Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[Herlock Sholmes]

Argumentum Ad Misericordiam:

To persuade an audience by purposely evoking certain emotions to make them feel the way the author wants them to feel.

It is not a reasonable, logical nor valid argument.

You do realise that simply googling a list of logical fallacies isn’t some kind of indicator of genius don’t you?

Posting links to studies that tell us what we already knew….cutting and pasting from a list of logical fallacies…..an original thought of your own would be nice occasionally.

[Wickerman]

It helps a huge amount, Jon, because the hundreds of studies tell you that witnesses do not always recollect an event as it actually were. To the tune of 47% in one study.

That should be very useful information to people interested in this case, because it is food thought in terms of faith placed in witness statements.

I'm not exactly sure what you're objecting to.

Perhaps we are looking at this from opposite ends, but the only detail that matters to me in Cadosch's testimony is the times, of which that before he heard the "no" was an estimate. The time following the "no" was directly from Spitalfields clock.
Then there's the issue of what he heard - "no".
Does this study help the ascertain whether he heard a "no" or not?

What about Richardson, the only real important issue here is - "did he see the body, or not?"

And, Mrs Long, what time was she stood beside the shutters of No.29 with then man?

How does this article help with those specific points?

These statistics will not tell you exactly what Albert saw, but what they will tell you, by virtue of empirical data; is that a good number of witnesses do not recollect that which actually happened. Almost 1 in 2 according to that study, which at the very least would place Albert in the bracket of doubt, 50/50 chance more or less.

Ok, so this approach must be applicable with all witnesses. So if we temper down much of what they say they saw, what do we replace it with?
In most cases the reason a witness is sumonzed is because they saw something unique, or of importance to the case.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Does this study help the ascertain whether he heard a "no" or not?

No, but blindly accepting Albert's testimony because that's what he said, and dismissing studies that tell us witness testimony is often unreliable; doesn't answer your question either.

What we have is Albert's recollection as opposed to a video of the event, and that is a fact.

There is a doubt with Albert, the question is: "to what extent?"

What about Richardson

There were 400 pages on another thread, half of them made up of absurd posturing. The moderator quite rightly knocked it on the head and put the thread out of its misery.

[Wickerman]

According to the Langdon story, the PC (likely Watkins) met the man coming out of Mitre Square via the St. James passage (In the right center of the drawing you posted above) 7 minutes after the PC last the square.

Isn't that just another one of those "if only" stories, like PC Spicer, and a few other's I have likely forgotten?

PC Watkins beat was around Mitre Sq. then into St. James Place, all on the same beat.

So, the article says:
"It was night, and the policeman had passed through the square once (Mitre Square), everything being then apparently all right. He walked on coming to a court (St. James Place), leading from a street (St. James Passage), out of Mitre Square."
The man passed the PC on his way out of Mitre Square.
"The man came from the direction of Mitre Square".

This PC Langdon could be talking about PC Watkins in the first line above.
It is believed the killer exited the square via St James Passage on his way towards Goulston St.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It is believed the killer exited the square via St James Passage on his way towards Goulston St.

Not by me.

I believe the murderer exited the Square via Mitre Street.

[Wickerman]

Not by me.

I believe the murderer exited the Square via Mitre Street.

Ok, I should have qualified that last remark.
There is some official paperwork suggesting the police believe the killer exited via St James Passage.

[A P Tomlinson]

Perhaps we are looking at this from opposite ends, but the only detail that matters to me in Cadosch's testimony is the times, of which that before he heard the "no" was an estimate. The time following the "no" was directly from Spitalfields clock.
Then there's the issue of what he heard - "no".
Does this study help the ascertain whether he heard a "no" or not?

What about Richardson, the only real important issue here is - "did he see the body, or not?"

And, Mrs Long, what time was she stood beside the shutters of No.29 with then man?

How does this article help with those specific points?




Ok, so this approach must be applicable with all witnesses. So if we temper down much of what they say they saw, what do we replace it with?
In most cases the reason a witness is sumonzed is because they saw something unique, or of importance to the case.

If one of the questions Cadosche was asked before making his statement to the police had been "After the conversation when the woman said no did you hear the body fall against the fence immediately, or was it later?" without him having volunteered either statement before hand, then that report of FM's might hold water.

This 47% he keeps throwing around is 47% of people who were DELIBERATELY FED MISLEADING INFORMATION, that means that 53% of people who were actively coerced into showing the "Misinformation Effect" were unmoved by it.

