Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Known or seen before: Did the witness know, or had the witness ever seen, the person before? If so where and when?

That covers the alleged case of the sighting of Jacob Levy by Joseph Hyam Levy in Duke Street, and his identification by him at the Seaside Home, after which he allegedly refused to testify against him upon learning that he was Jewish.

I would therefore add the following criterion:

Did a witness who claimed to have seen a relative of his need to be reminded following his identification of him that they were related?

[JeffHamm]

Hi Herlock,

Any suggestion or study that tells us that witnesses can be mistaken are little more than reminders of the obvious. How many times is it felt that we need reminding of the fact of the possibility human error? Of course this no more means that we should assume error than we should assume dishonesty (even though witnesses can lie.)

We shouldn't assume anything, but we should be aware of all the possibilities. Some things are simply rare, and therefore unlikely. Witnesses, unless connected directly to a crime, rarely are dishonest. That's not to say they are accurate, only that their errors are not deliberate. There are, of course, examples of when they are. False confessions being an extreme example, and we know from various reports, there were examples of that sort in the JtR crimes.

We also have a prime example of a witness, giving sworn testimony, that we know is absolutely wrong. In the Stride case, on day 2 of the inquest, we have the testimony of Mary Malcolm, who identifies the body as her sister Elizabeth Watts. Her information was clearly known to the coroner from the beginning of the inquest, although she doesn't appear on day 1, as the jurors wonder why the inquest opens without Stride's name being "verified" - that it was the inquest into the death of a not yet officially verified individual. It seems clear Baxter "knew" it was Stride, but allowed the testimony of Mary Malcolm all the same, so it could be evaluated by the jury and put on record. Clearly, once Elizabeth Watts was found, and testifies at the inquest that she is indeed alive and well, and a bit put out by her sister's description of her, that gets cleared up. But I think that's a very illustrative example of how "wrong" information stands out. It just doesn't "overlap" with other sources of information. When things are "close to the big T Truth", then while they will not be exactly the "big T Truth", they will generally be close to it. So we look for the overlap, as the Big T is the centre around which the error varies. Usually. The world is strange, and weird things happen - but not often.

What I'm slowly trying to get to is the idea that we should always worry about error, about how the "stated" information might be a bit off the mark. Whether the stated information appears objective, as in Dr. Phillips estimated ToD (it's a number, it came from some sort of calcuation, it must be "objective"; well, it might be, if he took temperature readings and did maths, but if he touched and made a judgement call, it's subjective - what we know doesn't let us choose between even the broad division of whether his estimation of the ToD should be viewed as an objective or subjective bit of information!) or if it is subjective (as in Mrs. Richardson's claim she only dozed after 3, and also that she is sure she would have heard people - those are just subjective reports. I'm sure we've all had the experience of feeling like we're awake, but actually being asleep - and in that state, referred to as Stage I sleep, one thinks they would hear things but in fact would not. She could be confident, and truly believe, she would have heard someone, but given she admits she "dozed", chances are she's wrong.

One thing that certainly is important is that we should begin and end on a level playing field as opposed to applying these principles selectively. It’s easy to name examples of this kind of selectivity:

It isn't a playing field, and "fairness" isn't a thing in evidence evaluation. Either one applies appropriate error margins to the data, or one doesn't. Either one is consistent in how they approach information, or they are not.

All information is just a shadow of the truth, and how wide that shadow is depends upon many things. Our job is to work out the angle of the sun based upon the various shadows, without being sure of what it is that is creating the shadows in the first place! (think Plato's cave; we see the shadows, our job is to try and see what cast them, without being able to look at those objects directly).

This is why one never catches truth, at best we chase it into an every decreasing area, but we never pinpoint it. For most things, we don't need to pinpoint it exactly, we just need to get "close enough" that any remaining differences don't matter. That's the idea of "beyond reasonable doubt" - if you believe that whatever is wrong with the prosecutor's story makes no real difference with regards to the guilt of the defendant, then that's beyond reasonable doubt. But if you think the prosecutor's story still allows for the defendant to be innocent, that's not beyond reasonable doubt, in which case you should acquit. You don't acquit only when you think "innocent" is more likely than "guilty", you acquite when "innocent is still reasonably possible", because it is believed that it is better for a guilty person to go free than to rob an innocent person of their liberty. The crown (or gov't) does not have the right to take away someone's freedoms, so they are the ones who have to demonstrate that is absolutely the right thing to do. Sadly, the decision usually comes down to a bunch of people who have watched way too much CSI. But that's a different issue.

