Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[Fleetwood Mac]

I'm sorry, but no; it has nothing to do with the qualifications of the authority.

An 'appeal to authority' is when an argument is made on the basis of "X said so" rather than on the merits of logic and evidence. The 'authority' could be entirely qualified.

For instance, we might be arguing a point of theoretical physics. Saying "well, Einstein believed it!" is an appeal to authority. In a serious debate or investigation, it's not good enough that Einstein said it. We also need to examine and analyze Einstein's reasons for having believed it.

It's an acknowledgement that authorities can be wrong, and we need to adhere to evidence and logic.

An appeal to authority is also known as an appeal to false or unqualified authority.

Continuing with Einstein, it is perfectly reasonable to cite him in a discussion on Physics, providing it is directly relevant to the subject, but not in a discussion on biscuits: that would be an appeal to authority.

In the event you're going to question Einstein being cited in a discussion on Physics, you're not questioning that he is an authority on the subject, at least I'd imagine not; you're questioning his findings.

An 'authority' means somebody qualified in his or her field.

To get back to this thread, the poster suggested that citing qualified people in this field and their findings is an appeal to authority, when it's nothing of the kind providing the statistics are accurately represented and they are relevant to the subject.

[JeffHamm]

Not at all.

This is outright chasing your own tail.

You typed eleven paragraphs. In those eleven paragraphs, you mentioned identifying a suspect or an individual five times. On the other hand, you mentioned witness recollection of an event that did not involve a suspect or a victim only once.

Read it yourself, your own post, 156.

Paragraphs 2-5 are discussing witness testimony in general, and applies whether or not the information they are giving is identification or not. Paragraph 6 opens similarly, although it closes with me commenting on an article that I found interesting that dealt specifically with suspect identification and initial expressed confidence. When I get a chance, I want to see if anyone has verified that relationship to other forms of information other than just suspect identification. I see no obvious reason why the finding wouldn't generalize, however having conducted enough of my own research, results can be surprising at times.

The end of paragraph 6, the quote from the article I mention (paragraph 7), and 8 do focus on identification because that is the specific information the article I mentioned dealt with.

Paragraph 9 I go back to talking about "information" not identification per se, so generalized comments, and use Richardson as an example of where we have an indication of initial confidence (that the body wasn't there), which according to the article is an indicator of accuracy (delayed expressions of confidence are not), at least with identifications but I see no reason at this time as to why it wouldn't apply to other details as well (again, I hope to verify that with actual research - at the moment it's a working hypothesis).

Paragraph 10 I return to Long's identification because I think that's an interesting point, and I wanted to emphasize how her statement of being "sure" it was Annie, when given at the inquest, doesn't satisfy the conditions that the study required in terms of using that high confidence as an indicator of accuracy. It's too far removed from her initial identification at the morgue, which we do not have recorded.

And that should have made it clear that we similarly cannot make claims about things like "the conditions for the misinformation effect were met during XXX's interview" without having those interviews.

You were missing the forest for the trees by word counting rather than over all content.

In the event you go along with the 'perception is reality' school of thought, then I suppose you could think that.

Personally, I've never believed that, and I'd say style means nothing and substance means everything.

'We do not have the actual interviews' doesn't mean anything, and nor does 'appearances can be deceptive'.

By applying those sentiments, you would have nothing to discuss because for the large part we do not have the original anything, and of course you could apply 'appearances can be deceptive' to pretty much anything.

Oh my, you really don't understand the difference between experimental research conducted in a lab setting, and the transfer of that information to real world settings do you?

Ok, let me try and explain. See, the research into such things as the "misinformation effect", and various other aspects that influence memory reliability, is generally very good research. Loftus, for example, has done some exceptional work over her decades long career. Nothing I've said above in any way indicates that research is not worth knowing about.

However, what you've failed to take on board, is that the frequency of things like providing misinformation is determined by the experimenter in a research project. The frequency of providing misinformation during an interview, for example, will not reflect the frequency that such information occurs in a real world situation. The research may have a higher rate or a lower rate than that actual occurrence. To determine that one has to do an observational study of interview techniques, code statements by the interviewer, and so forth.

