Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[A P Tomlinson]

Hi Ally,

Inquest, Evening Standard Sep 20:
And you had not the curiosity to look over? - No, I had not, as it is usual for people in the yard next door. They are very early risers.

It is not usual for thumps against the palings? - They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings. I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over.

Cadosch didn't see anything. When the coroner asked if thump against the fence was unusual, Cadosch did not reply in the affirmative, but that he had previously heard such sounds which were made by packing cases. He also testified that his mind was on other things.

I'm just not seeing this testimony as being from a man confident of his recollections. JMO.

Cheers, George

George, nether did he reply in the negative... he gave an explanation.
All he's saying is that the noise of a packing case hitting the fence isn't happening all the time, but when one does hit it he knows what it is that usually makes that sound.
It's not like he's in the yard all day to hear how often they bang against the fence, bercause he's at work.

He noted that they are early risers, but he didn't know that they didn't have much work on at the time and that business was slow. So he's no reason to think that it isn't Mrs Richardson and her employee (whose name escapes me right now...) starting early.

If he's heard them in the yard before, it is most likely to be before he sets off for his own work.
When he says he was thinking about his work, I think he means he was more concerned about getting there on time after having lost a few minutes from his routine to his secondary ablutions, rather than his mind being filled with fantasies of how much fun stuff he had to look forward to, or dread at the day ahead. And as a result just didn't bother to stop and poke his nose over the fence because he didn't want to be late.

And if his memory has had a psychological trigger event and conflated memories from other days, we'd need to know how often he needed to make two trips to the privvy on a morning, making himself late to make that claim.
I'd argue that if it were a regular thing he would have learned to just... get up a few minutes earlier and wait a few minutes on his first visit for the seconod need to arise?
If the two trips is an aberration in his routine, then it is far more likely his recollection of what happened during his two trips... happened on that day.

I don't see any reason to doubt his recollections, beyond wanting to find fault.

[GBinOz]

Ordinary people going about ordinary days, aren't actually going to impress random, trivial, daily events into their brains with any degree of accuracy. Cadoche was probably dead certain he heard and saw what he did, because that's unusual.

Hi Ally,

Inquest, Evening Standard Sep 20:
And you had not the curiosity to look over? - No, I had not, as it is usual for people in the yard next door. They are very early risers.

It is not usual for thumps against the palings? - They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings. I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over.

Cadosch didn't see anything. When the coroner asked if thump against the fence was unusual, Cadosch did not reply in the affirmative, but that he had previously heard such sounds which were made by packing cases. He also testified that his mind was on other things.

I'm just not seeing this testimony as being from a man confident of his recollections. JMO.

Cheers, George

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Because you seem to discount human fallibility and real life, and presume all things in a case must align perfectly because that's how it goes on TV murder cases.

On the contrary: I have never underestimated human fallibility in the Whitechapel Murders case - and that goes for police officers' recollections as well as those of witnesses.

[Ally]

The lack of discrepancy in Eddowes murder timings is irrelevant. Just because something doesn't occur within a given set of circumstances is evidence of absolutely nothing in another.

The clocks timings do not have to be set 12 minutes apart. There is nothing to indicate that they weren't, as it is possible, we have no way of knowing, but that is not the sole way this discrepancy is able to be resolved. This entire thread started on the premise that human recollection is fallible. Memory is fallible. If you are asked to recall what time you passed a church that you walk past every day of your life, on a totally NORMAL day for you, do you think you are going to remember exactly or do you think you are going to drudge up a memory you have of walking past that church clock and looking at it at any given day that week?

All of the people who are giving witness accounts (other than the ones who discovered the bodies obviously) were having perfectly normal days. Long had probably seen people squabbling in the streets before. Cadoche had walked past that church every time he went to work. Cadoche had absolutely no particular need or reason to imprint in his mind, exactly what time he was passing a clock on a perfectly normal day.

Therefore, given that he had no actual pressing personal reason to KNOW when he passed that clock, or impress it in his memory, it is perfectly plausible that he was suffering from time illusion.

The same could be said of Long, and her for some reason impressing into her mind EXACTLY when she approached a random street, on a random day and saw a couple quarreling that she said wasn't any big deal.

And again.. so what? What is the point? If you think the woman seen by Long wasn't Chapman, fine. Arguing that all witness accounts are flawless and must be taken literally is not going to prove that. Because humans don't work like that.

Ordinary people going about ordinary days, aren't actually going to impress random, trivial, daily events into their brains with any degree of accuracy. Cadoche was probably dead certain he heard and saw what he did, because that's unusual. Knowing what time he passed a clock after several intervening activities on a perfectly average day, would actually be unusual. The things you do by rote, on ordinary days, don't get imprinted with any degree of accuracy.

