is it that the clocks were so especially badly out of sync in the vicinity of Hanbury Street?

[Fleetwood Mac]

What I would like to know is: why is it that the clocks were so especially badly out of sync in the vicinity of Hanbury Street?

When I put forward the idea that Albert may have been mistaken in his recollection, I was repeatedly informed that I needed to demonstrate how the research related to Albert, which I did by the way but it was ignored when we were getting down to the details.

Here, we have the same people using a wider principle that 'the clocks weren't great and therefore we can't rely on them', but at no point have they demonstrated how and why the clocks in Hanbury Street were wrong.

We have a saying 'round these parts: if it's good enough for the goose, it's good enough for the gander.

My conclusion on a lot of the arguments put forward on this thread and some others, is that it's a case of when it suits.

You're quite right in that we should not unswervingly accept that the clocks were wrong.

Punctuality was very important for the Victorians, it was a part of their culture, more so than today; and of course:

1) They needed to have good time keeping in those days given the expanding railways and the possibility of trains smashing into another, and it was essential to manage complex industrial networks as well as a much larger working population. Time keeping had become very important by the late 19th century.

2) Supposedly this was an age of poor time keeping, but nobody mentioned it at the inquests. Witnesses were pressed for times, meaning they believed those times were important which in turn means they felt they could rely on the clocks and watches. Nobody at the inquests bothered to say: we must be careful with the times because we know that we're never sure what time it is, but according to theorists today it should have been obvious to them that the clocks and times were probably wrong and therefore not so important.

3) Publicans, for example, would lose their licence for not shutting up at the right time and that demanded knowing the time. It was very much a part of regulating the working classes in an age of temperance values (among the higher classes, at least espoused values anyway) and strict working times.

I think you touch on a good point in that an argument begins from a premise that the clocks must have been inaccurate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is pretty much the 'invincible ignorance fallacy'.

1) You are told by the witnesses that they were there at different times.

2) Your argument supposes they were wrong in their estimate of the time.

Incorrect again. My ‘argument’ is that the possibility exists that they could have been wrong. Which is absolutely correct.

3) Furthermore, your argument supposes that their timings were out in a fashion that moves one earlier to exactly coincide with the other, and the other later to exactly coincide with the other.

You have some hurdles to get over there, which render your argument the least likely.

An estimated time, which we are unable to evaluate, is no more or less likely to have been incorrect one way than the other.

This is misrepresenting the facts, you have bent the times to '5 or 6 minutes apart'.

Difficult to see how you’ve managed to arrive at this last point. It is the witness testimony that puts the times at 5 or 6 minutes apart. I had no involvement in the matter.

As you are disinclined to discuss the actual details of the evidence, for very understandable reasons, no purpose is served by the repeated use of inaccurately applied logical fallacies. The ‘discussion’ becomes a boring one of repetition and obfuscation that serves no further purpose. My points have been proven. They are toward the acceptance of the existence reasonable possibilities - something that only a very small minority (two) are against and no one can fail to notice which side of the fence that small minority sits on.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Straw man argument.

It has been agreed that it is possible that Albert's time was not correct.

The flaw in your argument is not in suggesting the possibility that the times were wrong, it's fallacious because you're moving them to coincide with one another and then claiming it's as likely a scenario as any other scenario.

Again we have an inaccurate use of logical fallacies. By allowing for a reasonable margin for error I’ve repeatedly emphasised that this margin has to apply both ways. For example, if a time of 3.00 is estimated then 2.57 is just as likely as 3.03. Therefore incorrect times in favour of alignment are no more or less likely than incorrect times not in favour of alignment.

While we're on with memory distortion, in the event Albert's recollection did not match the event then it's all academic anyway.

So your ‘reasoning’ is that if someone misremembered one thing then we should assume that he misremembered other things? The actual reason that it’s academic is that we have no evidence that Albert misremembered anything.

I'd suggest that when you claimed Albert could not have had a memory error in relation to two sounds, it was a very inflexible, 'dismiss out of hand without consideration' argument; while here, your argument is very much 'anything is possible and so it's equally as likely'.

I reckon the approach and reasoning is inconsistent.

My reasoning is not only consistent it allows for all possibilities. That Albert and Long’s times might have aligned is simply a fact. Therefore it cannot be raised as a point to try and dismiss their evidence. It’s a very simple point which you have consistently sought to complicate and obfuscate with your repetitive misuse of logical fallacies with the intention of distracting the conversation.

Ill repeat that we are getting nowhere boringly. You and PI agree with each other….fine. I’m happy that the majority disagree.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That is quite correct.

But it is actually worse than that, because previously we were being told that it is virtually certain that Long did see Chapman and that Cadoche did hear her.

Now it seems to have been reduced to just an evens chance.

I would like to return to the issue I raised in #250.

There are no conflicts between the timings given at the Mitre Square inquest.

Lawende's and Levy's timings agree.
Watkins' and Morris' timings agree.
Watkins' and Sequeira's timings agree to within 5 minutes.
Watkins' and Collard's timings agree to within 2 minutes.

Harvey gave a timing based on the post office clock.

No one has questioned it.

What I would like to know is: why is it that the clocks were so especially badly out of sync in the vicinity of Hanbury Street?

If the clocks are correct in your house would you put money on the clocks being correct in your neighbours house?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I asked FM this question in post #717 and received no answer despite it being a simple yes or no type. So I’ll ask it again to both FM and PI:

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?

The whole debate stands or falls on this point rather than on the inaccurate use of the ‘logical fallacies’ argument.

[Fleetwood Mac]

An estimated time, which we are unable to evaluate, is no more or less likely to have been incorrect one way than the other.

Aye, which translates to: the clocks may have been wrong, we cannot prove in what way they were wrong, and therefore it is equally likely that the clocks were wrong in a fashion that means Elizabeth and Albert were in Hanbury Street at more or less the same time.

It is another version of 'we just don't know' appeal to ignorance.

You are told by the witnesses what time they thought they were there, and in order to believe they were there at the same time you have to bend their times up one way and down the other.

'Last post on that: in my opinion it is not equally as likely, you're free to have your opinion.

It is the witness testimony that puts the times at 5 or 6 minutes apart. I had no involvement in the matter.

This is a bit newer and so worthy of carrying on with this. I reckon your '5 or 6 minutes apart', is not generally agreed upon.

Can you explain how you have come up with this from the witness statements.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Talking of reasonable possibilities, I suppose another reasonable possibility is that the 40-plus dark foreigner entered Mitre Square from Mitre Street and there met Catherine Eddowes, who after taking her hand off the fair sailor's chest had decided not to conduct any business with him, and instead had walked to Mitre Square alone.

And although the fair sailor was seen by someone, the 40-plus dark foreigner was seen by no-one that night, nor seen by anyone to enter #29 nor leave it, even though it was already getting light and people were already up and about.

And John Richardson had already visited the back yard.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In answer to a question I have been asked, it is unlikely that one particular clock would be 6 minutes fast and another particular clock 6 minutes slow, and that neither of the two witnesses would realise that they were so early or late upon arriving at work, and that none of their work colleagues or superiors would notice either.

If people were unable to rely upon the accuracy of public clocks, why did PC Harvey do so in Aldgate?

If no one could rely on any two clocks or watches telling something like the same time, why did Lechmere worry that he would be late for work because he was already behind time, and why did he worry that his employers would know that he was late if no one actually had any confidence in their ability to tell the time?