Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[Wickerman]

Within the human mind, there is a process from event to recollection/statement. That being: encoding, storing and retrieval. It's not akin to a photograph because the human mind and memory is subject to many factors and influences which can divorce the recollection from the event. Human memory and the human mind simply isn't like taking a photograph and storing it for posterity.

What we have at our disposal is Albert's recollection of the event. That's a fact. We do not have a video of the event.

That is the starting point for the discussion. It's just getting started, let's see where it goes.

Here is an extract:

Myth: Eyewitness Testimony is the Best Kind of Evidence – Association for Psychological Science – APS

The claim that eyewitness testimony is reliable and accurate is testable, and the research is clear that eyewitness identification is vulnerable to distortion without the witness’s awareness. More specifically, the assumption that memory provides an accurate recording of experience, much like a video camera, is incorrect. Memory evolved to give us a personal sense of identity and to guide our actions. We are biased to notice and exaggerate some experiences and to minimize or overlook others. Memory is malleable.

Previously, when I asked if these studies tell us something we don't already know. I didn't mean we've all got PhD's in the subject, more that this view is well published that we've all, or most of us who have an interest in the subject, have read about this at some point.

We're aware of the possibility, but it is still only a possibility, it cannot be applied to all witnesses. It's just a factor for consideration, so that when we catch the culprit and he looks somewhat different to how the witness described him - we have the possible reason why.

I suggest these studies are not used by any police force to dismiss a witness, only to explain why a witness got it so wrong. Which is only something you can do after the fact.

[Wickerman]

If the murderer was seen in Hanbury Street, and is the dark foreigner in his 40s, then why was a fair man aged about 30 seen in Duke Street, when there was not even any conflict in any of the timings?

Even the police were not 100% convinced the Duke St. couple were Eddowes & her killer. It's just that this view has been lost in the fog of theories & conjecture.
McWilliam, Insp. City Police said they were at a "great disadvantage" due to the two Jews could not identify the man seen with the woman, and neither of them saw the woman's face.

There was another witness in St. James Place who told the press some people (a couple?) passed him about 1:30 and a person well-dressed asked him if he had seen anyone pass here.
Major Smith (City Police) had, we are told, instructed his police to follow any couples seen together after dark.
I'm more inclined to suspect this was Eddowes & her killer, though we have no more details than that.
Except to say there was a reference to two witnesses in the Orange Market who saw someone suspicious pass through. The reference is too vague to be of any help.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why is Lawende’s man more lonely than Long’s to have been the killer? Long didn’t see the man’s face so maybe he had a moustache too. Lawende said that his man had: ‘..complexion fair, moustache fair.’ Lawende was a distance away and under a street lamp so it’s possible that this had an effect. We know that lights can affect perception of colour and tone. A brown moustache might appear lighter. Ditto skin tone. Or perhaps a grey or partially grey moustache. I think that we should be wary of placing too much emphasis on the use of the word ‘fair.’

[Herlock Sholmes]

Even the police were not 100% convinced the Duke St. couple were Eddowes & her killer. It's just that this view has been lost in the fog of theories & conjecture.
McWilliam, Insp. City Police said they were at a "great disadvantage" due to the two Jews could not identify the man seen with the woman, and neither of them saw the woman's face.

There was another witness in St. James Place who told the press some people (a couple?) passed him about 1:30 and a person well-dressed asked him if he had seen anyone pass here.
Major Smith (City Police) had, we are told, instructed his police to follow any couples seen together after dark.
I'm more inclined to suspect this was Eddowes & her killer, though we have no more details than that.
Except to say there was a reference to two witnesses in the Orange Market who saw someone suspicious pass through. The reference is too vague to be of any help.

It might also be worth mentioning that they had just left a club Wick? It at least introduces the possibility of alcohol consumption.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There was another witness in St. James Place who told the press some people (a couple?) passed him about 1:30 and a person well-dressed asked him if he had seen anyone pass here.
Major Smith (City Police) had, we are told, instructed his police to follow any couples seen together after dark.
I'm more inclined to suspect this was Eddowes & her killer, though we have no more details than that.
Except to say there was a reference to two witnesses in the Orange Market who saw someone suspicious pass through. The reference is too vague to be of any help.

I can't remember, Jon, whether it was with you that I had a conversation about this very subject before, but I think it was.

My reservations about that story are that there does not seem to be any evidence that the man doing the following was a policeman and that the woman he was following was a prostitute.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Previously, when I asked if these studies tell us something we don't already know. I didn't mean we've all got PhD's in the subject, more that this view is well published that we've all, or most of us who have an interest in the subject, have read about this at some point.