It’s been suggested numerous that it’s significant that Amelia Richardson heard nothing from her location near the passage. That she didn’t hear anyone entering around 5.25/5.30. And yet it’s clear that she was awake before 3.00 and heard nothing either. And that she merely dozed from that point. And that she was awake again at 4.00 and shouted “good morning” to Thompson as he left for work. So why isn’t it considered important that she heard no earlier killer either?

She didn't hear anything, but this kind of testimony is meaningless. People using a house for "immoral purposes" will avoid detection. Moreover, she has claimed to be unaware of such uses, although her son contradicts her. If she's one to "avoid the issue", then she may very well have just ignored things, and later convinced herself that she didn't hear anything, or perhaps she's just unable to admit in public that she did. Her testimony does seem to reflect a personality where she's concerned about how she appears in the press, or something. Maybe she just doesn't trust the police/courts, so she's very reluctant to agree to anything? I don't know, but to me her testimony reads like someone who is a bit reluctant to reveal too much - she's not really trusting the system, or something. I don't think she's out and out lying about anything, but I think she's a bit cagey on the specifics. I just can't work out where the line is.

Its recently been suggested as important that Mrs R identified Annie but why, when considering ‘witness reliability,’ is it ‘unimportant’ that she could barely bring herself to look at the victims face or that Phillips said: “The face was swollen and turned on the right side, and the tongue protruded between the front teeth.” So we have a brief and reluctant look at a woman’s swollen face as a now ‘reliable’ ID. Why is her ID anymore reliable that Long’s apart from the fact that she knew her. They were hardly bosom buddies. Yet I’ve heard no mentions of the possibility of her being mistaken (apart from by myself)

Yah, but, we do know that Annie did sell crochet work, and I think Mrs. Richardson does say she recognized her as the woman who sold things like crochet work, etc. While they might not have been besties, I think Mrs. Richardson's description of what the "woman I think she is" did corresponds to what we know from other sources what Annie did, making that identification pretty good. It's also not too surprising in some ways as Annie's lodging house wasn't far from #29, we might expect her to try and sell her wares near where she normally lives. It all makes perfect sense. But it also doesn't mean much beyond Mrs. Richardson appears to have been familiar with the people who lived near her. I mean really. There are people I see fairly often on a day to day basis, but have no idea of their name, what they do, etc. But I might visually recognize them.

Then we’re constantly told how unreliable Long’s ID was and yet in this case no one appears to apply this principal Lawende who saw Eddowes in less favourable circumstances than Long saw the woman that she thought was Chapman. Remember that it was dark when Lawende made his ID and she was across a street (and he’d just left a club and so may have been under the influence of alcohol to some extent) but Long saw ‘Annie’ when it was light and at close quarters. So if we apply principals then Long should be considered at least as reliable if not more so than Lawende. But that’s not the case is it? It get assumed that she must have been mistaken.

Long asserts she was sure the woman she saw was Annie. Lawende only identifies the clothes. That along means Long's identification is on a level above Lawende's.

Does it mean Long is right? No, of course not. But for comparison purposes, Long's identification of Annie should be considered as more reliable than Lawanda's. On the other hand, her confidence may come from finding out that the woman she identified at the morgue was indeed the victim, so now she feels she "got it right", creating a false sense of confidence.

That being said, I wouldn't make too firm a stand on either identification.

And finally an example of error and the level playing field. We all accept that the interview between Richardson and Chandler wasn’t under exactly ideal circumstances. So why is Chandler always treated as free from the possibility of error (or even dishonesty?) How can we be sure that Richardson didn’t say that he’d “sat on the steps,” and Chandler either heard it as, or remembered it as, “stood on the steps?” It’s only a word after all. And yet the potential for error is only applied to one party in the discussion.