But even if we know the natural "rate of occurrence" of such things, in order to know if a given individual witness, such as Cadosche, was provided with "misinformation" during his interview, we would need to have his interview transcript. We would need to see what questions were asked, how were they phrased, and so forth, to see if the findings from the research actually might apply.

You would have to presume, for example, that during Cadosche's interview, when he recounts his testimony, that for some reason the police provided him misinformation about the source of the sounds, or even that he heard sounds, or the words that heard, or the number of times he went to the loo that morning, and then as a result, Cadosche's memory for those events altered and he now believes events that didn't occur. I find it hard to understand why you would think such a thing as I see no reason why the police, at that early stage of the investigation, would have formed any idea about what Cadosche might have done or heard.

In short, without the transcripts you cannot claim the necessary conditions to produce any particular influence were met - we simply have to be aware that they might have happened, but then again, they might not. In the end, we are left with simply having to do what we can, which is evaluate the testimony as given, look to see if what was said is obviously wrong, and if not, retain it as potentially correct. There is simply no way of knowing if a witness's memory has been subjected to a potentially misdirecting influence without the police interview transcripts.

I'm not sure we know when Cadosche spoke to the police either? The longer the delay, the greater the chance he may have read about the crime in the papers, or talked with others, and so forth, which can influence one's recollections of course.

One possible avenue to explore, though, would be to track down statements he's made over time and look for how his description of, say, the "fence noise" changes. I seem to recall there are various phrases used, like "something touched the fence suddenly" all the way to "something falling against the fence"? Given these are press reports, we would have to worry about the phrasing being the choice of the reporter rather than of Cadosche, but if we had a few versions of him speaking with the press over time, and then of course his inquest statement, it could be there's an argument for his later descriptions being phrased more in line with the idea he heard Annie's body hitting the fence (which I think many argue is unlikely, even those who think the murder happened at the later time - as if that's just when he strangled her, it would seem most likely he would abort the mutilation phase as soon as the cost was clear). Anyway, it may be that such a trajectory reflects his memory starting to conform to what he may think have happened, and so one could argue for preference to be given to his earlier reports (before his memory became potentially contaminated).

Again, there are lots of reasons why one would still want to be very cautious though, given that there are a lot of reasons why he might phrase things a bit different each time he tells his story (that's language), and the very real possibility that the words as printed are not the words he spoke.

Anyway, as I say, without the transcripts you cannot go any further than what people have done all along, and say his memory may be incorrect, which of course is undeniable.

What you certainly cannot say is that he was misdirected during the interview without actually knowing the interview.

- Jeff

[rjpalmer]

An appeal to authority is also known as an appeal to false or unqualified authority.

Continuing with Einstein, it is perfectly reasonable to cite him in a discussion on Physics, providing it is directly relevant to the subject, but not in a discussion on biscuits: that would be an appeal to authority.

Uh, that's not what logicians mean when they refer to an "appeal to authority."

I'm not going to argue it further, but let me just drop this:

"The appeal-to-authority fallacy, also known as argument from authority, is a logical fallacy in which the validity or truthfulness of a claim is based solely on the authority or expertise of the person or source making the claim, rather than on supporting evidence or logical reasoning.

So, the appeal-to-authority fallacy occurs when someone argues that a statement or proposition must be true simply because an authority figure or expert supports it. This fallacy disregards the need for independent evidence, critical thinking, or evaluation of the actual merits of the argument."

Have a nice day.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I'm not going to argue it further, but just let me drop this you.....

Right-o mate. Have it your way.

[JeffHamm]

Hmmm,

Ok, this entire post needs to be read as pure speculation, but I will try and cover various possibilities. One idea is that Cadosche's testimony should be viewed as unreliable because he was subject to the misinformation effect. The misinformation effect generally occurs when, during the police interview, because the police have some ideas about the offense already then they ask questions which end up providing the witness with incorrect information (their idea is wrong; or at least their idea is not something the witness actually ... witnessed? i.e. something like the witness heard a vehicle leave the scene, but didn't see it. The police know, or think they know, it was a white van (it's always a white van after all), and during questioning they mention that detail. The witness then incorporates "white van" into their memory, and voila, they recall seeing and hearing a white van). Those sorts of things. In research, "wrong" details are given of things the person saw, so show them a video with a white van, question them about a blue van, and they later recall a blue van as being what they saw. That just makes it easier to know when the misinformation was incorrectly recalled, etc.

