Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You come to a conclusion then try to make the evidence fit.

That is untrue and I already refuted it in # 372.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You made some comments, if you wish to call them points by all means do, but as they are refuted by what I said before ...

I suppose we will just take your word for it then.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are not 'simply following the evidence'.

You are dogmatically asserting that the murder took place at about 5:30 AM and you are browbeating anyone who thinks otherwise.

I am the one who has not begun from a point of 'assuming' a certain time of death.

I started off siding with the witnesses and a later time of death, but eventually I changed my mind.

That is not the mark of a person with preconceptions nor of someone who resembles a brick wall.

I’m not interested PI to be honest.

You, FM, Fishy and Trevor go for an earlier ToD…fine. (George goes for an earlier ToD too of course but has a balanced approach)

Jeff Hamm and Wickerman (two posters who I’ve respected for years) are on my side of the fence on this. I’m happy with that. Then add newer posters like Fiver, AP, Lewis and Doc. I’m happy with that. Add Steve Blomer (medical background too) Add David Barrat.

So yes…..I’m happy with a later ToD because that’s what the evidence strongly points to. Others may disagree but I’d be convinced of an earlier ToD if we only had Richardson.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

So yes…..I’m happy with a later ToD because that’s what the evidence strongly points to. Others may disagree ...

I see that you are moderating your position.

[JeffHamm]

I suppose we will just take your word for it then.

I guess you will have to as it is clear you're not going to search for the information. I'm not going to go through the work of going through the papers to get the data again, nor am I going to search to find the posts and threads for you as that really doesn't seem worth my while.

- Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

You want to believe, then believe, you don't want to believe then don't believe.

The research you are quoting doesn't mean what you want it to mean. I don't reference my memory research for that very reason - I do research similar to the recent ones you posted, and my research is far removed from witness testimony. I am sure if I wanted, I could twist and misrepresent quotes from research to support whatever claim I wake up wanting to make. But it is not helpful. Either take the the time to read the studies before you post them or hold off posting them until you have the time. Stop searching for quotes that don't mean what you can make them appear to mean.

All it does, actually, is demonstrate that your interpretations of the testimony is likely to be flawed. You have yet to demonstrate an ability to understand my comments, and quite often you need them re-explained. I suspect this post will also require going over.

I see.

You've put forward a series of logical fallacies, i.e. manipulative arguments lacking credibility and basis, and this is demonstrable.

Underpinning one of those arguments, was your claim that I made a point that nowhere did I make (straw man: conjure up an opposing argument and attack that false argument in a manipulative attempt to present your case as stronger than it actually is).

And now this, which is an exercise in verbosity.

At this juncture, I have good grounds to point out that you've ran out of anything sensible to put forward.

[Fleetwood Mac]

You are the one claiming to know something that we can’t know. You are claiming that she wouldn’t have eaten again. This is the Appeal To Ignorance. My position is that we don’t know whether she did or didn’t eat.

Clearly, you do not understand the concept of 'Appeal to Ignorance', yet in your usual manner you put forward the idea that you know what you're talking about, when in fact you demonstrate that you do not have the first clue; with such apparent certainty.

You and Jeff make a right old pair with your straw man arguments and logical fallacies lacking credibility.

1) It is not impossible that Annie ate again after she left the doss house, but the evidence we have at our disposal is that Annie ate at a quarter to two: there is no evidence to the effect that Annie ate after leaving the doss house. This is demonstrable. The evidence we have at our disposal.

2) Your position is: "we don't know and therefore it's an argument of equal worth". That is the very definition of 'Appeal to Ignorance".

A logical fallacy includes failing to provide a source and providing an unauthoritative source. You don't have a source. You're appealing to ignorance, i.e. "we just don't know". I have a source: Annie was seen eating at a quarter to two in the morning. It is evidential that Annie ate at a quarter two; it is not evidential that Annie ate after that.

Wrapped up in this, is an attempt to shift the burden of proof, i.e. your consistent spouting of: you can't prove otherwise and so it's an argument of equal worth; again, this is the very definition of an 'appeal to ignorance'.

The evidence suggests Annie ate once that night. It's not impossible that Annie ate again, but we do not have any evidence for that.

Ultimately, a point for Annie not being alive at half four in the morning, let alone half five in the morning.