Richardson's initial chat with Chandler was clearly a "first contact" interaction. His boot repairing would be something he (Richardson) would view as neither here nor there, what was important was that when he was there Annie was not. That's it, nothing more is going to occur to him beyond "I was there at X o'clock, she wasn't, I left at y o'clock". And really, there probably wasn't time for all that much more. It does sound like he described to Chandler where he viewed the lock from (my "orange spot" theory), and that's about it, but that makes sense. The boot repairing comes out later, when people probe him (police and/or reporters, ask for more details - as they should, that's the point of a formal interview after all).

The treatment of Cadosch is like this. He heard a ‘no’ and a sound from a yard when, according to Phillips estimate, she should already have been dead. How often have we heard anyone favouring an earlier ToD accepting that he might have been correct? We’re regularly reminded of how he might have been wrong (often by the use of very strange reasoning) so why does no one who favours an earlier ToD ever say ‘well he could have been right.’ If they did then we have three witness who ‘could have been right.’

Quoting general principals is fine as long as it’s applied across the board and not selectively.

Cadoshe's testimony is clear that the fence noise came from #29. His statement about not being sure "which side" the "No" came from is, in isolation, unclear what he means. I think his statement can equally be viewed as him saying he wasn't sure of which side of him the "No" came from or which side of the yard of #29 it came from. Sadly, we can't ask him to clarify. However, when we combine the the two, I think we are left with having to favour the "which side of the yard" a bit more than the "which side of him" version. Two noises, which both "make sense" in the context of the idea of JtR and Annie being next door at that time, combined with the independent testimony of Richardson that Annie's body wasn't there, is just far too compelling. The weight of the information points to that conclusion, and moreover, given the error we know is associated with estimated ToD's, that time does not conflict with the medical estimate. As such, it all makes sense.

Making sense, however, doesn't mean it must be true. There is the possibility that all 3 witnesses could be wrong. I personally think that possibility is very small, to the point I wouldn't bet on it. So far, nobody has presented an argument that sways me, but being reluctant to dismiss anything outright, I do leave open a very small door for the earlier ToD. But if I had to case a vote, it wouldn't go that way.

There's nothing wrong with someone who weights the evidence differently. There are arguments that are flawed, such as the idea that witnesses are lying. There's no indication any of the witnesses are being deceptive, and deception can be detected. It results in things that just do not correspond with other statements, and in the end, none of the witnesses conflict (even Long and Cadosche's times for events do not conflict, once we recognize their times have ranges associated with them), and the ToD the "3" witnesses draw our attention to is not in conflict with the estimation given by Dr. Phillips.

When none of the witnesses, regular and experts, conflict, I don't see the reason to argue for a time that introduces conflict. That to me is the problem with the earlier ToD idea. It introduces conflict when none exists for the later ToD conflict.

Now, I also recognize that my interpretation of things is not universally held (nor should it be), but it is not up to me to present other people's ideas. I'm just putting my view out there. And as they say, if you want to believe, then believe, but if you don't want to believe, then don't believe.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

The issues surrounding Identification have been raised before and I posted an old legal case ruling which is now used in criminal trial where identification is an issue the case is R V Turnbull 1976 and I would suggest this is a good guideline to determine the accuracy and relaibailty of the witness identification in these cases.

A mnemonic used to remember the various points is ADVOKATE: which stands for the following

Amount of time under observation: How long did the witness have the person/incident in view?

This is hard to specify with Long. We know some things, like the couple is some number of yards away from #29, and towards Brick Lane, and we know Long came down Brick Lane and then turned onto Hanbury. She then proceeds towards the market, passing the couple. What we don't know is at what point that couple caught her attention. Was it at the point she turned the corner, and for whatever reason, "zoned in on them", or did they only become of interest when she hears the "Will you?" question? If the former, then there is every reason to think she had them under observation for a while, if the latter, then "less than a while". Depending upon the assumptions you're willing to make, the observation period varies.

What ADVOKATE doesn't indicate is how long equals long and how long equals short? What is the relationship between "time observed" and accuracy? Or does it boil down to the investigating officer's judgement call? (is it nothing more than clever marketing masking as utility?)

Distance: What was the distance between the witness and the person/incident?

We don't know specifically, but we know she overheard bits of conversation. So, close. Certainly not a distance that ADVOKATE would signal caution.

Visibility: What was the visibility at the time? Factors include the time of day/night, street lighting, etc.

Well, hard to say, but as Richardson testified that roughly 30 minutes earlier he could see all around the place, I think it safe to say that around Long's sighting lighting isn't an issue.