Funnily enough, the same document doesn't provide the ratio of the accuracy of the people who weren't coreced into a false statement, and who were just going by their memory. Why? Because the article is concerned with the way that people who are coerced and tricked and misled can be... coerced and tricked and misled to an amazing 47% success rate.
The piece is less focused on witness memory and more on the means by which it can be manipulated by police at interview and lawyers during a hearing, in order to both get the witness to say what they want them to say, and also make the witnesses believe the misinformation to a degree that will convince a jury of their honesty.

The report is pretty unambiguous that they believe it needs at least one "triggering" or "ILLICITING" factor, to cause these misinformation effects. Such as telling people the road sign they had seen during the test was a different one to what they had actually seen, which fooled almost half of the people who were lied to.
To use THAT as a blanket 47% of people are unreliable is NOT what the article says.

Nothing in that oft-linked document applies to either Cadosche or Richardson.

[Wickerman]

If one of the questions Cadosche was asked before making his statement to the police had been "After the conversation when the woman said no did you hear the body fall against the fence immediately, or was it later?" without him having volunteered either statement before hand, then that report of FM's might hold water.

This 47% he keeps throwing around is 47% of people who were DELIBERATELY FED MISLEADING INFORMATION, that means that 53% of people who were actively coerced into showing the "Misinformation Effect" were unmoved by it.

Funnily enough, the same document doesn't provide the ratio of the accuracy of the people who weren't coreced into a false statement, and who were just going by their memory. Why? Because the article is concerned with the way that people who are coerced and tricked and misled can be... coerced and tricked and misled to an amazing 47% success rate.
The piece is less focused on witness memory and more on the means by which it can be manipulated by police at interview and lawyers during a hearing, in order to both get the witness to say what they want them to say, and also make the witnesses believe the misinformation to a degree that will convince a jury of their honesty.

The report is pretty unambiguous that they believe it needs at least one "triggering" or "ILLICITING" factor, to cause these misinformation effects. Such as telling people the road sign they had seen during the test was a different one to what they had actually seen, which fooled almost half of the people who were lied to.
To use THAT as a blanket 47% of people are unreliable is NOT what the article says.

Nothing in that oft-linked document applies to either Cadosche or Richardson.

Thankyou, for taking the time & the trouble.

[Fleetwood Mac]

You do realise that simply googling a list of logical fallacies isn’t some kind of indicator of genius don’t you?

Posting links to studies that tell us what we already knew….cutting and pasting from a list of logical fallacies…..an original thought of your own would be nice occasionally.

I suppose that's one version, but you miss the point: yet again.

What I am doing is pointing out that the vast majority of your posts are logical fallacies, and it follows they are invalid discussion points.

By all means, post a series of invalid arguments.

It demonstrates two things:

1) You're not here to discuss reasonably.

2) Your brain hasn't developed beyond the 'post lots of nonsense on a message board and make myself look daft in public' stage.

Arguably, you're a masochist.

Were I you, I'd reflect on that and decide whether or not you want to have reasonable discussion or simply post nonsense.

It is a feature of your 'discussions' that they invariably degenerate into a tit-for-tat cycle of verbal violence. That old saying: never mud wrestle with a pig, pigs enjoy that, that's where they want to drag you down to: mud wrestling.

Anyway, I'll leave it with you to reflect.

[Fleetwood Mac]

This 47% he keeps throwing around is 47% of people who were DELIBERATELY FED MISLEADING INFORMATION, that means that 53% of people who were actively coerced into showing the "Misinformation Effect" were unmoved by it.

'Struggling for time a bit due to work, but will reply to this later.

Just to open:

I reckon you may be misunderstanding the premise of the article and I think your conclusion is misleading. I'll explain why later.

And, I'll post links to other studies. There are hundreds of such studies according to several commentators, and so they're not going to be difficult to find.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I suppose that's one version, but you miss the point: yet again.

What I am doing is pointing out that the vast majority of your posts are logical fallacies, and it follows they are invalid discussion points.

By all means, post a series of invalid arguments.

It demonstrates two things:

1) You're not here to discuss reasonably.

2) Your brain hasn't developed beyond the 'post lots of nonsense on a message board and make myself look daft in public' stage.

Arguably, you're a masochist.

Were I you, I'd reflect on that and decide whether or not you want to have reasonable discussion or simply post nonsense.

It is a feature of your 'discussions' that they invariably degenerate into a tit-for-tat cycle of verbal violence. That old saying: never mud wrestle with a pig, pigs enjoy that, that's where they want to drag you down to: mud wrestling.

Anyway, I'll leave it with you to reflect.

All that you’ve demonstrated is:

Hypocrisy - pointing out someone else’s alleged poor thinking whilst ignoring your own and ignoring the fact that any ‘discussion’ requires more that one person.

