Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[Wickerman]

I don't suppose there's any more of that you could point me to? I'd love to read anything that helps us understand some of the more detailed aspects of what boundaries, guidelines and standards the coppers were working within at the time.

I'll take a look to see if I have the complete list, it's just a section out of the middle and I can't remember why.

It sounds like you did not get an opportunity to buy Sir Howard Vincent's Police Code 1889, Bell & Wood, 2015. This is the handbook for the constable at the time, all the rules and guidelines to do their job properly. It was published by Casebook members Neil Bell & Adam Wood.
It was a limited publication of 25 at first, I can't recall if they expanded that though.
Neil Bell used to be on here under the name Monty, last visit was June this year.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I think Baxter not unreasonably, in the circumstances, chose to side with the three lay witnesses, rather than with the medical expert who had examined the body, and Phillips was encouraged to qualify his opinion in order to make the verdict more credible.

[A P Tomlinson]

I'll take a look to see if I have the complete list, it's just a section out of the middle and I can't remember why.

It sounds like you did not get an opportunity to buy Sir Howard Vincent's Police Code 1889, Bell & Wood, 2015. This is the handbook for the constable at the time, all the rules and guidelines to do their job properly. It was published by Casebook members Neil Bell & Adam Wood.
It was a limited publication of 25 at first, I can't recall if they expanded that though.
Neil Bell used to be on here under the name Monty, last visit was June this year.

Never occured to me it would have been republished. Thankfully, there is a epub version of it on Amazon, unfortuately there doesn't appear to be a PoD version.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I think Baxter not unreasonably, in the circumstances, chose to side with the three lay witnesses, rather than with the medical expert who had examined the body, and Phillips was encouraged to qualify his opinion in order to make the verdict more credible.

Baxter was not alone in placing unqualified faith in witnesses. The research put forward on this thread was not available to people of that age and they simply had no idea of how memory actually works.

The Neuroscience of Memory: Implications for the Courtroom - PMC (nih.gov)

As the article states:

In the legal system, like among the general public, it is generally assumed that memory is highly accurate and largely indelible, at least in the case of ‘strong’ memories.

Most individuals outside the field of memory research (including jurors) are largely unaware of the substantial malleability of memory

In other words, people like Baxter, and the vast majority of people today, assume that memory works like taking a photograph and they do not realise that the process from encoding to recollection is subject to various influences that distort the event versus the recollection.

Most of the research has been undertaken since the advent of DNA and it's only now that it is beginning to be applied in court rooms in earnest.

As the article states:

Recently, some regional jurisdictions, such as New Jersey, Massachusetts, Texas, and North Carolina have implemented procedural changes designed to mitigate effects of memory biases and to best preserve accurate memories of eyewitnesses.

So, what we have is an unauthoritative person, i.e. Baxter, making a judgement without the information that is widely accepted today available to him; and in the United States at least, that information informs their law enforcement guidance and practice.

[Wickerman]

Never occured to me it would have been republished. Thankfully, there is a epub version of it on Amazon, unfortuately there doesn't appear to be a PoD version.

ABEbooks seem to have a few copies at $25 US.

[JeffHamm]

In effect, you're not challenging me: you're challenging the qualified people who undertook the studies and the conclusion they formed.

They tell you their conclusion in that article: Bigelow and Poremba's study builds upon those findings by confirming that, indeed, we remember less of what we hear.

Your response can only mean that you disagree with them on their conclusion.

In terms of whether or not you're correct or they're correct, they're authorities in that field; you're not.

Take note: 'builds upon those findings and confirming'. This means that they are not the first to undertake studies and conclude that 'we remember less of what we hear'.

You misinterpret my post. I in no way disagreed with the research, or the conclusions the authors present in their papers.

I disagree with your notion that this research addresses the issue at hand.

It doesn't because you are similarly misinterpreting the research papers, as I pointed out.

The papers you are mentioning would be more suitable to issues that George has mentioned, such as his suggestion that maybe Cadosche has misrecalled the sound of a packing case hitting the fence rather than the sound of a human; or the suggestion that Long has misrecalled the quarter past chime as being the half hour chime. You are presenting it as if Cadosche has misrecalled hearing sounds at all, which is not what the research is testing. Even these suggestions, though, are debatable as these studies are testing recognition memory and not recall memory, and the two are not identical.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Once again, you're cynically manipulating posters' comments.

Im the one being honest. You’re the one who had a theory that Chapman must have been killed earlier and you’ve tried to move heaven and earth to make an earlier ToD fit.

Everybody on the John Richardson accepted that estimating a TOD accurately is problematic.

Really? Apart from those who kept telling us that Phillips was a professional and so should have been able to get a ToD correct. Apart from the ones who tried to compare Eddowes with Chapman to wangle an earlier ToD despite being told a zillion times that you can’t compare. Apart from those (you) going to the most extraordinary, desperate lengths to try and make it sound like some bizarrely unlikely occurrence that Chapman might have eaten again. Apart from those who tried to cynically twist the very obvious and only possible meaning of the caveat to suit their own agenda.