Obstruction: Were there any obstructions to the view of the witness?

No.

Known or seen before: Did the witness know, or had the witness ever seen, the person before? If so where and when?

Not to my knowledge, but I have this strange warning light going off that someone has claimed there's information that Long had some familiarity with Annie? I may be mis-remembering how Mrs. Richardson claimed to recognize Annie as someone who hawked various items though. However, although we're not sure of Long's residence, none of the potential addresses place her in the immediate vicinity of Annie's residence, there is a good case to be made that they were not even "visual" acquaintances. So I'll go for "no" here.

Any reason to remember: Did the witness have any special reason for remembering the person/incident? Was there something specific that made the person/incident memorable?

Long reports recalling part of an overheard conversation (the "Will You?" question). That indicates that her attention was drawn to the couple, and as a result, yes, that creates a reason for her to remember them. Their conversation aroused her interest.

Time-lapse: How long has elapsed since the witness saw the person/incident?

That's a good one. It isn't clear, but it doesn't appear to be more than a day or two.
What ADVOKATE does't lay out is what is considered "short" or "Long" delays? Does someone coming forward to give evidence to the police within the first week count as "short", and only coming forward after 5 years mean "long"?
Yes, time is important, but the question doesn't actually state how much time is important. This one, without more details, is useless as a guideline.

Error discrepancy: Are there any errors or material discrepancies between descriptions in the first and subsequent accounts of the witness?

Not to my knowledge.

Applying these to the witness testimony in these cases I hope posters including you Herlock will now understand why I keep saying some of the witness testimony regarding identification is unsafe to rely on

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thanks Trevor.

I know you've posted the ADVOKATE list a few times now, so my apologies for not acknowledging this sooner.

Overall, though, I would say Long scores fairly high on this fairly crude checklist, and where she doesn't get high marks generally corresponds to bits that are a bit vague (and so I err on the caution side). Certainly on many of the points she would score high.

So, I'm curious. Given that she clearly can't be scored low on that guideline, what has lead you to the conclusion that she should be set aside despite her ADVOKATE score?

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

The issues surrounding Identification have been raised before and I posted an old legal case ruling which is now used in criminal trial where identification is an issue the case is R V Turnbull 1976 and I would suggest this is a good guideline to determine the accuracy and relaibailty of the witness identification in these cases.

A mnemonic used to remember the various points is ADVOKATE: which stands for the following

Amount of time under observation: How long did the witness have the person/incident in view?

Distance: What was the distance between the witness and the person/incident?

Visibility: What was the visibility at the time? Factors include the time of day/night, street lighting, etc.

Obstruction: Were there any obstructions to the view of the witness?

Known or seen before: Did the witness know, or had the witness ever seen, the person before? If so where and when?

Any reason to remember: Did the witness have any special reason for remembering the person/incident? Was there something specific that made the person/incident memorable?

Time-lapse: How long has elapsed since the witness saw the person/incident?

Error discrepancy: Are there any errors or material discrepancies between descriptions in the first and subsequent accounts of the witness?

Applying these to the witness testimony in these cases I hope posters including you Herlock will now understand why I keep saying some of the witness testimony regarding identification is unsafe to rely on

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’ve never misunderstood it Trevor. But that doesn’t stop me repeating that we shouldn’t assume error….only accept the possibility of it.

The word that gets in the way of our discussions is ‘rely.’ When you were in the job and assessing witnesses there would have been some that you favoured over others. Often cases rely heavily on witness testimony and people don’t get exonerated because witnesses are unsafe to ‘rely’ on.

What I see on here regularly is that witnesses are dismissed due to minor discrepancies even though those discrepancies might have originated in errors of reporting. The phrase ‘throwing the baby out with the bath water’ comes to mind. We have no reason to assume that Cadosch was mistaken. Could he have been mistaken? Most things are possible. He heard a ‘no’ but he was mistaken that it came from number 29? He hears a noise against a fence probably no more than 6 feet away but he was mistaken that it came from number 29? If he was right then it was the killer.