Anyway, without having the interview transcripts, there is, of course, always the possibility that the police simply took his statement, asked for details in bits he mentioned (how long were you in the loo the first time? how long between visits? how do you know it was 5:32? etc) and did not insert any of their own information. In such a case, then Cadosche's statement would not be "contaminated" by the misinformation effect. Of course, his memory could be influenced by reading about the events in the news, with those reports modifying things by the time he gets to the inquest. This, however, is always a concern for any of the witnesses in any of the crimes.

Now, for the more interesting and fun lines of speculation. What if the interview process did involve the police influencing Cadosche's recall, resulting in his testimony at the inquest being unreliable with respect to how it reflected his uncontaminated recollections?

What, then, are the likely types of information that the police might "insert"? It seems to me rather unlikely that the police would have any reason to believe that Cadosche should hear anything, voices or fence noises. Moreover, it seems unlikely the police would have reason to believe that Cadosche should have gone to the loo twice, or that he should have left home around 5:30 (to view the Spitalfields clock at 5:32), or that he should get up around 5:15ish. Those cover, I think, the majority of the factual statements that Cadosche gives, and the misinformation effect is about incorrect "facts" being supplied because they were inserted from elsewhere (not actual memories created at the time being recounted).

Rather, by the time the police are interviewing Cadosche, they no doubt already had Dr. Phillips estimated ToD of 4:30 or earlier. Cadosche's statement, therefore, is going to run counter to their beliefs. If we think the police interview was conducted in such a manner that we worry the "misinformation effect" could be in play, then it is far more likely the police questioning would be such as to reduce Cadosche's memory of conflicting information. He could have initially been absolutely sure he heard voices from the backyard of #29, for example, and because the police believed Annie to be dead at that time, and like people today, they can't accept a casual conversation between two people in the presence of her mutilated corpse, they introduce the idea that the voices may have come from elsewhere! They potentially contaminate Cadosche's memory to alter the source away from where he initially recalled hearing it from. This would be similar to the interview of Schwartz, where Schwartz initially reported that "Lipski" was shouted to "Broad Shoulder's" accomplice, "Pipeman", but the police believed it more probable that it was actually shouted at Schwartz himself. As a result, Schwartz backed down and decided he was no longer sure of whom "Lipski" was indeed shouted at. In that case, however, the police did continue to investigate Schwartz's initial version and were tracking down all the Lipski families in the area even though they were not confident that would be fruitful. (That's good policing by the way - believe whatever you want - but investigate everything you cannot prove is wrong). Anyway, what I'm getting at is that Cadosche's testimony at the inquest, therefore, would be unreliable because it understates his initial certainty that the voices did indeed come from #29's back yard. We only get it after the police's belief of an earlier ToD contaminated his recall (all, of course, purely speculation).

In other words, the "misinformation effect" doesn't always mean the witnesses are wrong in a way that makes them provide additional information than they originally recalled (i.e. recalling seeing a white van when they only heard a vehicle), but it can also work to reduce the information they initially recalled. Both changes mean the later testimony is less reliable in terms of reflecting the witness's initial actual memory of the events.

Given the police are far more likely to have a working theory that conflicts with the information that Cadosche would be supplying them, if the misinformation effect is "in play", then it is far more likely to be one where Cadosche's testimony is diminished with respect to placing Annie and JtR in the backyard of #29 than for the misinformation effect to act in a way to increase that idea.

Anyway, this is all purely story telling, of course, because we do not have the actual interview. It is possible the questioning proceeded in such a way that there would be no contamination in either direction after all, and his account at the inquest is actually what he recalls. His various statements indicating some degree of uncertainty would not be surprising given he had no real reason for paying any particular attention to things. On the other hand, given we know the police believed Annie to be dead well before Cadosche's loo visits, if their questioning reflected that, then perhaps Cadosche's uncertainty reflects the fact that it was the police who made him doubt what he initially recalled very confidently. Our version may not reliably reflect his initial confidence at all (which is all that "unreliable" means - it doesn't mean completely wrong, it's just not completely right either, and a reduced confidence is not completely how he initially recalled it).