On the other hand, you are dismissing out of hand the research undertaken by qualified people, which is accepted as meaningful in that field; and utilised by organisations such as the United States Department for Justice.

No, I’m saying that they’re useless in this case as others have told you. All that you’re doing is repeating the same old generalisation that witnesses can be wrong. Well guess what? They can be right too. So all of your quotes are simply diversion tactics to prop up a hopelessly lost cause.

You have a habit of making claims that actually apply to you far more than anyone else.

Potum Kettlum Blackus - I’m sure you can work that one out.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

... going to the most extraordinary, desperate lengths to try and make it sound like some bizarrely unlikely occurrence that Chapman might have eaten again.

It is not a question of whether it is something bizarrely unlikely.

The point is that the evidence is that she had already eaten, that she quite deliberately went indoors to eat and drink, and that she then went out to earn money to pay for her bed for the night, not to obtain more food.

It is about what the evidence tells us.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Apart from those who kept telling us that Phillips was a professional and so should have been able to get a ToD correct.

Leaving your other nonsense aside, actually, no, nobody told you that. You're making it up yet again.

Read the thread and you'll find that of the four people on that thread who believe Annie was murdered earlier than twenty past five in the morning; George, Fishy and Trevor didn't rely on Dr Phillips at all. All three of them weren't convinced by Dr Phillips' ability to come up with a 'reliable estimate'. They had other reasons for suggesting Annie wasn't alive at a quarter past five in the morning.

I was the one who thought Dr Phillips knew more than that which was suggested by the like of you.

The problem with your argument, and not just you, a few more as well; is this:

Dr Phillips didn't attempt to give an accurate TOD. He clearly accepted the limitations of estimating TOD, which is why he stated: "and probably more" but didn't attempt to narrow that down for one obvious reason, i.e. he knew he was getting into waters that outstripped his knowledge.

What he did say was 'at least two hours'. He was confident in that assertion.

[Fiver]

What he did say was 'at least two hours'. He was confident in that assertion.

That is selectively quoting Dr Phillips. He clearly qualified that estimate by noting things that could render it wrong - the coldness of the morning and the blood loss.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That is selectively quoting Dr Phillips. He clearly qualified that estimate by noting things that could render it wrong - the coldness of the morning and the blood loss.

Why did he not think of the coldness of the morning and the blood loss in the first place?

[Fleetwood Mac]

That is selectively quoting Dr Phillips. He clearly qualified that estimate by noting things that could render it wrong - the coldness of the morning and the blood loss.

This was discussed on the other thread, the one that the moderator locked because it descended into stupidity, ad nauseam.

Let's just say that we do not agree.

[Darryl Kenyon]

One thing which has always gnarled at me regarding Dr Phillips testimony on the TOD, is how many bodies like Annie's had he actually examined in his professional capacity ? I mean the throat was cut deeply, Annie had been more or less disemboweled with certain parts missing.
Could Dr Phillips with possibly the inadequate conditions and equipment he had to work with come up with a solid TOD ? I know he was a Doctor of experience but Annie's corpse to him would be more or less unique . I am not surprised he gave the caveat on the coldness of the morning and especially the blood loss.

Regards Darryl

[Sunny Delight]

No one is suggesting that times couldn’t match up at times. Someone of them would have taken the same clock as their original source. But that aside, would you claim that modern day clocks couldn’t be 5 or 6 minutes out? Or that modern clocks are all synchronised? If the answer to those two questions are ‘no,’ and they certainly should be ‘no,’ then I fail to see why you or anyone else should refuse to allow a similar margin for error in clocks and watches in a late Victorian slum?

This really shouldn’t require discussion PI.

Anecdotally I was at work last week and happened to look at my watch. It was 1:34pm. The clock on the shop floor said 1:31pm and when I checked the computer it was 1:36pm. Which one was right? Most likely the computer meaning both my watch and the shop clock were slow.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Rigor mortis appears approximately 2 hours after death in the muscles of the face, progresses to the limbs over the next few hours

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/N...approximately% 202,after%20death)%20and%20then%20disappears.


In humans, rigor mortis can occur as soon as four hours after death.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigor_mortis

The time of onset is variable but it is usually considered to appear between 1 and 6 hours (average 2–4 hours) after death.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/rigor-mortis

rigor mortis begins 2 to 4 hours after death

https://www.osmosis.org/answers/livor-mortis

Rigor mortis starts 2 to 6 hours after death

https://www.scienceabc.com/pure-sciences/what-is-rigor-mortis-and-how-do-forensic-experts-use-it-to-determine-time-of-death.html

rigor mortis begins a few hours after death

https://facts.net/rigor-mortis-facts/

In humans, rigor mortis can occur within 4 hours of death.

https://academic-accelerator.com/encyclopedia/rigor-mortis

Rigor mortis settles in at 2–6 hours after death

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321792#_noHeaderPrefixedContent

rigor mortis begins within two to six hours of death

https://oshosammasati.org/after-death/rigor-mortis-physical-changes-occurring-death/