Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Maybe ask yourself why that is.

I can tell you that it's NOT because your carefully crafted questions have stumped them.

Of course it IS.

I have put the same point to one poster at least eight times and he has never replied.

I refuted what he wrote, he has no satisfactory answer, but he evidently does not wish to concede that he is wrong.

You have complained repeatedly that I want to win the argument.

What is wrong with that?

There are plenty of other people here who want to win arguments, but I have not noticed that you ever complain about that.

If someone refutes another person's argument and thereby wins the argument, what is wrong with that?

Or would you prefer that the loser is declared the winner?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I refer everyone to FM’s comment about no one denying that Phillips estimate was unreliable and yet here we are with one person doing exactly that. One person who feels that he knows better that all of the experts in all of the textbooks. Then we have the same adult trying to make a comparison between two completely different bodies despite being told (and shown the evidence) that this cannot be done. And yet here we are with someone desperately clinging to this. Isn’t it way past time that we had an honest, unbiased approach here? This is why any meaningful discussion died long ago. It’s because certain posters are rigidly and dogmatically stuck on Phillips unreliable estimate that they feel the need to plumb any embarrassing, infantile depths to defend their position. Ludicrous nit-picking, cringingly poor reasoning, distortion of the language, pointless generalities like ‘witnesses can be mistaken.’ all simply because they feel the need to try and ‘win’ every single point made.

That evidence massively favours an earlier ToD.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Maybe ask yourself why that is.

I can tell you that it's NOT because your carefully crafted questions have stumped them.

You demand answers to your questions while swerving, avoiding and ignoring the ones asked of you. When you answer a question it is usually in the form of another question without actually giving an answer. Like when I asked how you KNOW theat Eddowes ToD is accurate, or why you put such faith in the patently flawed, long since disabused and replaced, over confidence at stating a ToD based on little more than guesswork?

It becomes very tiresome trying to have a meaningful dialogue when this happens ALL the time.

And that IS me done now.
I know you'll ignore everything I've just said like you do every other thing that is said to you that you dont like, and you'll want the final word.
So don't bother answering those questions, I'm moving on from this pointless exercise.

Well said AP.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The murders of Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes were committed under similar conditions. Both bodies were found outside and with their clothing hiked up, although it is arguable that Eddowes was in a more open location and her body exposed more to the air. Both women were killed on nights with cool temperatures, although the night that Eddowes was murdered was a couple of degrees cooler. Both bodies had been extensively mutilated but Eddowes' more so. Both had lost a lot of blood.

In the Eddowes case the medical opinion is backed up by the impossibility of error. The victim was seen alive talking to her killer at 1.35 a.m. and then found dead at 1.45 a.m. We have Constable Watkins testimony that there was no body lying in Mitre Square at 1.30 and medical and police opinion that she was killed where she was found. We also have Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown's observations after he examined the body.

Dr. Brown stated that he was called to Mitre Square shortly after 2:00 a.m. and arrived there at around 2:20. By this time Catherine Eddowes had been dead for roughly forty minutes. Brown observed that "the body had been mutilated, and was quite warm - no rigor mortis." ³⁹ We can thus say that, after roughly forty minutes, a body with extensive mutilations that was found under cool outdoor conditions was examined and described as being "quite warm." How do we reconcile this with the idea that the body of Annie Chapman was found to be almost completely cold after only the passing of twenty more minutes? We can't. It is very difficult to believe that in under twenty minutes almost all body heat would have dissipated into the morning air. This would be the work of a couple of hours, not minutes. Again, that observation is more in line with Dr. Phillips' opinion as to the time of death of Annie Chapman.


https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-doubt.html

[Fiver]

Do you think Levy was Anderson's witness?

Lawende is the most likely, followed by Schwartz, but we can't know for sure. I'm extremely doubtful that Levy was Anderson's witness.

[A P Tomlinson]

The murders of Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes were committed under similar conditions. Both bodies were found outside and with their clothing hiked up, although it is arguable that Eddowes was in a more open location and her body exposed more to the air. Both women were killed on nights with cool temperatures, although the night that Eddowes was murdered was a couple of degrees cooler. Both bodies had been extensively mutilated but Eddowes' more so. Both had lost a lot of blood.

In the Eddowes case the medical opinion is backed up by the impossibility of error. The victim was seen alive talking to her killer at 1.35 a.m. and then found dead at 1.45 a.m. We have Constable Watkins testimony that there was no body lying in Mitre Square at 1.30 and medical and police opinion that she was killed where she was found. We also have Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown's observations after he examined the body.

Dr. Brown stated that he was called to Mitre Square shortly after 2:00 a.m. and arrived there at around 2:20. By this time Catherine Eddowes had been dead for roughly forty minutes. Brown observed that "the body had been mutilated, and was quite warm - no rigor mortis." ³⁹ We can thus say that, after roughly forty minutes, a body with extensive mutilations that was found under cool outdoor conditions was examined and described as being "quite warm." How do we reconcile this with the idea that the body of Annie Chapman was found to be almost completely cold after only the passing of twenty more minutes? We can't. It is very difficult to believe that in under twenty minutes almost all body heat would have dissipated into the morning air. This would be the work of a couple of hours, not minutes. Again, that observation is more in line with Dr. Phillips' opinion as to the time of death of Annie Chapman.


https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-doubt.html

OK, aside from the nonsense about the Doctors yet again ignoring everything that has been said to you about disparity in bodies, and procdure and that even 21st century science can't come up with estimates like that... we have the impossibility of error being grounded in... wait for it... drum roll...

