Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[Wickerman]

Hello Herlock. You are talking a great deal of sense to me. The evidence points to Long seeing Chapman and JTR and Cadoche hearing sounds from the yard related to the murder. We may not like that but that is the evidence. OK so the times don't fit. So I have a suggestion;

Follow the trail and see where it takes us. Believing all the witnesses, ignoring the time issues.

Take Longs evidence out and see with this trail leads us

Take Cadoche evidence out and see where this trail leads us.

In other words try all the different combinations and see the outcomes. But not adding in our thoughts or opinions just based on the evidence

If we believe all the witnesses in the case of Chapman this may be our greatest chance of getting somewhere. Otherwise we are just creating our own dead ends.

NW

Yes, if there is conflicting evidence the coroner will & does draw attention to it.
Here coroner Baxter admits a discrepancy of approx. 15 minutes is not of any real significance.

[Wickerman]

You really think that the murderer was a dark man who looked (but apparently did not sound) like a foreigner, and was in his forties?

Do you think "dark man" means of dark complexion, or dark skinned?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Do you think "dark man" means of dark complexion, or dark skinned?

I did not see the man's face, but I noticed that he was dark.

(Elizabeth Long)


The first known reference to the phrase "tall, dark and handsome" can be found in "The Story of Hester Malpas" published in The New Monthly Magazine and Literary Journal, 1833.

In that expression, dark seems always to have referred to hair colour.

Note that a witness to the escape of the assailant of Ada Wilson described him as a fair young man and Ada herself said that he had a fair moustache.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Clocks being wrong by five or six minutes is not nothing, Herlock.

But it is though. We have a quote on here from an expert who said that you’d be lucky to find a clock less than ten minutes out in Victorian London. The timing is nothing. Cadosch’s hearings and Long’s sightings can accurately be said to have been at the same time. There can be no question of this. Even in 2023 bigger time gaps are entirely possible.

In the Mitre Square murder, there are far more timings and yet there is no conflict among any of them.

How do you know that? As an example, if we had taken Lawende to the Police station are you suggesting that his watch would have been exactly the same as the station clock?

It is not correct to imply that there is a minute chance of the clocks having been about right in the case of the Hanbury Street murder.

Im saying that there is no more chance of them being 5 minutes one way than the other. It’s simply a fact PI. If we don’t accept a margin for error then we are working from a false base.

Nor is it correct to say that unless Long was lying, then she must have seen what she reported to have seen at just the right spot and at just the right time.

We cannot be sure even that it was the same day, but we can be sure that according to her evidence, she did not see the couple at just the right spot and, furthermore, we cannot be sure that it was at just the right time in order for her to have seen Chapman before she was murdered and before Cadoche heard her being murdered.

But the point is that we simply can’t dismiss her which is what we tend to get here from those determined to get an earlier ToD. Yes we can suggest that she was an idiot who didn’t know what day it was or that she didn’t know what street she was in.

The reasons Lawende's evidence is more credible are that there were two witnesses to confirm his evidence that he saw the couple at the time he said he saw them, and there is no doubt that the murder took place shortly after that sighting.

It still doesn’t mean that it was the couple that they saw though. And using the criteria employed by the Poluce Long comes out as a more reliable witness.

In Long's case, there are no such witnesses and there is conflicting evidence about the time of death.

There are two witnesses. Cadosch and Richardson who I’d suggest a far more reliable that two blokes walking home from a club at 1.30am in the dark and who paid almost no attention to the couple.

There is no conflicting evidence about the Chapman ToD. Phillips was wrong because the three witnesses can’t have been. We only need one. Richardson alone proves a later ToD. It’s sealed with Richardson. Cadosch and Long are a bonus putting it beyond all reasonable doubt.

Annie Chapman was killed at 5.25/5.30. This should be considered as close to a fact as possible.

[A P Tomlinson]

I did not see the man's face, but I noticed that he was dark.

(Elizabeth Long)


The first known reference to the phrase "tall, dark and handsome" can be found in "The Story of Hester Malpas" published in The New Monthly Magazine and Literary Journal, 1833.

In that expression, dark seems always to have referred to hair colour.

Note that a witness to the escape of the assailant of Ada Wilson described him as a fair young man and Ada herself said that he had a fair moustache.

I think that's probably the case.

In Lloyds 16th Sept, Mrs Richardson refers to Annie thus;

"When I saw the murdered body I was so shocked I did not like to look particularly at her face, but I have no doubt it was the dark woman that used to come round with cotton and crochet work and I have bought off her many times when she said that she had been hard up. She used to come round these houses and other neighbours used to buy off her too and lend her money when she had not enough for her lodgings."

I don't think anyone would have considered Annie to be of dark complexion, so I think it's either a reference to hair, or character.