Again, given we have no transcripts to interpret, if nothing else, the above shows how things like the misinformation effect do not always go in the direction that seems to be assumed.

- Jeff

[New Waterloo]

I am assuming (bad start I know) that what we would I like would be to establish the identity of JTR once a for all. (maybe not of course)

Anyway for those of us who do, I am going to harp on again about looking at we have, witness statements, press reports, weather details, maps, etc etc. If we get a witness who we think gives unreliable evidence then lets ignore them totally. Then see what we have got. Of course if we think that all witnesses are unreliable then there really is no hope. If we disregard Cadosch we still have Long, but some of us don't like that because the description doesn't fit with a favourite suspect!

So disregard Long and stick with Cadosch. That doesn't give us anything in particular to help us with any identification.

Just for one moment accept both of them and we have great evidence, offender seen, noise heard probably of the murder taking place. People in the house to research etc. A good start I would suggest.

NW

[GBinOz]

Sadly, I'm not sure we have any records of the initial confidence expressed by most witnesses. We do have Long stating she was sure the woman she saw was Annie, but we do not know if that was the confidence she expressed at the time she identified Annie at the morgue. If she initially expressed a low confidence, but the police reacted in a way that indicated that was indeed the victim, then her confidence as it comes to us could be inflated. But if she was sure at the time of the identification, then we would have much more reason to put stock in her identification of Annie. Which is it? We don't know, so we can't (well shouldn't) claim either but rather consider both possibilities.

Hi Jeff,

Star Sep 12:
A woman named Durrell, who minds carts on market morning in Spitalfields Market, stated yesterday that, about half-past five o'clock on Saturday morning, she was passing the front door of No. 29, Hanbury-street, when she saw a man and a woman standing on the pavement. She heard the man say, "Will you?" and the woman replied, "Yes." They then disappeared. Mrs. Durrell does not think she could identify the couple.

Star Sep 13:
A woman named Mrs. Durrell made a statement yesterday to the effect that at about half-past five o'clock on the morning of the murder of Mrs. Chapman she saw a man and a woman conversing outside No. 29, Hanbury-street, the scene of the murder, and that they disappeared very suddenly. Mrs. Durrell was taken to the mortuary yesterday, and identified the body of Chapman as that of the woman whom she saw in Hanbury-street.

Inquest Sep 19:
Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.
[Coroner] At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them.

Three days after the event, with newspapers crammed with articles on the murder, Long suddenly remembers seeing a woman she has never seen before, and whom she doesn't think she could identify. A day later she does identify her. Did the police show her only one body? At the inquest she testifies that she sees lots of couples at that time of morning, and does not take much notice of them.

I have very low confidence in her story.

Best regards, George

[A P Tomlinson]

You did give reasons.

I didn't ignore them.

I explained why the 'misinformation effect' goes far beyond your understanding of that concept.

You began by claiming it was: 'being deliberately misled by figures of authority'. I explained to you that this demonstrates your lack of knowledge of the subject. Where's the problem? That's a fair exchange: your words and then the reality pointed out to you.



Is there such a thing as a 'pet psychology'?

This sounds very much like you're struggling to put a decent argument together and so you're falling back on nonsense.



Fine. This is what I posted.

There are various reasons and factors generating the misinformation effect, such as: leading questions and even very subtle changes in the words that make up the questions, the eye-witness didn't take much notice of what was going on around him/her and so the event was never fully encoded into the memory and information gleaned after the event filled the gaps, information gleaned after an event is more recent in the memory and so it's easier to retrieve, discussing the event with other people after the event, reading newspapers, information heard at an inquest. 'Just a few of many factors that can effect the process of encoding, storing and recollecting an event.

This is very relevant to Albert in that by his own admission, he had other things on his mind and this wasn't an out of the ordinary event. There is a case to suggest that the event would not have been fully encoded in Albert's mind and information he received after the event, filled the gaps. Albert, of course, was subject to various forms of information from various sources, after the event.

Is there anything in the above that is demonstrably false?