WITNESS TESTIMONY.

Not the flawless work of the Victorian Doctor... not the well established accuracy of 19th century post mortem procedures. (because they were rubbish!)

We KNOW when Eddowes died because the Doctors ass-pull time of death coincided with the witness testimony!

The witnesses are SO reliable that they create, in YOUR words (thank you for these) an "IMPOSSIBILITY of error."

The witness statements are the benchmark by which you judge the accuracy of the Doctor.

That's all you had to say!
So... back to Albert then?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The witnesses are SO reliable that they create, in YOUR words (thank you for these) an "IMPOSSIBILITY of error."

They are not MY words.

They are Wolf Vanderlinden's words.

I reproduced them because an attempt has been made to make me look ridiculous for presenting the arguments I have, with plenty of personal remarks made about me, as if no right-thinking person would write what I have written.

I suggest if Vanderlinden were taking part in this discussion, he would not be treated like that.

[A P Tomlinson]

They are not MY words.

They are Wolf Vanderlinden's words.

I reproduced them because an attempt has been made to make me look ridiculous for presenting the arguments I have, with plenty of personal remarks made about me, as if no right-thinking person would write what I have written.

I suggest if Vanderlinden were taking part in this discussion, he would not be treated like that.

Why would they?
I completely agree!
The witnesses are ABSOLUTELY what make the ToD plausible!!!

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Why would they?
I completely agree!
The witnesses are ABSOLUTELY what make the ToD plausible!!!

You know perfectly well that they would not agree with him that it is likely that Chapman died at about 4.30 a.m.

I have been putting forward his arguments.

How well do you think they have gone down here?

[A P Tomlinson]

You know perfectly well that they would not agree with him that it is likely that Chapman died at about 4.30 a.m.

I have been putting forward his arguments.

How well do you think they have gone down here?

I would argue with anyone who asserts that one group of witnesses are arbitrarily treated as the cause of an "Impossibility in error" while another group is arbitrarily treated as absolutely flawed, on the basis of supprting the medical opinions of Victorian Doctors on the mater of time of death estimates made at the scene of a crime, JUST as vehemently with them as I have with you.

I would hope they would have better supporting evidence than you, and FM have provided to establish that disparity!

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I would argue with anyone ... JUST as vehemently with them as I have with you.

SYNONYMS FOR vehemently


angrily
boldly
brutally
ferociously
forcefully
frantically
furiously
madly
mightily
passionately
savagely
severely
viciously
wildly
awfully
forcibly
frenziedly
frighteningly
hard
horribly
impetuously
in a frenzy
irresistibly
like cats and dogs
maleficiently
malevolently
malignly
monstrous
no holds barred
riotously
roughly
stormily
tempestuously
terribly
threateningly
tigerishly
tooth and nail
turbulently
uncontrollably
venomously
with bared teeth

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/vehemently

[A P Tomlinson]

SYNONYMS FOR vehemently


angrily
boldly
brutally
ferociously
forcefully
frantically
furiously
madly
mightily
passionately
savagely
severely
viciously
wildly
awfully
forcibly
frenziedly
frighteningly
hard
horribly
impetuously
in a frenzy
irresistibly
like cats and dogs
maleficiently
malevolently
malignly
monstrous
no holds barred
riotously
roughly
stormily
tempestuously
terribly
threateningly
tigerishly
tooth and nail
turbulently
uncontrollably
venomously
with bared teeth


https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/vehemently

Oh bless... you went away and Googled THAT?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Oh bless... you went away and Googled THAT?

Yes.

I think it was necessary.

And I think Fleetwood Mac's comment in # 554 should also be quoted:

And, it's a message board discussing a case from 150 years ago. It's not that important in the grand scheme of life and so tackling it like your life depends on it, seems disproportionate (and unhealthy).

In other words, less vehemence would be appropriate, whether towards me or towards Wolf Vanderlinden.

[A P Tomlinson]

Yes.

I think it was necessary.

And I think Fleetwood Mac's comment in # 554 should also be quoted:

And, it's a message board discussing a case from 150 years ago. It's not that important in the grand scheme of life and so tackling it like your life depends on it, seems disproportionate (and unhealthy).

In other words, less vehemence would be appropriate, whether towards me or towards Wolf Vanderlinden.

You forgot to include the actual definition of vehemently.
Or, based on past evidence, more likely you read it, realised that the facts didn't match up with what you wanted to say and had to stretch for something else.

When you get back on the subject of Albert's reliability, (throw Richardson and Long in there if you want...) I'l be back. I've followed you down this meandering path away from you having to actually defend your position far enough.

(I'll save you the trouble. Meandering: Synonyms: Drift, ramble, roam, snake, stroll, stray, twist, change, turn, be all over the map, get sidetracked)

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You forgot to include the actual definition of vehemently.
Or, based on past evidence, more likely you read it, realised that the facts didn't match up with what you wanted to say and had to stretch for something else.

Anyone can type 'vehemently synonym' into a Google search bar and the first entry that appears is Thesaurus.com, which I cited.

I don't think many people would agree with you that any stretching would be required.