[Trevor Marriott]

This is hard to specify with Long. We know some things, like the couple is some number of yards away from #29, and towards Brick Lane, and we know Long came down Brick Lane and then turned onto Hanbury. She then proceeds towards the market, passing the couple. What we don't know is at what point that couple caught her attention. Was it at the point she turned the corner, and for whatever reason, "zoned in on them", or did they only become of interest when she hears the "Will you?" question? If the former, then there is every reason to think she had them under observation for a while, if the latter, then "less than a while". Depending upon the assumptions you're willing to make, the observation period varies.

What ADVOKATE doesn't indicate is how long equals long and how long equals short? What is the relationship between "time observed" and accuracy? Or does it boil down to the investigating officer's judgement call? (is it nothing more than clever marketing masking as utility?)

We don't know specifically, but we know she overheard bits of conversation. So, close. Certainly not a distance that ADVOKATE would signal caution.

Well, hard to say, but as Richardson testified that roughly 30 minutes earlier he could see all around the place, I think it safe to say that around Long's sighting lighting isn't an issue.

No.

Not to my knowledge, but I have this strange warning light going off that someone has claimed there's information that Long had some familiarity with Annie? I may be mis-remembering how Mrs. Richardson claimed to recognize Annie as someone who hawked various items though. However, although we're not sure of Long's residence, none of the potential addresses place her in the immediate vicinity of Annie's residence, there is a good case to be made that they were not even "visual" acquaintances. So I'll go for "no" here.

Long reports recalling part of an overheard conversation (the "Will You?" question). That indicates that her attention was drawn to the couple, and as a result, yes, that creates a reason for her to remember them. Their conversation aroused her interest.

That's a good one. It isn't clear, but it doesn't appear to be more than a day or two.
What ADVOKATE does't lay out is what is considered "short" or "Long" delays? Does someone coming forward to give evidence to the police within the first week count as "short", and only coming forward after 5 years mean "long"?
Yes, time is important, but the question doesn't actually state how much time is important. This one, without more details, is useless as a guideline.

Not to my knowledge.

Thanks Trevor.

I know you've posted the ADVOKATE list a few times now, so my apologies for not acknowledging this sooner.

Overall, though, I would say Long scores fairly high on this fairly crude checklist, and where she doesn't get high marks generally corresponds to bits that are a bit vague (and so I err on the caution side). Certainly on many of the points she would score high.

So, I'm curious. Given that she clearly can't be scored low on that guideline, what has lead you to the conclusion that she should be set aside despite her ADVOKATE score?

- Jeff

I am not suggesting she should be dismissed but her evidence treated with extreme caution, even to the point where she goes to the mortuary and identifies Chapman on the slab. In her testimony, she believed the woman she saw was Chapman but with only her getting a fleeting view of the woman she sees in Hanbury Street, she is bound to say the woman in the mortuary is that same woman after all she did not get a full frontal face view of the woman in the street. The mortuary ID is akin to leading a witness.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I’ve never misunderstood it Trevor. But that doesn’t stop me repeating that we shouldn’t assume error….only accept the possibility of it.

The word that gets in the way of our discussions is ‘rely.’ When you were in the job and assessing witnesses there would have been some that you favoured over others. Often cases rely heavily on witness testimony and people don’t get exonerated because witnesses are unsafe to ‘rely’ on.

What I see on here regularly is that witnesses are dismissed due to minor discrepancies even though those discrepancies might have originated in errors of reporting. The phrase ‘throwing the baby out with the bath water’ comes to mind. We have no reason to assume that Cadosch was mistaken. Could he have been mistaken? Most things are possible. He heard a ‘no’ but he was mistaken that it came from number 29? He hears a noise against a fence probably no more than 6 feet away but he was mistaken that it came from number 29? If he was right then it was the killer.

have you not read post #10

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[A P Tomlinson]

