Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Excellent point NW. Note the complete lack of response on this point from those who find it close to impossible to allow for a margin for error on timings. Those that think that it’s somehow manipulating the evidence to make this elementary allowance.

That is not true.

In particular, it is not true as you have repeatedly asserted, that I have claimed that the clock times were always correct.

You, on the other hand, have repeatedly claimed that the clock times were out by so much that you can then claim that Cadoche heard the woman who was seen by Long say 'no'.

And on the strength of that, you have claimed that the man seen by Long was probably the Whitechapel murderer.

What you are claiming does not follow from the evidence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You wrote:

it wouldn’t have been at all unusual for her to have had some item of food on her person.


but there is no evidence to support what you wrote.


You say she may have eaten the food on her person.

That is very convenient.


You then come up with an excuse as to why a friend of hers would not have come forward, based on her class.

Yet there were witnesses who testified at the inquests of the victims, and they were not exactly members of the aristocracy.

Neither of your arguments is valid.

More nonsense. Absolute drivel.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

More nonsense. Absolute drivel.

You originally wrote a single word: Joke.

You have no answer other than ridicule.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

No response required. This is way paste a joke.

You cannot refute what I wrote.

[Trevor Marriott]

My point was to query if you are qualified to judge?

What am I supposed to be judging?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

The suggestion that you made, that Chapman may have slept outside next to a friend who offered her food, which she then ate, is not of equal value to the suggestion that, being broke and desperate for money, and, having just eaten, her sole aim was, as she had said, to earn enough money to pay for a bed for the rest of the night, and that she was murdered before she could eat again.

No such friend ever came forward.


You cannot refute what I wrote.

Refutation…..way too easy by the way.

You really can’t be understanding this so poorly PI. I think that your sole aim is to annoy with these kind of posts.

I’ve already discussed this ‘sole aim’ point. Do you honestly think that if she hadn’t found a client after a while she would have just continued walking round and round all night? Is that what you genuinely think? Or is it entirely reasonable and plausible (indeed likely) that at some point she would have given up in favour of getting at least some sleep. Sleeping rough to these women would have been no isolated experience. There’s absolutely nothing unlikely about it.

Some things are unlikely though….like a malnourished, poverty-stricken prostitute turning down the opportunity of food.

Also, when we suggest that she might have eaten you do realise that we aren’t talking about sitting down to a three course meal with wine don’t you PI? If she was still looking for a client do you think that her search would have been scuppered if she simply sat down for 5 minutes for a rest and ate a morsel of food while she did so?

You really do need to re-think your thinking on this PI. You’re trying way, way too hard to try and prove the unprovable.

Annie might or might not have eaten. Neither of us know which is the case and you cannot try shoehorning by raising silly points. And even if she didn’t eat it still wouldn’t help toward an earlier ToD so your position is about as weak as it gets.

If you’re going to keep pursuing this nonsense please address them to someone else. Honestly PI I’m embarrassed for you and I can’t think why you would put yourself through this. Just stop being biased.

[Wickerman]

What am I supposed to be judging?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I'm following your example.
Rather than accept the possibility of one particular news report, you chose to set the bar so high as to only accept the actual telegram referred to in the press report as proof which report is the correct one. Knowing full well that such a artifact is hardly likely to exist, you can settle back in what you perceive as a secure argument.
Namely, that I cannot meet the challenge.

So, I am playing you at your own game.
If I was to produce a copy of the telegram, would you have sufficient knowledge to determine if it was real, or fake?
I think we both know you do not have that ability - so the question then becomes one of 'why ask for something you cannot validate'?

All this is a distraction from the fact you chose to believe a newspaper story, and use it in an argument, without conducting the minimal research.

[JeffHamm]

I argued that it is unlikely that Chapman

may have wandered about for three and a half hours without anyone noticing her and reporting having seen her

Why would that be unlikely though?

Unless she happened to bump into someone she knew at that hour, why would anyone, after hearing of a murder on Hanbury Street, even think to connect some random woman they may have seen in passing hours before the body was discovered? Long only comes forward because she recalled seeing a couple outside of the crime scene that morning after all.

There is no reason for anyone to come forward to the police to say they saw a woman out late at night or the in the early hours. And oddly, when one does come forward, and identifies Annie at the morgue, you reject that information anyway. So I suspect if we did have someone come forward, reporting seeing "a woman" at, say 4:45, you would dismiss that on the grounds that the witness is not reliable.

Anyway, please explain why you think it unusual that nobody came forward to report that they saw someone they did not know on the streets at night? Is it because you think the streets were deserted, so she would stand out? Doesn't that greatly lower the probability of her being seen though? Or is the probability of her being seen high because there were many people out and about, lowering the probability that they would happen to connect one of the women they saw to being the murdered woman.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If you’re going to keep pursuing this nonsense please address them to someone else. Honestly PI I’m embarrassed for you and I can’t think why you would put yourself through this. Just stop being biased.

If you did not address your posts to me, I would not have to answer them.

You just will not stop provoking me, and everyone who has read our exchanges knows it.