I'm still seeing absolutely nothing in your "I'm smarter than you because I have the coolest links" to show anything at all that supports a contention that Albert Cadosche might be an unreliable witness.
You don't need all that flannel when all you are doing is using his own words against him. "he had other things on his mind and this wasn't an out of the ordinary event."
THAT is ALL you have put forward, and in all the reports and papers you have linked, NONE of it suggests that those two conditionss would see him create a false memory.
In fact most of the deeper eading suggests that thosetwo conditions would provide a clearer recollection of a sudden event.

I gave you a list of speceific measures that might contribute to a false memory or memory issue, you said that I don't understand the effect. Then point out why those markers dont impact memory (when the studies say they do) but can't show me which markers, incitors and triggers, of the kind mentioned in the reports DO impact him.
You won't reply to those points the way someone who genuinely wanted to discuss a witness would. You don't seem to know how... there are no links for you to post specifically adressing them that someone else thought up. I'mpretty sure that you yourslefhave no understanding of the misniformation effect,certainly not enough to appply any of it as a psychological tool to the witnessYOU wanted to discuss.

You have dressed up a "Look how smart I am, with all my sources" thread as a discussion on a witness. You have wholly failed to address that witness in anything more than what seems like an irritated distraction from your goal of pushing an idea that simply does not apply in this situation.

I addressed "he had other things on his mind and this wasn't an out of the ordinary event." and you said I don't understand the misiniformation effect. Which kind of proves my point that you have no interest in discussing Cadosche's reliability and are soap boxing a psychology study.
You have made no effort to advance such a discussion unless it is specifically about your links.

It's been over thirty five years since my Latin O level, and I only got a C, so you'll need to forgive the syntax in the following. (I might have got veteres and bollocks back to front.)
The entire purpose in establishing this thread under the guise of a genuine discussion about witness reliability, appears to have been a "loquentes onere veteres bollocks, temptare sonum et callidum" argument.

When you get round to discussing Albert I'm back in. If all you are doing is throwing rounds links and not explaining the specifics of how they impact the one witness you chose to talkabout, I'm not going round in circles with you any more.
Start by going back to the first line of your initial argument and explain which of the "various reasons and factors" you claim apply in the case of M. Cadosche.
So far you haven't given ONE.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Three days after the event, with newspapers crammed with articles on the murder, Long suddenly remembers seeing a woman she has never seen before, and whom she doesn't think she could identify. A day later she does identify her. Did the police show her only one body? At the inquest she testifies that she sees lots of couples at that time of morning, and does not take much notice of them.

I have very low confidence in her story.

I agree 100%, George.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Paragraphs 2-5 are discussing witness testimony in general, and applies whether or not the information they are giving is identification or not. Paragraph 6 opens similarly, although it closes with me commenting on an article that I found interesting that dealt specifically with suspect identification and initial expressed confidence. When I get a chance, I want to see if anyone has verified that relationship to other forms of information other than just suspect identification. I see no obvious reason why the finding wouldn't generalize, however having conducted enough of my own research, results can be surprising at times.

The end of paragraph 6, the quote from the article I mention (paragraph 7), and 8 do focus on identification because that is the specific information the article I mentioned dealt with.

Paragraph 9 I go back to talking about "information" not identification per se, so generalized comments, and use Richardson as an example of where we have an indication of initial confidence (that the body wasn't there), which according to the article is an indicator of accuracy (delayed expressions of confidence are not), at least with identifications but I see no reason at this time as to why it wouldn't apply to other details as well (again, I hope to verify that with actual research - at the moment it's a working hypothesis).

Paragraph 10 I return to Long's identification because I think that's an interesting point, and I wanted to emphasize how her statement of being "sure" it was Annie, when given at the inquest, doesn't satisfy the conditions that the study required in terms of using that high confidence as an indicator of accuracy. It's too far removed from her initial identification at the morgue, which we do not have recorded.

And that should have made it clear that we similarly cannot make claims about things like "the conditions for the misinformation effect were met during XXX's interview" without having those interviews.

You were missing the forest for the trees by word counting rather than over all content.



Oh my, you really don't understand the difference between experimental research conducted in a lab setting, and the transfer of that information to real world settings do you?

Ok, let me try and explain. See, the research into such things as the "misinformation effect", and various other aspects that influence memory reliability, is generally very good research. Loftus, for example, has done some exceptional work over her decades long career. Nothing I've said above in any way indicates that research is not worth knowing about.