[JeffHamm]

Clearly, you do not understand the concept of 'Appeal to Ignorance', yet in your usual manner you put forward the idea that you know what you're talking about, when in fact you demonstrate that you do not have the first clue; with such apparent certainty.

You and Jeff make a right old pair with your straw man arguments and logical fallacies lacking credibility.

1) It is not impossible that Annie ate again after she left the doss house, but the evidence we have at our disposal is that Annie ate at a quarter to two: there is no evidence to the effect that Annie ate after leaving the doss house. This is demonstrable. The evidence we have at our disposal.

Sigh. We have no evidence of anything from the point Annie left the doss house until she was found dead. We have no evidence that that food found in her stomach was potatoes. It is only ever described as "some food". As such, that could be evidence that she ate something else - because if it is not potatoes then clearly she ate something other than the potatoes we know she ate. Moreover, finding a small bit of food in the stomach is very common, even many hours after a victims last known meal. I posted research data on that very question in some other thread ages ago, which clearly showed that even some amount of easily digestible food will be found in the stomach for many hours after a meal. As such, even if the "some food" was potatoes, that is hardly surprising even if she was killed at 5:20.

It's not a straw man argument, rather, it's pointing out the flaws in yours. You making inferences that are not warrented.

2) Your position is: "we don't know and therefore it's an argument of equal worth". That is the very definition of 'Appeal to Ignorance".

No. It is a recognition that when you don't know something you need to recognize you don't know something. Once you recognize that, you will realise how much you are basing your inferences on things you don't actually know.

A logical fallacy includes failing to provide a source and providing an unauthoritative source. You don't have a source. You're appealing to ignorance, i.e. "we just don't know". I have a source: Annie was seen eating at a quarter to two in the morning. It is evidential that Annie ate at a quarter two; it is not evidential that Annie ate after that.

Yet again you conflate things. At no point have I ever said we don't know if she ate potatoes at the doss house. I have said we don't know what she did after she left. That's because, and perhaps this will shock you, we don't know what she did after she left the doss house.

Wrapped up in this, is an attempt to shift the burden of proof, i.e. your consistent spouting of: you can't prove otherwise and so it's an argument of equal worth; again, this is the very definition of an 'appeal to ignorance'.

No it is not. It is an appeal to recognize that when we don't know something we should recognize we don't something.

The evidence suggests Annie ate once that night. It's not impossible that Annie ate again, but we do not have any evidence for that.

The evidence tells us she ate potatoes at the doss house. That in no way tells us how many times she ate. I had breakfast this morning. That in no way allows you to conclude I only ate once today. All we can say is that we know she at at least once, but it does not tell us she only ate once. You seem to think that, despite us having no information about her actions after leaving the doss house, that you somehow still know what she did and did not do. I reject your reliance on clairvoyance and go with the information I have, which is zero from the point she left the doss house until she's found dead. Richardson's testimony indicates she was not dead at 4:50ish, Long suggests she might have been alive on Hanbury street after that, and Cadosche's testimony tends to support the idea that she was alive during his first visit to the loo (his inquest testimony just says he heard someone say "No", but there are some news reports where he indicates the voice was female - so unless you go with the "Jill The Ripper" idea, that would suggest the No was from Annie, and therefore that she was still alive.)

Ultimately, a point for Annie not being alive at half four in the morning, let alone half five in the morning.

The only way for Annie to have been dead at those times requires that all 3 witnesses are incorrect, and also that the death occurred in the early rather than later half of the error window associated with Dr. Phillips estimated ToD. Those end up being pretty long odds, and so on the whole, the evidence is against you. But hey, the 25:1 horse does occasionally win, so go for it.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

I see that you are moderating your position.

You’re even finding something to disagree with on that point?

Disagreement is fine. It only becomes pointless and negative when bias is present. We get people disputing the forensic experts. We get people claiming to be sure that they know what did or didn’t happen during an unrecorded period of time. We get people using a, shall we say, a highly ‘individual’ interpretation of the English language. We get people going to great lengths to denigrate witnesses. This is what happens when discussing events in Hanbury Street.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Clearly, you do not understand the concept of 'Appeal to Ignorance', yet in your usual manner you put forward the idea that you know what you're talking about, when in fact you demonstrate that you do not have the first clue; with such apparent certainty.

