Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[A P Tomlinson]

You're not saying that his neckerchief was really black?

That's right. I'm not.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I don’t know. But witnesses can be mistaken PI. Or doesn’t that only apply to Long, Richardson and Cadosch?

Actually, it applies to all of them. The only one you'd make an exception for is PC Smith, simply because he was paid to take notice of what was going on around him, but even then it's only one notch up because he, like every other human being, was subject to the mechanisms of the human mind.

The problem is that many people on here like to discuss witness statements and theorise. It is a big part of the attraction to the case. Point out the fallibility of witness statements and that is like clipping someone's conversation wings. It isn't going to go down well.

For those people it closes doors; for the reasonable person, it opens doors. The reason being that it focuses attention in the area where you can most rely upon the information.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I don’t know. We don’t know what colour the man’s neckerchief actually was so we can’t assess the accuracy of Lawende’s statement can we? Perhaps it was actually dark red and he saw it as lighter red?

But witnesses can be mistaken PI. Or doesn’t that only apply to Long, Richardson and Cadosch?

Lawende seems to have been well able to distinguish colours: grey, red, black and fair.

I would also mention that he made the observation that the man whom he saw looked rather rough.

Does that seem like Kosminski, who was obviously of a nervous disposition and wasting away?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Lawende seems to have been well able to distinguish colours: grey, red, black and fair.

I would also mention that he made the observation that the man whom he saw looked rather rough.

Does that seem like Kosminski, who was obviously of a nervous disposition and wasting away?

But we have no way of assessing how accurate his observations were. And note that he said ‘reddish’ and not ‘red.’ So it could have been maroon or a reddish brown colour.

I’ve never suggested it was Kosminski. I don’t know who the killer was. And again, it might not have been the killer.

[A P Tomlinson]

Actually, it applies to all of them. The only one you'd make an exception for is PC Smith, simply because he was paid to take notice of what was going on around him, but even then it's only one notch up because he, like every other human being, was subject to the mechanisms of the human mind.

The problem is that many people on here like to discuss witness statements and theorise. It is a big part of the attraction to the case. Point out the fallibility of witness statements and that is like clipping someone's conversation wings. It isn't going to go down well.

For those people it closes doors; for the reasonable person, it opens doors. The reason being that it focuses attention in the area where you can most rely upon the information.

I don't recally anything in any of the documents you have linked that shows a correlation between compensation and accuracy in reliability. In fact a "need" to be right is more likely to push to the false memory

Most of that one you just linked says pretty much the same as the others, that memory of specific details can be corrupted by manipulation, coersion and a number of other factors.

"...in another experiment, participants were also shown an image of a car at a ‘stop’ sign and then supplied with the misinformation that there was a ‘yield’ sign (Loftus et al. Reference Loftus, Miller and Burns1978). Participants provided with the misinformation were more likely than controls to claim that they recalled seeing a ‘yield’ sign."

Suggeests that ones who weren't fed bull**** were able to recollect the correct sign. Right?
But Alberts recollection of a noise from the next door yard is unreliable because of THAT???

In all that I STILL can't find anything that suggests it is anything other than the DETAIL of an event that is the most likely to be subject to any sort of memory related reliability issue not that the event itself didn't occur. Which IS the case with Cadosche.
He's giving statements not being fed coercive questions.
We wasn't under stress or falling asleep, he was awake and heading to work. Undistracted and it was quiet. There were no environmental distractions.

If the control subjects are remembering a Stop sign, and tampered subjects are remembering a Yield sign what basis do you claim makes Cadeosches "Heard something on the other side of the fence" memories unreliable?


We are NOT talking about circumstances like THIS:

"Psychological studies also suggest that the eyewitness will have a good supply of true beliefs about many details of an event other than those about which she has provided erroneous testimony. The studies suggest that at least one of a number of ‘eliciting’ or triggering conditions need to be in place for the misinformation effect to occur (Loftus Reference Loftus2005), and, for any event, these conditions might be in place for some details about the event but not others. Most obviously, for the misinformation effect to occur, misinformation about the details of an event must be made available to the person who misremembers. For example, an eyewitness must be exposed to suggestive questioning or provided misinformation from another eyewitness about the specific detail. A person can be provided misinformation about some particular detail of an event (e.g. the type of sign that a car passed through) but not some other detail (e.g. the colour of the car). She can consequently be subject to the misinformation effect with respect to her memories of some details of the event but in a position to provide accurate details about others."

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

But we have no way of assessing how accurate his observations were. And note that he said ‘reddish’ and not ‘red.’ So it could have been maroon or a reddish brown colour.

I’ve never suggested it was Kosminski. I don’t know who the killer was. And again, it might not have been the killer.

Well, can we at least agree that if Lawende could distinguish those colours from one another, then the suspect's moustache could not have been red, black, or grey?

And if he could distinguish black from grey, then presumably he could distinguish brown from fair.