However, what you've failed to take on board, is that the frequency of things like providing misinformation is determined by the experimenter in a research project. The frequency of providing misinformation during an interview, for example, will not reflect the frequency that such information occurs in a real world situation. The research may have a higher rate or a lower rate than that actual occurrence. To determine that one has to do an observational study of interview techniques, code statements by the interviewer, and so forth.

But even if we know the natural "rate of occurrence" of such things, in order to know if a given individual witness, such as Cadosche, was provided with "misinformation" during his interview, we would need to have his interview transcript. We would need to see what questions were asked, how were they phrased, and so forth, to see if the findings from the research actually might apply.

You would have to presume, for example, that during Cadosche's interview, when he recounts his testimony, that for some reason the police provided him misinformation about the source of the sounds, or even that he heard sounds, or the words that heard, or the number of times he went to the loo that morning, and then as a result, Cadosche's memory for those events altered and he now believes events that didn't occur. I find it hard to understand why you would think such a thing as I see no reason why the police, at that early stage of the investigation, would have formed any idea about what Cadosche might have done or heard.

In short, without the transcripts you cannot claim the necessary conditions to produce any particular influence were met - we simply have to be aware that they might have happened, but then again, they might not. In the end, we are left with simply having to do what we can, which is evaluate the testimony as given, look to see if what was said is obviously wrong, and if not, retain it as potentially correct. There is simply no way of knowing if a witness's memory has been subjected to a potentially misdirecting influence without the police interview transcripts.

I'm not sure we know when Cadosche spoke to the police either? The longer the delay, the greater the chance he may have read about the crime in the papers, or talked with others, and so forth, which can influence one's recollections of course.

One possible avenue to explore, though, would be to track down statements he's made over time and look for how his description of, say, the "fence noise" changes. I seem to recall there are various phrases used, like "something touched the fence suddenly" all the way to "something falling against the fence"? Given these are press reports, we would have to worry about the phrasing being the choice of the reporter rather than of Cadosche, but if we had a few versions of him speaking with the press over time, and then of course his inquest statement, it could be there's an argument for his later descriptions being phrased more in line with the idea he heard Annie's body hitting the fence (which I think many argue is unlikely, even those who think the murder happened at the later time - as if that's just when he strangled her, it would seem most likely he would abort the mutilation phase as soon as the cost was clear). Anyway, it may be that such a trajectory reflects his memory starting to conform to what he may think have happened, and so one could argue for preference to be given to his earlier reports (before his memory became potentially contaminated).

Again, there are lots of reasons why one would still want to be very cautious though, given that there are a lot of reasons why he might phrase things a bit different each time he tells his story (that's language), and the very real possibility that the words as printed are not the words he spoke.

Anyway, as I say, without the transcripts you cannot go any further than what people have done all along, and say his memory may be incorrect, which of course is undeniable.

What you certainly cannot say is that he was misdirected during the interview without actually knowing the interview.

- Jeff

We could go 'round the houses with preamble and the like but that would be avoiding the subject at hand so let's not.

What exactly in the following do you not agree with?

There are various reasons and factors generating the misinformation effect, such as: leading questions and even very subtle changes in the words that make up the questions, the eye-witness didn't take much notice of what was going on around him/her and so the event was never fully encoded into the memory and information gleaned after the event filled the gaps, information gleaned after an event is more recent in the memory and so it's easier to retrieve, discussing the event with other people after the event, reading newspapers, information heard at an inquest. 'Just a few of many factors that can effect the process of encoding, storing and recollecting an event.

This is very relevant to Albert in that by his own admission, he had other things on his mind and this wasn't an out of the ordinary event. There is a case to suggest that the event would not have been fully encoded in Albert's mind and information he received after the event, filled the gaps. Albert, of course, was subject to various forms of information from various sources, after the event.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I'm still seeing absolutely nothing in your "I'm smarter than you because I have the coolest links"

Nobody who is here to discuss reasonably will bother to read your post after that opening line.

Feel free to put something down on paper that discusses the OP. That way you'll be taken seriously.