If you wish to discount Long, or Cadoche, feel free. But convincing other people to your point of view requires a far superior argument than what is being offered here. Because you seem to discount human fallibility and real life, and presume all things in a case must align perfectly because that's how it goes on TV murder cases.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I have never denied that timings could be out by a few minutes.

I have argued that it is unlikely that the two clocks involved in the Chapman murder timings were wrong in just such a way as to enable Cadoche to have heard the woman seen by Long say 'no'.

For example, the brewery clock would have had to be fast by at least six minutes and the church clock slow by at least six minutes.

I am arguing that that is unlikely.

With the Eddowes murder timings, there are no conflicts.

If the clock at the Imperial Club had been several minutes fast relative to the Post Office clock, then Harvey would have seen the couple seen by Lawende.

If the clock at the Imperial Club had been several minutes slow relative to the Post Office clock, then not only would Harvey have seen the couple, but the murder could not have happened.

[Ally]

But the timings do not clash.

If, for example, we take Levy's earlier estimate of 1.33 a.m. and the clock he used was three minutes fast relative to the post office clock (assuming Harvey was right) and the couple had been chatting for two minutes, then Harvey would certainly have seen them.

I am sorry, I have read through the last several pages of this thread and I cannot for the life of me, fathom what you are arguing.

People, ESTIMATE Times. This cannot be in dispute, correct? All functional human beings know, that if you go ask ten people what time it is "RIGHT NOW" you will get ten different answers. People also overestimate and underestimate how long a task takes them to complete. Because how people experience the passage of time ... is ... subjective.

Time perception being a subjective experience is backed up by all science. There are branches of neuroscience devoted to this. There's a famous scene in a movie where a lawyer is asking a witness how long it took him to make breakfast, and he's like "About five minutes" and the lawyer then goes on a diatribe about how No southerner could make breakfast in five minutes when they were making grits, because grits take 20 minutes to boil. Which is true. But MANY people over and underestimate daily tasks, because, again, people experience time subjectively.

So what exactly is being argued here? Witnesses are not going to agree on times. Times that witnesses give will ALL be estimates with a wide degree of variance. People think it takes five minutes to make breakfast, when it takes 20 minutes. The vast majority of people, to a percentage that would presume every witness we are discussing would be included in that percentage, do not have internal chronometers that function in keeping with exact time. People experience time subjectively. That's just facts. Why are we arguing facts? To what end?

What is the POINT of this argument?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

But the timings do not clash.

If, for example, we take Levy's earlier estimate of 1.33 a.m. and the clock he used was three minutes fast relative to the post office clock (assuming Harvey was right) and the couple had been chatting for two minutes, then Harvey would certainly have seen them.

[Elamarna]

Clocks being set to Greenwich mean time doesn't mean we are talking about all clocks being set accurately to exact minutes. Prior to GMT being adopted as a standard, there were different local mean times, and railway times, that differed from GMT. Adopting GMT meant everyone synched THE HOUR and the basic concept of the general minutes. It is impossible to sync clocks to the minute even when all are set to "GMT".

The two above statements aren't contradictory. Adjudicated.

Absolutely.
That clocks were using GMT is not the the question. Rather the question is how syncronizied were the various clocks and watches to each other?

Trying to judge just how syncronizied public clocks or even watches were in 1888 is impossible, but we can look at public clocks today, and see just how syncronizied they are.

As I showed in my East End Conference talk of last year, 2022, which is available on this site with slides, even in 2021/22 public clocks are rarely syncronizied to either GMT or other public clocks within the area.

If people look at some of the slides, they will see several multi-faced public clocks, and astoundingly sometimes a clock will show different times on different faces.

For reference:

Levy and Lawende used the same time source for their accounts, but the times they give for their sightings are not fully syncronizied even then.

Harvey, arrived the time he gave by using the Post Office clock in the High street, and then estimating how long before that time he was in the passage way.

Watkins had his own watch, but we can have no idea how closely syncronizied it was to any of the other times mentioned by witnesses.

Steve

[Ally]

Clocks being set to Greenwich mean time doesn't mean we are talking about all clocks being set accurately to exact minutes. Prior to GMT being adopted as a standard, there were different local mean times, and railway times, that differed from GMT. Adopting GMT meant everyone synched THE HOUR and the basic concept of the general minutes. It is impossible to sync clocks to the minute even when all are set to "GMT".

The two above statements aren't contradictory. Adjudicated.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Would someone like to adjudicate?