Hi George,

Yah, I've never worn, or seen gaiters, in person. I'm really only familiar with them as something "Scrooge McDuck" wore (Donald Duck's rich uncle), so I have no idea how a piece of flat metal relates to them. Moreover, I don't know what is meant by a "legging spring"? It sort of makes me think like something one would wear around the lower leg to keep the trouser cuff in, like what a cyclist might wear to keep their trouser leg out of the chain, but I could be way off base there. I can't really see Richardson wearing gaiters to work, as my understanding is that they are sort of a formal wear item? A legging spring, if it is like what I describe above, might be something he wore depending on his work (to keep his trouser cuffs out of the way rather than tuck them into his boots, for example). The problem, of course, is that if a "legging spring" and a piece of metal that somehow goes with gaiters are completely different things, we don't even know what was found, making it impossible to decide if it might lean towards Richardson the son or Richardson the grandson. However, as I indicated above, it seems to me the most plausible explanation is that Chandler's account should replace "son" with "grandson", either because Chandler mis-heard her originally, or mis-transcribed that detail in his notes, simply misspoke, or the reporter mis-heard him, etc. While other explanations might "save" my original idea, I think they would be pushing it, and something like one of the above just too easily explains things, and relegates the "piece of flat metal" to just a bit of detritus found in the backyard, that at one time belonged to someone who lived there. Yawn.

So yes, I agree with you and the bulk of the evidence seems to point more towards the grandson as the owner of the mental "thing", and therefore, whatever it actually was seems to be a bit of side track trivia rather than something that might be considered case relevant. Obviously, if more reports turn up, they might help to clarify, and if so, my opinion could change yet again, but in which direction would depend upon what those new reports contained.

It's a shame, though, as initially it looked like it might be one of those weird things that appeared trivial but actually ended up carrying a lot of information. If, however, it's unrelated to the case, then how it got there is just a curiosity - we don't really need to know, the grandson lived there, he apparently lost, or threw out, a piece of metal that went with his gaiters. Maybe they were worn out, maybe while wearing his Sunday best he lost it on the way to the loo, maybe my assumption that gaiters were even "formal" wear is completely wrong and they were just protectors of footwear.

Anyway, I should thank you for continuing this line of discussion and for presenting the other reports. While I'm a bit disappointed at the loss of what seemed to be useful information (not because of the direction it pointed, but just because it seemed very useful - which is rare in the JtR cases as so much of the information we have seems to have sufficient ambiguity that it mostly hovers on the edge of useful). But as I've said, I would rather be correctly unsure, than incorrectly confident. Also, while I don't change everytime the wind changes direction, I can, and will, alter my thoughts in light of new evidence when it warrants (or, I suppose, when I deem it warrants change, but don't we all have to make our own decisions?).

As always, a fruitful and pleasant exchange. Thanks again.

- Jeff

As far as I'm aware, a gaiter spring is a circle or loop of strong wire that is split with a hook on each end.
So that you pull them tight around the top of the calf, clip the ends together and they hold in place.
Almost like a wire metal garter, if that makes sense.
I have a distant memory of visiting even more distant relatives in Goole who had a farm, and we used them to fasten sort of sack cloth make-do gaiters for riding the horses.

I'll see if I can find a picture of what I mean.

[JeffHamm]

I am not suggesting she should be dismissed but her evidence treated with extreme caution, even to the point where she goes to the mortuary and identifies Chapman on the slab. In her testimony, she believed the woman she saw was Chapman but with only her getting a fleeting view of the woman she sees in Hanbury Street, she is bound to say the woman in the mortuary is that same woman after all she did not get a full frontal face view of the woman in the street. The mortuary ID is akin to leading a witness.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Ah, then we agree entirely! Of the 3 non-expert witnesses I also view Long as the most "sketchy" and the one to view with the most caution. While there's nothing that doesn't "fit", I am concerned about the identification procedure (as you also allude to) as it seems she was just "confronted" with one body for a yes/no identification - and that is prone to false positives. It doesn't preclude her from being correct, but I wouldn't bank on it. I tend to view her as not creating problems more than she adds extra support, if that makes sense. The one bit of information she does add, that nobody else does, is her description of the man, and that I think needs to be held at arms length, plus a set of very long tongs!

I am very pleased that we finally seem to be talking the same language. Will miracles never cease!

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

As far as I'm aware, a gaiter spring is a circle or loop of strong wire that is split with a hook on each end.
So that you pull them tight around the top of the calf, clip the ends together and they hold in place.
Almost like a wire metal garter, if that makes sense.
I have a distant memory of visiting even more distant relatives in Goole who had a farm, and we used them to fasten sort of sack cloth make-do gaiters for riding the horses.

I'll see if I can find a picture of what I mean.

That would be very cool. Would be very interested in seeing what it looks like and all that. At the moment, it's just words that don't really mean much to me other than it's a "thing", and that is a bit generic.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I do not think Cadoche is in the category of over-confident witnesses.