Arrogance - you constantly try to create the impression of superiority, especially when your making points that aren’t sustainable. You resort to an attitude of ‘I’m cleverer than everyone else so I must be correct.’ It’s also arrogance to second guess experts as you’ve repeatedly done on here.

Aggression/insults - clearly shown in the above post “Your brain hasn’t developed…” “You’re a masochist.” And “Never mud wrestle with a pig.” You are resorting to Ad Hominem attacks.


Try sticking to the case and stop obsessing over me. Try presenting points to dispute arguments rather than resorting to a sulk and the inaccurate use of logical fallacies shaped and presented to cover for your own shortcomings.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And all of these studies will tell us what we knew in the first place. That witnesses can be mistaken. A fact that we are all aware of. The thread title is Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosch. So why Cadosch when these studies apply to every single witness in every single crime that ever occurred? It’s an exercise in pointlessness. But there is a point….do deflect from the specifics.

Albert Cadosch heard a voice and a sound from number 29. At the that he heard the noise he was standing he was standing 5 or 6 feet from the very structure that the noise emanated from making it unlikely in the extreme that he would have been mistaken. He heard these things at just the time that another witness said that she saw Chapman a few feet from that spot. This is the evidence.

If every single thread degenerated into a session of cutting and pasting these reports that simply tell us that witnesses can be mistaken no one would bother continuing to post here. Does the physical possibility exist that Cadosch could have been mistaken? Yes, of course it does. Could he have been correct? Yes he could have been. And we also have a witness that shows that Annie was still alive at 4.45 and one that saw her at 5.30. So Cadosch is likelier to gave been correct.

[Fleetwood Mac]

This 47% he keeps throwing around is 47% of people who were DELIBERATELY FED MISLEADING INFORMATION, that means that 53% of people who were actively coerced into showing the "Misinformation Effect" were unmoved by it.

It seems you're making a point of the information being 'deliberately fed'.

There is no other way to undertake a test than to introduce situations.

This is applied across all studies in all disciplines: you simply cannot undertake a test environment without test criteria.

The qualified people who undertook this study, and the hundreds of others, concluded that witness testimony is often unreliable.

It follows that at this point, you're questioning their ability to reach an informed conclusion as well as their methods. But, hundreds of studies undertaken by qualified people feel their methods and conclusions are appropriate, and in the event you google: "unreliable witness testimony', you will find link after link of studies undertaken by qualified people who are confident that placing too much confidence in witness statements is outdated thinking.

The other fallback you're relying on is: "it does not apply to Albert because the conditions aren't the same". Well, no, of course no study has been undertaken with a 19th century person walking past a fence and hearing a noise. In the event you're going to reduce it to: "I need to see the exact same conditions otherwise it means nothing", then that won't get you anywhere and that's because you're ignoring what these qualified people are saying

They are saying that the misinformation and contamination effect happens as a result of various information sources, whether deliberate or not, and whether or not someone is walking past a fence, sees an event, identifies a suspect, whatever.

And of course, around 75% of convictions overturned as a result of DNA evidence were convictions as a result of witness testimony. That should tell you something. I think your response will be: "ahh, but that was identifying a suspect, nothing to do with Albert's situation".

In that event, you miss the point: witness unreliability is a result of the human mind and how human memory works as opposed to specific and particular events. It doesn't matter whether or not it is identifying a suspect, seeing an event, hearing an event, whatever; human memory is the process of storing, encoding and retrieving information and that process is subject to misinformation and contamination along the way, no matter the situation.

[Scott Nelson]

"It was night, and the policeman had passed through the square once (Mitre Square), everything being then apparently all right. He walked on coming to a court (St. James Place), leading from a street (St. James Passage), out of Mitre Square."
The man passed the PC on his way out of Mitre Square.
"The man came from the direction of Mitre Square".

This PC Langdon could be talking about PC Watkins in the first line above.
It is believed the killer exited the square via St James Passage on his way towards Goulston St.

That's what I thought I said. Watkins exited the Square via Mitre Street and walked up and around to the Orange Market (not through St. James Passage). Seven minutes later he met a man coming out of the passage from the direction of Mitre Square. This story has some parallels to the Steven White story.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Question: Do any of those studies takes us any closer to being able to accurately assess the evidence given by Albert Cadosch?

Answer: Absolutely not.

Question: So is the tedious repetition of general principles of assistance in any way to us on this forum?

Answer: Absolutely not?

Question: Then why are these points being pursued?

Answer: Because one person has reached a stage of such utter desperation in their efforts to discredit and disprove Cadosch that he’s flailing around clutching at any straw that he can. He wants the evidence to somehow ‘fit’ his own conclusion.

Its called confirmation bias. And it appears to be contagious.