I think he's saying that the people who wound up the clocks didn't have access to Greenwich Mean Time, which in my view is an erroneous assumption. For centuries, public clocks were wound up by clock enthusiasts. Clocks were cherished in years gone by. The job was passed down from generation to generation and the clock telling the right time was a matter of pride.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It's NOT about their ability to KEEP time. It's that the people setting them didn't have an instant and accurate reference to a central spot-on time. They were set differently.

By 1855, 98% of the public clocks in Great Britain were set to show Greenwich Mean Time.

Would someone like to adjudicate?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If anyone can prove that the clock Lawende and Levy used to estimate THEIR time slots was in perfect synch with the clocks/watches subsequently used to establish the Mitre Square Police times, I'll buy them a pint!

How much could the clock used by Lawende have been out of sync with the other timings?

If it was relatively slow, then there is even less time for the murderer to do what he appears to have done.

If it was five minutes fast and even if the couple had been there for no more than a minute, then they would have been seen by Harvey.

If it was four minutes fast and even if the couple had been there for no more than two minutes, then they would have been seen by Harvey.

How fast could it have been?

[Fleetwood Mac]

I wonder what exactly is meant by "public clocks". I presume it means clocks on Government buildings, or what is referred to as the "public sector", as opposed to the "private sector"?

They were known as 'public clocks' because they existed for the community. Clocks on towers, churches and the like.

Legal standard time is merely the time as far as the law is concerned, for example with regard to the opening of licensed premises. It doesn't mean that clocks were required by law to be set to GMT. They weren't.

The article states this: by the mid-1850s, almost all public clocks in Britain were set to Greenwich Mean Time.

'Required by law' doesn't detract from that. I could have a look 'round the internet for more details on the law, but it's not pertinent to the discussion. The point is that the vast majority of clocks were set to Greenwich Mean Time.

Here'a a different article from The Royal Observatory Greenwich:

The astronomical basis of timekeeping (royalobservatorygreenwich.org)

It includes:

By 1855, 98% of the public clocks in Great Britain were set to show Greenwich Mean Time.

[A P Tomlinson]

The railways and the police stations used GMT, and I think I read somewhere (possibly Neil Bell) that the post office generally did so too, and that policemen on the beat therefore tended to use the post office clocks as a reliable time source. It might be that because of their job, that police surgeons also used GMT. I think that GMT was therefore used fairly consistently in the Eddowes case.

One of the main reasons the Mitre Square times (along with Bucks row) are considered accurate is that there were police officials constructing a timeline of arrivals and departures. If someone said "I arrived about x past y" and someone who arrived before them also said "I arrived about x past y" the police would be able to determine who had arrived first based on... who arrived first and more accurattely say that, "Well you arrived AFTER the other guy so you were more like... z past y"
I'm pretty certain that Watkins' precision of 1.44 is as a result of this. None of these are guarnateed to be anything better than an estimate vs GMT.

If anyone can prove that the clock Lawende and Levy used to estimate THEIR time slots was in perfect synch with the clocks/watches subsequently used to establish the Mitre Square Police times, I'll buy them a pint!

We see the same thing at Bucks row, and the general discrepancy in time keeping of the people wandering the streets at silly oclock in the morning is why most sensible folk consider Rober Pauls independent estimate of arriving at Bucks row at 3.45 to be at odds with the Police's established timeline. Because Abberline looked at the chain of events and the times given and worked out the closest estimate he could.

To think that ANY of the times stated thrughout the case were accurate down to individual minutes vs GMT is reaching.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Lawende used the clock at the Imperial Club.

Harvey used the Post Office clock.

We do not know which clock Watkins used, but we know he was able to time his arrival at Mitre Square and estimate the time of Collard's arrival, which suggests that he had a watch.

Morris must have used his own watch or clock.

Inspector Collard may have used a clock at Bishopsgate Police Station, but may have had a watch, as he was able to time his arrival at Mitre Square.

Dr Sequeira similarly may have had a watch, as he was able to time his arrival at Mitre Square.

Dr Brown was able to say that he was called shortly after 2 a.m., which suggests he referred to a clock, and estimate his time of arrival, which suggests he had a watch, unless he passed a clock shortly before he arrived.




It seems that many people who testified at Catherine Eddowes' inquest had been 'doing well'.

The railways and the police stations used GMT, and I think I read somewhere (possibly Neil Bell) that the post office generally did so too, and that policemen on the beat therefore tended to use the post office clocks as a reliable time source. It might be that because of their job, that police surgeons also used GMT. I think that GMT was therefore used fairly consistently in the Eddowes case.