[Herlock Sholmes]

AP’s opening line isn’t as off-putting as a tedious repetition of poorly judged logical fallacies.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

Star Sep 12:
A woman named Durrell, who minds carts on market morning in Spitalfields Market, stated yesterday that, about half-past five o'clock on Saturday morning, she was passing the front door of No. 29, Hanbury-street, when she saw a man and a woman standing on the pavement. She heard the man say, "Will you?" and the woman replied, "Yes." They then disappeared. Mrs. Durrell does not think she could identify the couple.

Star Sep 13:
A woman named Mrs. Durrell made a statement yesterday to the effect that at about half-past five o'clock on the morning of the murder of Mrs. Chapman she saw a man and a woman conversing outside No. 29, Hanbury-street, the scene of the murder, and that they disappeared very suddenly. Mrs. Durrell was taken to the mortuary yesterday, and identified the body of Chapman as that of the woman whom she saw in Hanbury-street.

Inquest Sep 19:
Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.
[Coroner] At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them.

Three days after the event, with newspapers crammed with articles on the murder, Long suddenly remembers seeing a woman she has never seen before, and whom she doesn't think she could identify. A day later she does identify her. Did the police show her only one body? At the inquest she testifies that she sees lots of couples at that time of morning, and does not take much notice of them.

I have very low confidence in her story.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

I too have reservations about Long's identification, particularly if it involved only showing one body, which is similar to a confrontation style suspect identification; this method does result in higher false positives - of course, it can result in an accurate identification too, but the important thing is that one cannot tell if a "Yes, that is them" is a false positive or a true identification.

I don't have a big issue if her initial thoughts were she doubted she would recognize them. She might have realised that her assumption was wrong when she saw Annie after all, so going from "I don't think I could" to then producing an identification isn't really a big deal. And by the time she's come out and spoken to the press about her identification, it is too late for us to use her level of confidence because what is important is her expressed level of confidence at the point she makes the identification. See, if she said something like "I think that might be the woman", and the police reacted in a way that she realised that was the victim, then from that point on her confidence will probably increase as she "got it right". That's the sort of problem we face.

I know I mentioned the idea of looking at things over the newspapers, but for a witness who is potentially as important as Long, and given that confidence as an index of accuracy is only valid right at the identification point itself (and easily influenced by the reaction of the attending police, etc), I wouldn't risk using even her statements at the point she's exited the building as a strong indicator. We do, however, have to acknowledge that she does testify she was sure it was Annie, so by the inquest she is very confident. But there are good reasons to be wary.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

We could go 'round the houses with preamble and the like but that would be avoiding the subject at hand so let's not.

What exactly in the following do you not agree with?

There are various reasons and factors generating the misinformation effect, such as: leading questions and even very subtle changes in the words that make up the questions, the eye-witness didn't take much notice of what was going on around him/her and so the event was never fully encoded into the memory and information gleaned after the event filled the gaps, information gleaned after an event is more recent in the memory and so it's easier to retrieve, discussing the event with other people after the event, reading newspapers, information heard at an inquest. 'Just a few of many factors that can effect the process of encoding, storing and recollecting an event.

This is very relevant to Albert in that by his own admission, he had other things on his mind and this wasn't an out of the ordinary event. There is a case to suggest that the event would not have been fully encoded in Albert's mind and information he received after the event, filled the gaps. Albert, of course, was subject to various forms of information from various sources, after the event.

There's nothing wrong with the opening paragraph really. Lots of things make memory less than perfect.

Cadosche's testimony, though, isn't exactly full of explicit and exotic details. And remembering you went to the loo twice that morning isn't exactly all that much of a stretch, nor is recalling you heard some people talking. At the time he may have heard more than just "No", but because he wasn't paying all that much attention, that's all he recalls later. A bump on the fence, while nothing unusual, still would be something not overly surprising to recall, particularly if it was just after he passed so came from slightly behind him and startled him slightly.

There's really nothing, though, that would generate those types of memory distortions from hearing about the crime. Hearing there was a murder next door isn't going to implant false memories of him hearing voices and/or noises on the fence. So I'm not sure how you see that first paragraph as being at all relevant to his testimony. But to each their own.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

im still waiting for somebody to tell me how three independent witnesses that all corroborate a later TOD and each other are somehow unreliable.

one branch might be able to be broken, but three bound together is almost impossible.