You and Jeff make a right old pair with your straw man arguments and logical fallacies lacking credibility.

1) It is not impossible that Annie ate again after she left the doss house, but the evidence we have at our disposal is that Annie ate at a quarter to two: there is no evidence to the effect that Annie ate after leaving the doss house. This is demonstrable. The evidence we have at our disposal.

2) Your position is: "we don't know and therefore it's an argument of equal worth". That is the very definition of 'Appeal to Ignorance".

A logical fallacy includes failing to provide a source and providing an unauthoritative source. You don't have a source. You're appealing to ignorance, i.e. "we just don't know". I have a source: Annie was seen eating at a quarter to two in the morning. It is evidential that Annie ate at a quarter two; it is not evidential that Annie ate after that.

Wrapped up in this, is an attempt to shift the burden of proof, i.e. your consistent spouting of: you can't prove otherwise and so it's an argument of equal worth; again, this is the very definition of an 'appeal to ignorance'.

The evidence suggests Annie ate once that night. It's not impossible that Annie ate again, but we do not have any evidence for that.

Ultimately, a point for Annie not being alive at half four in the morning, let alone half five in the morning.

This is so poor. How can you not understand this?

The period between Annie leaving the lodging house and arriving in Hanbury Street is a complete blank. We don’t have even the slightest information as to where she went or what she did. Zero.

We know the last recorded instance of Annie taking food.

Burden of proof?

I don’t know what she did or didn’t do during that period.

You don’t know what she did or didn’t do in that period.

Neither of us have proof of what she did or didn’t do during that period.

Where you fail (as you consistently do) is to make a positive claim - that she wouldn’t have eaten because she ate a few potatoes at 1.45. You have zero evidence for this as has been explained numerous times.

All that Jeff, myself and any other unbiased person would say is that it’s quite possible that she could have eaten. Of course I have no evidence for this; as you have no evidence that she didn’t. You suggest that she’d already eaten and that she wanted the money for a room. Perfectly correct, but as has been pointed out:

This was a woman who never knew where her next meal was coming from so the time isn’t an issue. There are several ways in which she could have gotten food which didn’t require nipping into Gregg’s!

And to top this off you persist in quoting the food in her stomach which is another Appeal To Ignorance (your second) We don’t know what this was and yet you assume that it was potatoes because it’s convenient to do so.

Annie’s nearly 4 hours is a blank. My position is exactly the same as yours. Exactly. You are simply trying to skew things in your own favour and now you are desperately trying to defend your corner rather than simply admitting your error.

Too much time is wasted explaining the obvious to you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sigh. We have no evidence of anything from the point Annie left the doss house until she was found dead. We have no evidence that that food found in her stomach was potatoes. It is only ever described as "some food". As such, that could be evidence that she ate something else - because if it is not potatoes then clearly she ate something other than the potatoes we know she ate. Moreover, finding a small bit of food in the stomach is very common, even many hours after a victims last known meal. I posted research data on that very question in some other thread ages ago, which clearly showed that even some amount of easily digestible food will be found in the stomach for many hours after a meal. As such, even if the "some food" was potatoes, that is hardly surprising even if she was killed at 5:20.

It's not a straw man argument, rather, it's pointing out the flaws in yours. You making inferences that are not warrented.

No. It is a recognition that when you don't know something you need to recognize you don't know something. Once you recognize that, you will realise how much you are basing your inferences on things you don't actually know.

Yet again you conflate things. At no point have I ever said we don't know if she ate potatoes at the doss house. I have said we don't know what she did after she left. That's because, and perhaps this will shock you, we don't know what she did after she left the doss house.

No it is not. It is an appeal to recognize that when we don't know something we should recognize we don't something.

The evidence tells us she ate potatoes at the doss house. That in no way tells us how many times she ate. I had breakfast this morning. That in no way allows you to conclude I only ate once today. All we can say is that we know she at at least once, but it does not tell us she only ate once. You seem to think that, despite us having no information about her actions after leaving the doss house, that you somehow still know what she did and did not do. I reject your reliance on clairvoyance and go with the information I have, which is zero from the point she left the doss house until she's found dead. Richardson's testimony indicates she was not dead at 4:50ish, Long suggests she might have been alive on Hanbury street after that, and Cadosche's testimony tends to support the idea that she was alive during his first visit to the loo (his inquest testimony just says he heard someone say "No", but there are some news reports where he indicates the voice was female - so unless you go with the "Jill The Ripper" idea, that would suggest the No was from Annie, and therefore that she was still alive.)