I just wanted to mention the apparent roughness of the suspect because it occurred to me that it could hardly have described Kosminski, who in any case has been supposed by some posters to have been a well-dressed man of Jewish appearance seen by a police officer leaving the Square.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, can we at least agree that if Lawende could distinguish those colours from one another, then the suspect's moustache could not have been red, black, or grey?

And if he could distinguish black from grey, then presumably he could distinguish brown from fair.


I just wanted to mention the apparent roughness of the suspect because it occurred to me that it could hardly have described Kosminski, who in any case has been supposed by some posters to have been a well-dressed man of Jewish appearance seen by a police officer leaving the Square.

The problem is thought that to assess how accurately someone had judged colours or tones we would need to know what tones they actually were. The guy’s moustache could well have been fair but grey isn’t just grey. We can have grey that’s close to being silver and a much darker grey that’s nearer to black. I know that I don’t really need to illustrate this but here’s a very simply colour range.

https://www.google.com/search?q=monotone+colour+range&sca_esv=576600514&rlz=1C9BKJA_enGB704GB704&hl=en-GB&sxsrf=AM9HkKkoP3NjUg8Zb1SktRgQVoHCRuRX0A%3A1698264436188&ei=dHU5ZcL0CtaG9u8PlPeduAU&oq=monotone+colour+range&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwIhVtb25vdG9uZSBjb2xvdXIgcmFuZ2UyBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMggQABiKBRiGAzIIEAAYigUYhgMyCBAAGIoFGIYDMgUQIRigAUjBMVCfCVjULXABeAGQAQCYAXKgAZkLqgEEMTUuMrgBA8gBAPgBAcICChAAGEcY1gQYsAPCAgQQIxgnwgIIEAAYFhgeGA_CAgUQABiABMICCBAAGIoFGJECwgILEAAYigUYsQMYkQLCAgsQABgWGB4Y8QQYCsICCBAAGBYYHhgKwgIHECEYoAEYCuIDBBgAIEGIBgGQBgg&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp#imgrc=RZ0ln1acG6QsOM&imgdii=V8LwLd398sGJ0M

Look at the darkest grey for example and then imagine a yellowing street lamp on something black. For a man passing and not really paying close attention it would be fairly easy to mix the two. Colours can be hard to define. I make part of my living from drawing portraits so you’d think I’d have to be pretty spot on with colours but I sometimes struggle. I know me pick up a coloured pencil and and having to ask someone if it’s a green or a grey.

On Kosminski I’m more than a little rusty. I can’t recall seeing a physical description of him. I do remember years ago the ‘big news’ that a researcher thought that he’d found a photo of him but it turned out to be someone else.

[A P Tomlinson]

Well, can we at least agree that if Lawende could distinguish those colours from one another, then the suspect's moustache could not have been red, black, or grey?

And if he could distinguish black from grey, then presumably he could distinguish brown from fair.


I just wanted to mention the apparent roughness of the suspect because it occurred to me that it could hardly have described Kosminski, who in any case has been supposed by some posters to have been a well-dressed man of Jewish appearance seen by a police officer leaving the Square.

Hair works a bit different to flat cloth. Depending on the angle and the hair, being closer to a light source does make hair appear lighter. You can also tell easier that someone is thinning on top if a light is overhead.
Hair's not one solid mass, so it diffuses light as well as reflecting it.
Remember we're talking about Victorian Street lights, and hair that is lighter than black or a real dark chestnut will reflect some of the colour of the flame.
Particularly if the light is yellow or orange, like a gas flame. So a mid or "mousey" brown will appear a little lighter.
We're not talking going from auburn to strawberry blonde or anything crazy but an orange/yellow light will have some impact.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hair works a bit different to flat cloth. Depending on the angle and the hair, being closer to a light source does make hair appear lighter. You can also tell easier that someone is thinning on top if a light is overhead.
Hair's not one solid mass, so it diffuses light as well as reflecting it.
Remember we're talking about Victorian Street lights, and hair that is lighter than black or a real dark chestnut will reflect some of the colour of the flame.
Particularly if the light is yellow or orange, like a gas flame. So a mid or "mousey" brown will appear a little lighter.
We're not talking going from auburn to strawberry blonde or anything crazy but an orange/yellow light will have some impact.

But Lawende described the woman's hat and clothing as black, not grey.

Why was his perception of colour not altered in that case?

And another thing: if the man's moustache really was fair, then would it not still have appeared to have been fair under a lamp?

[A P Tomlinson]

But Lawende described the woman's hat and clothing as black, not grey.

Why was his perception of colour not altered in that case?

And another thing: if the man's moustache really was fair, then would it not still have appeared to have been fair under a lamp?

For the first two I'll simply refer you to the what I wrote in the previous answer. The bit about cloth being a flat solid and the bit about the way liight affects hair that's lighter than black or dark.
Black will stay black in pretty much any light. This is fundamental basic physics.