We're aware of the possibility, but it is still only a possibility, it cannot be applied to all witnesses. It's just a factor for consideration, so that when we catch the culprit and he looks somewhat different to how the witness described him - we have the possible reason why.

I suggest these studies are not used by any police force to dismiss a witness, only to explain why a witness got it so wrong. Which is only something you can do after the fact.

Jon,

I don't think you're attempting to respond to the OP here, at least not with substance.

We know that everyone's aware of the possibility, but the question posed for discussion was not: are you aware of the possibility?

The question is: to what extent is there room to doubt Albert's recollection of events?

And, I doubt very much that many, if any, reading this thread were aware of this:

RE-EVALUATING THE CREDIBILITY OF EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY: THE MISINFORMATION EFFECT AND THE OVERCRITICAL JUROR | Episteme | Cambridge Core

It's concerned with 'the misinformation effect' and 'the contamination effect', broadly, witnesses recollecting information in an event that did not happen in that event.

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

Misinformation or contamination can come from a variety of sources, including at an inquest or via discussing the event with others.

This study is concerned with an event as opposed to identification of a suspect.

The article informs us that:

Hundreds of studies have now been undertaken demonstrating the robustness of this phenomenon (Howe and Knott Reference Howe and Knott2015), which has become labelled the misinformation effect because it occurs due to the influence of misinformation provided after an event.

So, what do you think? Not vague rhetoric that simply skirts round the OP, but studies such as the one in this thread. What does it mean in relation to Albert's statement?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Lawende said that his man had: ‘..complexion fair, moustache fair.’ Lawende was a distance away and under a street lamp so it’s possible that this had an effect. We know that lights can affect perception of colour and tone. A brown moustache might appear lighter. Ditto skin tone. Or perhaps a grey or partially grey moustache. I think that we should be wary of placing too much emphasis on the use of the word ‘fair.’

Why then did the suspect's neckerchief appear to Lawende to be reddish and not pinkish?

[A P Tomlinson]

Why then did the suspect's neckerchief appear to Lawende to be reddish and not pinkish?

It appeared red not black... because the absence of light would have rendered it darker than the red that he could see.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It appeared red not black... because the absence of light would have rendered it darker than the red that he could see.

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

[Wickerman]

I can't remember, Jon, whether it was with you that I had a conversation about this very subject before, but I think it was.

My reservations about that story are that there does not seem to be any evidence that the man doing the following was a policeman and that the woman he was following was a prostitute.

Yes, that could well be, I don't remember who I was talking with.
You'll remember the name Blenkingsop, he saw "people" pass him and a well-dressed man asked him about it.
I don't go around asking strangers if they have seen people pass by, so it's not likely to have been just a regular citizen.

Detectives were well-dressed, they had been tasked by Smith to follow couples (man & woman), and some people passed Blenkingsop.
It's just a matter of adding 2 and 2 together, their roles fit (a detective following a couple), so it may be of significance, then again it may not.
I'd sooner chance that Blankingsop's encounter is more likely to be Eddowes than the couple in Duke St.
I'm just explaining, not asking for others to accept it.
It just happened & I take it as relevant.

It also gives the killer another 5? minutes.

[Wickerman]

Jon,

I don't think you're attempting to respond to the OP here, at least not with substance.

We know that everyone's aware of the possibility, but the question posed for discussion was not: are you aware of the possibility?

The question is: to what extent is there room to doubt Albert's recollection of events?

And, I doubt very much that many, if any, reading this thread were aware of this:

RE-EVALUATING THE CREDIBILITY OF EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY: THE MISINFORMATION EFFECT AND THE OVERCRITICAL JUROR | Episteme | Cambridge Core

It's concerned with 'the misinformation effect' and 'the contamination effect', broadly, witnesses recollecting information in an event that did not happen in that event.

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

Misinformation or contamination can come from a variety of sources, including at an inquest or via discussing the event with others.

This study is concerned with an event as opposed to identification of a suspect.

The article informs us that:

Hundreds of studies have now been undertaken demonstrating the robustness of this phenomenon (Howe and Knott Reference Howe and Knott2015), which has become labelled the misinformation effect because it occurs due to the influence of misinformation provided after an event.

So, what do you think? Not vague rhetoric that simply skirts round the OP, but studies such as the one in this thread. What does it mean in relation to Albert's statement?

So, is this 47% (plus any other percentages) equally applied to all witnesses?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I'd sooner chance that Blankingsop's encounter is more likely to be Eddowes than the couple in Duke St.

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?

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

[Fleetwood Mac]

So, is this 47% (plus any other percentages) equally applied to all witnesses?

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?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why then did the suspect's neckerchief appear to Lawende to be reddish and not pinkish?

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?

[Herlock Sholmes]

So, is this 47% (plus any other percentages) equally applied to all witnesses?

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.