He said he was not sure where the 'no' came from, and what he described as something like a fall against the fence then became something touching the fence.

I think Albert was unsure on the 'no' and more sure with the noise against the fence.

Either way, I thought it would be interesting to discuss memory, the process of storing and recollecting information; and how the recollection isn't always an accurate version of the event.

[Fleetwood Mac]

It is a mistake, though, to go from the undebatable point that witnesses can be wrong, to the conclusion that the witness must be wrong.

This isn't what's under discussion.

The OP clearly states that Albert might not have recalled the event as it was, but then again he may have.

The OP is concerned with exploring whether or not too much emphasis has been placed on Albert's statement.

The discussion is just getting under way, I'm sure there'll be plenty of posts and so let's see where it goes in terms of the confidence that should be placed in Albert's statement.

Let's not introduce counter-arguments to arguments that nobody has put forward.

For example, in a study by Lindsay, Semmler, Weber, Brewer, & Lindsay (2008) of the accuracy of distance on eyewitnesses estimates of things like height, weight, and age, we can create expected "ranges of acceptibility" (I'll just use age for this example, and not get into the influence of distance for simplicity's sake).

Can you post a link to this study.

It should be an interesting read and enable others to assess what it means in relation to the OP, and reply to you.

[Wickerman]

As far as I'm aware, a gaiter spring is a circle or loop of strong wire that is split with a hook on each end.
So that you pull them tight around the top of the calf, clip the ends together and they hold in place.
Almost like a wire metal garter, if that makes sense.
I have a distant memory of visiting even more distant relatives in Goole who had a farm, and we used them to fasten sort of sack cloth make-do gaiters for riding the horses.

I'll see if I can find a picture of what I mean.

Are you describing what was later known as a bicycle clip?



Though this was used in the 50's (& before?) to trap the hem of your trousers to your leg so it didn't touch the chain.

[Herlock Sholmes]

have you not read post #10

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes I have. Here it is:

. Cadosh was not standing still and listening in both instances he described, he was on the move from the house to the outside toilet and back so given the time of the morning and the fact that people from the houses in close proximity to No 29 were moving about the sounds he heard could have emanated from anywhere close by.

Again we have a situation the same as with Phillips with the police and the coroner seemingly not concerned with the actual TOD because the police had the opportunity to speak to the residents in those houses in close proximity to No 29 to ascertain if the sounds Cadosh heard had emanated from any of those houses.

I fail to see how the fact that he wasn’t standing still has to do with anything? It changes nothing and he was hardly running after all. He heard the ‘no’ just as he was going through the door.

Put me in a yard with someone in each of the next door yards and get them to hit their respective fences. I’d tell you which side it came from correctly every time. Plus Cadosch was much closer to one fence which made it easier. What you are suggesting is akin to ventriloquism. That a fence being struck some distance away can sound as if it came from right next to them. This is extremely unlikely at best.

And was anyone else up and around in the neighbouring yards. I would have assumed that the police would have checked but he have no mention of it. No near neighbours having a backyard conversation or bumping into a fence.

All this means that it’s extremely likely that Cadosch was entirely correct in what he heard and where it came from. Even if it was only a 50-50 chance of being correct (and I’d call it much higher) then we would have a 50-50 likelihood of a later ToD. Add John Richardson and it increases. Add Elizabeth Long and it increases further.

Repeating truisms serve no purpose because witnesses are nowhere near always wring or unreliable.

[Wickerman]

I think Albert was unsure on the 'no' and more sure with the noise against the fence.

Either way, I thought it would be interesting to discuss memory, the process of storing and recollecting information; and how the recollection isn't always an accurate version of the event.

Look at PC Smith (as I keep pointing out), his suspect first wore a hard felt hat, then later he describes a deerstalker, which is a fold-up cloth cap.
They couldn't be any different, but we have to make allowances, Packer's the same, and he described an American hat, yet given the time restraints, and the fact they both carried a parcel, they must be talking about the same man.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don’t think that Albert was unsure about the ‘no.’ Only in regard to which side of number 29 it came from. I’ve mentioned this over on JTRForums and both posters that have responded agree with my interpretation of what was meant. One of them is Caz believes that Cadosch is likelier to have meant:

“It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side of that yard it came from.”