If they were refering to someone of darker skin tone, or "foreign" the terminology and societal sensitivities of they day were such that it would not have been considered impolite to say so pretty bluntly.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello Herlock. You are talking a great deal of sense to me. The evidence points to Long seeing Chapman and JTR and Cadoche hearing sounds from the yard related to the murder. We may not like that but that is the evidence. OK so the times don't fit. So I have a suggestion;

Follow the trail and see where it takes us. Believing all the witnesses, ignoring the time issues.

Take Longs evidence out and see with this trail leads us

Take Cadoche evidence out and see where this trail leads us.

In other words try all the different combinations and see the outcomes. But not adding in our thoughts or opinions just based on the evidence

If we believe all the witnesses in the case of Chapman this may be our greatest chance of getting somewhere. Otherwise we are just creating our own dead ends.

NW

Hi NW,

I certainly agree on the time issues. I honestly don’t see them as issues though. I think that when we’re looking at a crime like this it’s far more of a problem if we try to insist that all watches and clocks were closely synchronised. I did a simple experiment a while ago which I posted on the other thread. I had visitors and took the current time from 5 people and three household clocks. So in 2023, using electronic household clocks, an iPhone and 4 smart phones I found a range of 8 minutes. These kinds of discrepancies are evident everywhere so why is it that when it’s suggested that Cadosch and Long only had to be out with their time by 5 or 6 minutes do some react as if I’ve suggested something bizarre?

Ditto Richardson. Some still just can’t bring themselves to accept what we all know as a fact…..that a Victorian Doctor couldn’t estimate a ToD with a greater level of accuracy than a modern day one. And yet some feel obliged to ‘defend’ Phillips. I don’t get it to be honest

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

We have a quote on here from an expert who said that you’d be lucky to find a clock less than ten minutes out in Victorian London.

(HS)



Here are the timings for the Mitre Square murder:

At 1.28, Harvey was in Church Passage.
He saw no-one.

At 1.30, Watkins saw no-one in Mitre Square.

At 1.35, Lawende saw the couple in Church Passage.
According to Levy, it was at about 1.34.

At 1.40, Harvey was in Church Passage.
He saw no-one.

At 1.44, Watkins found the body in Mitre Square.
He called on the watchman Morris.
According to Morris, that was at about 1:45.

At 1.55, Inspector Collard, at Bishopsgate Police Station, received news of the murder.
He dispatched a constable to Gordon Brown, informing him of the murder.
He himself proceeded to Mitre Square.

Shortly after 2:00 AM Dr Brown was informed of the murder.

Dr Sequeira said that he arrived in Mitre Square at 1:55.

At 2.02 or 2.03, Inspector Collard arrived in Mitre Square, where he saw Dr Seqeira with the body.
He said that Dr Brown arrived shortly afterwards.
Dr Brown said that he arrived at about 2:20.


They do not support the claim made by your expert.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There are two witnesses. Cadosch and Richardson who I’d suggest a far more reliable that two blokes walking home from a club at 1.30am in the dark and who paid almost no attention to the couple.

Lawende gave a much more detailed description of the man than any Long gave.

In particular, he described the jacket worn by the man, whereas Long was uncertain of the colour of the man's coat.

She did not actually give any description of the woman in her testimony, as it is recorded.

Lawende could hardly have estimated the colours of the man's cap, cap peak, neckerchief, jacket, and moustache, if he had paid almost no attention.

[A P Tomlinson]

We have a quote on here from an expert who said that you’d be lucky to find a clock less than ten minutes out in Victorian London.

(HS)



Here are the timings for the Mitre Square murder:

At 1.28, Harvey was in Church Passage.
He saw no-one.

At 1.30, Watkins saw no-one in Mitre Square.

At 1.35, Lawende saw the couple in Church Passage.
According to Levy, it was at about 1.34.

At 1.40, Harvey was in Church Passage.
He saw no-one.

At 1.44, Watkins found the body in Mitre Square.
He called on the watchman Morris.
According to Morris, that was at about 1:45.

At 1.55, Inspector Collard, at Bishopsgate Police Station, received news of the murder.
He dispatched a constable to Gordon Brown, informing him of the murder.
He himself proceeded to Mitre Square.

Shortly after 2:00 AM Dr Brown was informed of the murder.

Dr Sequeira said that he arrived in Mitre Square at 1:55.

At 2.02 or 2.03, Inspector Collard arrived in Mitre Square, where he saw Dr Seqeira with the body.
He said that Dr Brown arrived shortly afterwards.
Dr Brown said that he arrived at about 2:20.


They do not support the claim made by your expert.

It's a different situation when you have, with Mitre Square, what is mostly a list of official people turning up at a crime scene. If THEY were buggering it up by 10 minute gaps there would be genuine cause for concern.