And for that last bit YES... obviously, I don't understand why you need to be told the answer to that question.
None of what I said suggested otherwise. I was saying that darker coloured hair (not black) can appear slightly lighter under an orange or yellow light.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

And for that last bit YES... obviously, I don't understand why you need to be told the answer to that question.

I don't.

It was a rhetorical question.

[Trevor Marriott]

The problem is thought that to assess how accurately someone had judged colours or tones we would need to know what tones they actually were. The guy’s moustache could well have been fair but grey isn’t just grey. We can have grey that’s close to being silver and a much darker grey that’s nearer to black. I know that I don’t really need to illustrate this but here’s a very simply colour range.

https://www.google.com/search?q=monotone+colour+range&sca_esv=576600514&r lz=1C9BKJA_enGB704GB704&hl=en-GB&sxsrf=AM9HkKkoP3NjUg8Zb1SktRgQVoHCRuRX0A%3A169 8 264436188&ei=dHU5ZcL0CtaG9u8PlPeduAU&oq=monotone+c olour+range&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwIhVt b25vdG9uZSBjb2xvdXIgcmFuZ2UyBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMg gQABiKBRiGAzIIEAAYigUYhgMyCBAAGIoFGIYDMgUQIRigAUjB MVCfCVjULXABeAGQAQCYAXKgAZkLqgEEMTUuMrgBA8gBAPgBAc ICChAAGEcY1gQYsAPCAgQQIxgnwgIIEAAYFhgeGA_CAgUQABiA BMICCBAAGIoFGJECwgILEAAYigUYsQMYkQLCAgsQABgWGB4Y8Q QYCsICCBAAGBYYHhgKwgIHECEYoAEYCuIDBBgAIEGIBgGQBgg& sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp#imgrc=RZ0ln1acG6QsOM&imgdii=V8LwLd398sGJ0M

Look at the darkest grey for example and then imagine a yellowing street lamp on something black. For a man passing and not really paying close attention it would be fairly easy to mix the two. Colours can be hard to define. I make part of my living from drawing portraits so you’d think I’d have to be pretty spot on with colours but I sometimes struggle. I know me pick up a coloured pencil and and having to ask someone if it’s a green or a grey.

On Kosminski I’m more than a little rusty. I can’t recall seeing a physical description of him. I do remember years ago the ‘big news’ that a researcher thought that he’d found a photo of him but it turned out to be someone else.

In relation to identifying colours at night I refer to George Hutchinsons statement in the Kelly murder in his statement he described, amongst other things, the colour of the suspect’s eyelashes and the colour of the stone on the watch chain the man was wearing. All of these things would be very difficult to see in poor lighting conditions.
To prove or disprove his story I carried out a controlled experiment using three different coloured pendants. I used a volunteer to wear each one separately in poor lighting conditions at night and asked the volunteer to walk past me. I was unable to distinguish the different colours, all dark colours i.e. red and blue and black, all looked the same under my controlled lighting test. So I would say that Hutchinson’s statement in its entirety should not be relied upon and that goes for the colours mentioned by the witnesses in the other murders.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

If the couple entered Mitre Square via St James' Place shortly after 1.30 a.m., why were they not seen by Pc Watkins, who checked all the entrances to the Square at about the same time?

PC Watkins said he passed through at 1:30, but the important detail is he left via the Mitre Street exit, which could have been fortunate for a couple entering the square from St. James Passage, which would be behind him as he exited.
This gave the killer & Eddowes a max of 14 minutes. Perhaps they heard his footsteps in the square, and paused while the constable made his way towards the exit.

Alternately, they may have just missed him, clearly PC Watkins didn't see them or he would have mentioned it.

And if the man supposedly following them was a policeman, why did he not give evidence at the inquest?

Because there is nothing to the story, if the PC did enter the square following this supposed couple, they must have hid somewhere while he passed.
The duty of the coroner is to establish the identity of the victim, to establish the, when, where & by what means, the victim met their death.
His duty is not to investigate a murder case, that is the role of a Judge. Langham was only a coroner and his duties are not investigative.
Neither Blenkingsop's statement or that of the PC (more like Detective), are going to throw any light the I.D., or the when, where or by what means she died.
In fact, the police are waiting for the coroner's jury to establish the victim was murdered. That's just a formality in a case like this.

[Wickerman]

What I’m wondering Wick is how many articles and studies do we need to read to tell us what we already knew in the first place. That some witnesses can be mistaken and some witnesses can be correct. No study can possible help us assess any particular witness.

If the article told us which was mistaken and which was not, that would be worth reading.
As it is we still have to figure it out, so how does that article help?

[Wickerman]

I reckon it's pretty clear.

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

I'm not really sure what you're asking.

And, have you read the article?

I'm working my way through it, but I don't see how it helps with any specific cases.
If you apply this thinking to all witnesses, how does it help identify reliable testimony - maybe it's in the last chapter.