Another difference between you and me is that I rely on reasoned argument, whereas you rely on condescension, such as claiming that I am embarrassing myself, am being silly, am biased, am quibbling, write nonsense and drivel, manipulate evidence, and am making things up again - and that is only during the last 24 hours.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Why would that be unlikely though?

It is inherently unlikely, just as it is inherently unlikely that the murderer would look for a victim at about 5.30 a.m., and that he would fail to make use of tap water to clean his hands if he could see it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you did not address your posts to me, I would not have to answer them.

You just will not stop provoking me, and everyone who has read our exchanges knows it.

Another difference between you and me is that I rely on reasoned argument, whereas you rely on condescension, such as claiming that I am embarrassing myself, am being silly, am biased, am quibbling, write nonsense and drivel, manipulate evidence, and am making things up again - and that is only during the last 24 hours.

The only one provoking is you PI. It’s why I’ve be pm’ed by posters saying exactly that.

What you rely on isn’t reasoned thinking. What you do is form an opinion and then defend it at all costs. Here we are discussing a vacuum. A complete absence of information and yet you and PI are absolutely determined that you know more about that period than others do purely due to some half-arsed alleged deductions. And all of this is due to your determination to try and move the likelihood toward an earlier ToD - a position which has almost zero merit because the evidence points clearly and exceptionally strongly toward a later ToD - so much so at to be close to a certainty.

So let’s finish this PI. If you and FM want to claim psychic powers then it’s up to you but the rest of us prefer the real world.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The only one provoking is you PI. It’s why I’ve be pm’ed by posters saying exactly that.

You have been baiting me almost ever since I started posting here and you know it.

I have been messaged by posters advising me not to respond to your provocations.

I told you many times to stop provoking me, but you obviously get a kick out of it.

What you rely on isn’t reasoned thinking. What you do is form an opinion and then defend it at all costs.

That is exactly what you do.

That is why you overstate it by saying it is proven / a fact / a certainty / end of story etc.

you and PI are absolutely determined that you know more about that period than others do purely due to some half-arsed alleged deductions.

For some reason, when I made a slip and wrote Chapman instead of Long, that has to be a bad sign of confusion on my part, but you are permitted the twin luxury of referring to someone else as me and of using lavatorial language.

What does that say about you?

And all of this is due to your determination to try and move the likelihood toward an earlier ToD - a position which has almost zero merit because the evidence points clearly and exceptionally strongly toward a later ToD - so much so at to be close to a certainty.

There you go again, overstating your case.

So let’s finish this PI. If you and FM want to claim psychic powers then it’s up to you but the rest of us prefer the real world.

I would like to finish it but you will not allow me to.

You insist on employing condescension rather than reason.

Some people may think that someone who uses the word certainty and claims it is a fact that Chapman was murdered at about 5.30 a.m. appears to have claimed for himself psychic powers and already vacated the real world.

[Fleetwood Mac]

An interesting article on processing and recollecting sound:

Echoic Memory: The Definitive Guide with Real-Life Examples! (magneticmemorymethod.com)

Echoic Memory is the distinct sensory memory that temporarily holds representations of sounds that we hear, queued for processing further into short term memory. This temporary storage process is completely automatic, and requires no conscious effort.

Most of the auditory information we receive into echoic memory fades away, because focused attention is required to process the auditory information into short- and long-term memory.

Echoic memory is constantly “on,” meaning that your brain automatically picks up sounds and stores them, albeit briefly. Of course, the critical step in processing sounds into short-term and long-term memory is your attention to those sounds, otherwise known as “active listening”.

Based on sensory memory duration studies, the consensus of behavioral scientists is that echoic memory lasts for approximately 2 to 4 seconds.

Throughout your life, your brain constantly queues up sounds around you and presents them in a non-stop stream of echoic memories. While most of these memories are discarded, echoic memory is integral in our navigation of our environment through verbal communications and other nonverbal stimuli.

Again, I'd say this article illustrates that memory does not work in the fashion the layman assumes. Broadly, the initial sound lasts for seconds, most of that sound is discarded from memory within seconds, and whether or not the sound makes into a short-term or long-term memory depends upon the attention paid to that sound.

'Very interesting and suggests: "a sound nearby, he must have recollected that sounds as it actually was", is not a foregone conclusion.

'Think I'll have a look for more articles on this.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You have been baiting me almost ever since I started posting here and you know it.

I have been messaged by posters advising me not to respond to your provocations.

I told you many times to stop provoking me, but you obviously get a kick out of it.





That is exactly what you do.

That is why you overstate it by saying it is proven / a fact / a certainty / end of story etc.





For some reason, when I made a slip and wrote Chapman instead of Long, that has to be a bad sign of confusion on my part, but you are permitted the twin luxury of referring to someone else as me and of using lavatorial language.

What does that say about you?






There you go again, overstating your case.






I would like to finish it but you will not allow me to.

You insist on employing condescension rather than reason.

Some people may think that someone who uses the word certainty and claims it is a fact that Chapman was murdered at about 5.30 a.m. appears to have claimed for himself psychic powers and already vacated the real world.

I’m not interested in your whining.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I’m not interested in your whining.

I don't accept that kind of response.

If you want to write incessant insults and use lavatorial language, I suggest you spend your time somewhere more suited to your tastes.