Lawende and Levy differed by three or four minutes simply on how long it took them to actually get out of the pub from a base time of getting up to leave at 1.30.

I don't think it's fair to compare the police activity at Mitre Square, knowing their behaviour at the scene would be questioned in court and times would be important to keep track of, with the way common men and women kept time in their day to day lives.
No one at Mitre square that night was counting on the precision and reliability of a knocker up to get them there on time.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Updated Mitre Square timings:


At 1.28, Harvey was in Church Passage.
He saw no-one.

At 1.30, Watkins saw no-one in Mitre Square.

At 1.35, Lawende saw the couple in Church Passage.
According to Levy, it was at about 1.34.

At 1.40, Harvey was in Church Passage.
He saw no-one.

At 1.44, Watkins found the body in Mitre Square.
He called on the watchman Morris.
According to Morris, that was at about 1:45.

At 1.55, Inspector Collard, at Bishopsgate Police Station, received news of the murder.
He dispatched a constable to Gordon Brown, informing him of the murder.
He himself proceeded to Mitre Square.
Shortly after 2:00 AM, Dr Brown was informed of the murder.

Dr Sequeira said that he arrived in Mitre Square at 1:55.
Watkins said Dr Sequeira arrived in Mitre Square shortly before 2:00 a.m.


Inspector Collard said he arrived in Mitre Square at 2.02 or 2.03, where he saw Dr Sequeira with the body. (Watkins said Collard arrived at about 2:00 a.m.)
He said that Dr Brown arrived shortly afterwards.
Dr Brown said that he arrived at about 2:20.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Yah, but no.

I've just had a look at the study itself. It's not the same thing. See, the memory test is a recognition test, where you hear a bunch of sounds (like a dog barking, bowling pins, etc) during a study phase of the experiment.

Then, after a delay period (say a week), you get presented with a bunch of sound clips again, and you have to decide if that sound clip was one you heard before or a new one (so an "old/new" decision).

Albert wasn't claiming that a sound produced at the inquest was the same sound he heard (which is what this type of study is testing), but rather he was claiming he had a memory "THAT" a sound occurred. Now, if the study asked people "Did you hear sounds last time?" and a large number of them forgot that sounds were presented, well, that would be relevant. This, however, is tangential at best.

Bringing in research is to be applauded, but at the same time, one has to ensure that the real-world situation is actually related to the research methods. In this case, the research is addressing a very different question than the one we are interested in here. So while it is good research, it is not research that is good for our purposes.

- Jeff

Which is not a reflection of the article/research. This is what they conclude:

Previous research has suggested that humans may have superior visual memory, and that hearing words associated with sounds -- rather than hearing the sounds alone -- may aid memory. Bigelow and Poremba's study builds upon those findings by confirming that, indeed, we remember less of what we hear, regardless of whether sounds are linked to words.

The point is, and was, 'remember less of what we hear'.

[Fleetwood Mac]

4) Research tells us that we forget a significant amount of that which we experience within less than an hour.

Like two things?

Aye, 'like two things'.

That's what the qualified people are telling you. As said, human memory doesn't work in the way you're assuming. The articles are there for you to read.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Here coroner Baxter admits a discrepancy of approx. 15 minutes is not of any real significance.

As said, 'appeal to authority' and a fallacious argument.

Baxter's opinion is no more qualified than yours, mine or the fella in the pub having a beer with his dog.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Clocks being wrong by five or six minutes is not nothing, Herlock.

In the Mitre Square murder, there are far more timings and yet there is no conflict among any of them.

It is not correct to imply that there is a minute chance of the clocks having been about right in the case of the Hanbury Street murder.

Nor is it correct to say that unless Long was lying, then she must have seen what she reported to have seen at just the right spot and at just the right time.

We cannot be sure even that it was the same day, but we can be sure that according to her evidence, she did not see the couple at just the right spot and, furthermore, we cannot be sure that it was at just the right time in order for her to have seen Chapman before she was murdered and before Cadoche heard her being murdered.

The reasons Lawende's evidence is more credible are that there were two witnesses to confirm his evidence that he saw the couple at the time he said he saw them, and there is no doubt that the murder took place shortly after that sighting.

In Long's case, there are no such witnesses and there is conflicting evidence about the time of death.

I agree.

Joseph is a much better witness than the others mentioned.

There is a decent case to suggest that he didn't see Catherine, however.

[Fleetwood Mac]

But you are making it sound as if times have to be ‘adjusted.’ There is nothing remotely unlikely about it. 5 or 6 minutes here or there is absolutely nothing.

You have it the wrong way round.

You are told by the witnesses that their times contradict one another. That is pointed out to you and your reply is: "you make it sound.....".

No, nobody is making it sound like anything except you.

You're the one manipulating what has been left to us.