The only way for Annie to have been dead at those times requires that all 3 witnesses are incorrect, and also that the death occurred in the early rather than later half of the error window associated with Dr. Phillips estimated ToD. Those end up being pretty long odds, and so on the whole, the evidence is against you. But hey, the 25:1 horse does occasionally win, so go for it.

Exactly. An excellent post which shouldn’t have needed writing.

- Jeff

We’re down yet another rabbit-hole Jeff. Trying to explain the blatantly obvious. How much time do we have to spend explaining that night follows day? It’s not difficult stuff is it?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I guess you will have to as it is clear you're not going to search for the information. I'm not going to go through the work of going through the papers to get the data again, nor am I going to search to find the posts and threads for you as that really doesn't seem worth my while.

- Jeff

I have often done it when referring to a post of mine on the same or another thread.

I cannot say it would be worthwhile waiting for you to do it yourself.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You’re even finding something to disagree with on that point?

Disagreement is fine. It only becomes pointless and negative when bias is present. We get people disputing the forensic experts. We get people claiming to be sure that they know what did or didn’t happen during an unrecorded period of time. We get people using a, shall we say, a highly ‘individual’ interpretation of the English language. We get people going to great lengths to denigrate witnesses. This is what happens when discussing events in Hanbury Street.

I paid you a compliment, but you had to make an argument out of it.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Sigh. We have no evidence of anything from the point Annie left the doss house until she was found dead. We have no evidence that that food found in her stomach was potatoes. It is only ever described as "some food".

As such, that could be evidence that she ate something else - because if it is not potatoes then clearly she ate something other than the potatoes we know she ate.

There is no evidence that she ate something else.

I have said we don't know what she did after she left. That's because, and perhaps this will shock you, we don't know what she did after she left the doss house.

No it is not. It is an appeal to recognize that when we don't know something we should recognize we don't something.

The evidence tells us she ate potatoes at the doss house. That in no way tells us how many times she ate.

I had breakfast this morning. That in no way allows you to conclude I only ate once today.

One can reasonably conclude that you will not eat breakfast again until tomorrow.

Especially if you have just eaten breakfast, eat out, are broke, and need desperately to find some money for an entirely different purpose.

All we can say is that we know she at at least once, but it does not tell us she only ate once. You seem to think that, despite us having no information about her actions after leaving the doss house, that you somehow still know what she did and did not do. I reject your reliance on clairvoyance and go with the information I have, which is zero from the point she left the doss house until she's found dead.

Long suggests she might have been alive on Hanbury street after that, and Cadosche's testimony tends to support the idea that she was alive

We have enough evidence to know that it is unlikely that she ate again before being murdered: she took her food to the house, she had drink brought to the house, she was almost broke, she said she was going out to look for a customer to raise the money needed to pay for a bed for the night, and there was no reported sighting of her for the next three and a half hours, or, if Long did not see her, alive again.

The only way for Annie to have been dead at those times requires that all 3 witnesses are incorrect, and also that the death occurred in the early rather than later half of the error window associated with Dr. Phillips estimated ToD. Those end up being pretty long odds, and so on the whole, the evidence is against you. But hey, the 25:1 horse does occasionally win, so go for it.

They are not long odds.

Long's and Cadoche's evidence cannot be reconciled except on the strength of an assumption - an allegation routinely thrown at me - that clocks were sufficiently wrong without Long or Cadoche realising it.

There is no evidence that the man and woman seen by Long were a prostitute and her customer, nor that they entered number 29.

Cadoche saw neither Chapman nor her murderer.

Richardson's evidence has always been controversial.

[Trevor Marriott]

We’re down yet another rabbit-hole Jeff. Trying to explain the blatantly obvious. How much time do we have to spend explaining that night follows day? It’s not difficult stuff is it?

But you are missing the point ask yourself would Annie have been wandering around the streets aimlessly until 5.30am I personally doubt that. and would anyone looking to proposition someone for sex,i.e, the killer and Annie be active at that same time of the morning I personally doubt that either.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk