Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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 have no idea why you think I should get back on the subject of Albert's reliability.

I do not recall that it was being discussed.


The passageways that led to the two respective backyards were situated side by side. This means that, if the activity that Cadosch claims that he had heard was actually caused by the murder of Annie Chapman, then he was literally only two or three of feet away from the murderer and his victim! Yet he heard no other noises and couldn't tell exactly from where the voice came from even though when he heard it, just as he walked through the back door, he was closest to where Chapman's body was discovered. Also, the killer must have possessed an incredible amount of cool daring, or a total lack of disregard for his own safety, if he continued the attack on his victim even though there were obvious signs of someone moving about in the adjacent yard only feet away. All of this does not seem plausible.

Secondly, there is trouble with the entire time frame between Cadosch's and Mrs. Long's stories.

Albert Cadosch claimed that the activity he heard, supposedly the actual murder itself, happened between 5:20 and sometime before he left the house, say 5:30. Elizabeth Long claimed that she saw Annie Chapman alive and talking to a man on Hanbury Street just seconds after 5:30. They can't both be right and as the two tales don't really dovetail at all, this is a problem that casts doubt on one or both of these witnesses.

The easiest course of action at this point is to just ignore the discrepancy in times or to attempt to explain it away. Wynne Baxter admitted in his summing up during the inquest that "there is some conflict in the evidence about the time at which the deceased was despatched. It is not unusual to find inaccuracy in such details, but this variation is not very great or very important." ¹⁶ He resolved the issue in his mind by suggesting that perhaps if Albert Cadosch "is out of his reckoning but a quarter of an hour, the discrepancy in the evidence of fact vanishes, and he may be mistaken, for he admits that he did not get up till a quarter past five, and that it was after the half hour when he passed Spitalfields clock." ¹⁷

Baxter's reasoning makes little sense considering that whatever Cadosch heard, he heard before 5:30 that morning and thus several minutes before Mrs. Long turned onto the street. In order for the two times to mesh, or at least to be driven together like the proverbial square peg hammered into the round hole, Mrs. Long must have been off by fifteen or twenty minutes since she has to be placed in Hanbury Street at about the time that Cadosch awoke.

One theory has it that instead of hearing the brewery clock strike the half hour, it actually struck the quarter hour and so Mrs. Long was merely mistaken about the time.

Forget for a moment that Mrs. Long would probably have heard this clock strike on every working day but somehow didn't realize that it struck the quarter hour. Also forget that she stated at the inquest that she arrived at the market a few minutes after 5:30 which would mean that the two blocks she had to cover between Hanbury Street and work would have to have take her fifteen minutes to cover! The real problem with this neat solution is that it doesn't take into consideration how clocks actually work.

Some clocks strike the half hour as well as the hour (a single bong signifying the half hour) while some clocks give you hour, quarter hours and half hour. These clocks, the type that it is suggested the brewery had, do not strike, they chime. A good example is the Westminster clock which chimes four notes to signify the quarter hour; eight notes signify the half hour; twelve notes the three-quarter hour and sixteen notes the top of the hour. This is followed by the bonging of the hour. This is not just a possible confusion over a single note or bong but confusing the difference between four notes and eight. It is difficult to see how Mrs. Long was unable to distinguish the difference between 5:15 and 5:30 on such a clock.

In the end, given the basic facts offered to us, there is a disturbing discrepancy between what Elizabeth Long and Albert Cadosch said.

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

[JeffHamm]

That's why I am doubtful of Joseph Lawende's description of a couple strangers seen for a few moments in poor lighting. Either Lawende had exceptional night vision and memory or his memory filled in the blanks. I have a lot more confidence in Levy, who only recalled the couple's heights and disagreed with Lawende on that.

Maybe, although Lawende's description of the man is still on the generic side compared to Hutchinson's, and on the whole his description isn't really more detailed than many of the descriptions we have scattered about. On the other hand, I suspect all of the descriptions we do have access to contain, to one degree or another, some errors due to memory distortions. A comparison of all the various descriptions more or less leaves us with the impression of someone who was not wealthy but not dirt poor either (the various "shabby genteel" type descriptions), and fairly run of the mill, so didn't really stand out. That's surprisingly common for most modern serial killers too, they tend not to stand out all that much.

Estimations of age and height do have error ranges, and for age it's pretty huge. I forget the range at the moment for height, but it is in the order of multiple inches (so two people seeing the same 5'7" individual could report different heights like 5'5" vs 5'9", one estimating 2" too short and the other 2" too tall. the wide disparity between them reflecting each erring in opposite directions, but erring by the same amount.

One thing, of course, the less information a person gives, like Levy, the less information there is to be wrong (or right of course). So the more someone tries to recall, the more likely it is that something will be wrong, but at the same time, the more correct information one may obtain too (as not everything recalled will be a memory error). It's a bit of a catch 22.

- Jeff

[A P Tomlinson]

I have no idea why you think I should get back on the subject of Albert's reliability.

I do not recall that it was being discussed.


The passageways that led to the two respective backyards were situated side by side. This means that, if the activity that Cadosch claims that he had heard was actually caused by the murder of Annie Chapman, then he was literally only two or three of feet away from the murderer and his victim! Yet he heard no other noises and couldn't tell exactly from where the voice came from even though when he heard it, just as he walked through the back door, he was closest to where Chapman's body was discovered. Also, the killer must have possessed an incredible amount of cool daring, or a total lack of disregard for his own safety, if he continued the attack on his victim even though there were obvious signs of someone moving about in the adjacent yard only feet away. All of this does not seem plausible.

Secondly, there is trouble with the entire time frame between Cadosch's and Mrs. Long's stories.

Albert Cadosch claimed that the activity he heard, supposedly the actual murder itself, happened between 5:20 and sometime before he left the house, say 5:30. Elizabeth Long claimed that she saw Annie Chapman alive and talking to a man on Hanbury Street just seconds after 5:30. They can't both be right and as the two tales don't really dovetail at all, this is a problem that casts doubt on one or both of these witnesses.

The easiest course of action at this point is to just ignore the discrepancy in times or to attempt to explain it away. Wynne Baxter admitted in his summing up during the inquest that "there is some conflict in the evidence about the time at which the deceased was despatched. It is not unusual to find inaccuracy in such details, but this variation is not very great or very important." ¹⁶ He resolved the issue in his mind by suggesting that perhaps if Albert Cadosch "is out of his reckoning but a quarter of an hour, the discrepancy in the evidence of fact vanishes, and he may be mistaken, for he admits that he did not get up till a quarter past five, and that it was after the half hour when he passed Spitalfields clock." ¹⁷

Baxter's reasoning makes little sense considering that whatever Cadosch heard, he heard before 5:30 that morning and thus several minutes before Mrs. Long turned onto the street. In order for the two times to mesh, or at least to be driven together like the proverbial square peg hammered into the round hole, Mrs. Long must have been off by fifteen or twenty minutes since she has to be placed in Hanbury Street at about the time that Cadosch awoke.

One theory has it that instead of hearing the brewery clock strike the half hour, it actually struck the quarter hour and so Mrs. Long was merely mistaken about the time.

Forget for a moment that Mrs. Long would probably have heard this clock strike on every working day but somehow didn't realize that it struck the quarter hour. Also forget that she stated at the inquest that she arrived at the market a few minutes after 5:30 which would mean that the two blocks she had to cover between Hanbury Street and work would have to have take her fifteen minutes to cover! The real problem with this neat solution is that it doesn't take into consideration how clocks actually work.

Some clocks strike the half hour as well as the hour (a single bong signifying the half hour) while some clocks give you hour, quarter hours and half hour. These clocks, the type that it is suggested the brewery had, do not strike, they chime. A good example is the Westminster clock which chimes four notes to signify the quarter hour; eight notes signify the half hour; twelve notes the three-quarter hour and sixteen notes the top of the hour. This is followed by the bonging of the hour. This is not just a possible confusion over a single note or bong but confusing the difference between four notes and eight. It is difficult to see how Mrs. Long was unable to distinguish the difference between 5:15 and 5:30 on such a clock.

In the end, given the basic facts offered to us, there is a disturbing discrepancy between what Elizabeth Long and Albert Cadosch said.


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

OK, we're back on topic. Sort of.

I'm now a bit confused, because what this seems to be suggesting is that you actually sort of support an even LATER ToD than Albert suggested.
You can't seriously be arguing that Long's memory would have been expected to be good enough to count the bongs and keep that in her head, but not good enough to recall a woman she saw in the street as being the woman she later saw on the slab?
Surely if one of those memories is likely to be impacted it would be the bongs?
Remember George and FM have gone to GREAT lengths to show how the memory of sound is apparently a terrible thing in human beings, in order to eliminate Albert.

There IS a discrepancy, there are quite a few in the case related to time, and recollection of times in particular, (you are familiar with how Christer has tried to nail down the use of "about" to mean whatever he wants it to mean) but the only people who find it disturbing in this instance are those trying to discredit the witnesses.

I am not trying to defend a Suspect Theory, or support a later ToD because I need it to suite one.
If I thought there was strong evidence that pointed to 4.30, that was better than the witness statements, I'd have no problem in changing my opinion and saying so.
But it doesn't.
And the attempts to prove 4.30 are weak and manipulate the evidence in order to achieve it. They rely on a man who said that it took 15 minutes to perform the acts of brutality on Chapman, being more accurate on his barely functional knowledge of how to establish a time of death, and dismissing any evidence that contradicts him.

[rjpalmer]

Surely if one of those memories is likely to be impacted it would be the bongs?

Indeed. I've heard that bongs often impact the memory...and not in a good way.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

OK, we're back on topic. Sort of.

I do not recall this topic being the topic under discussion.

I'm now a bit confused, because what this seems to be suggesting is that you actually sort of support an even LATER ToD than Albert suggested.

I do not follow that.

I think Phillips' estimate is correct.

You can't seriously be arguing that Long's memory would have been expected to be good enough to count the bongs and keep that in her head, but not good enough to recall a woman she saw in the street as being the woman she later saw on the slab?

I would argue that since Cadoche could not remember seeing the couple, it is possible that Long got the date wrong.

I would also argue that since both Long and Cadoche were taking their respective routes regularly and at about the same time each day, they can be expected to have known whether it was a quarter past or half past the hour.

Furthermore, Long noted that she arrived at the market a few minutes after half past, which suggests that she was keeping track of the time.

As for Long's identification of the woman, I would suggest that that would be more difficult than distinguishing the number of bongs she heard.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Another article informing us that memory does not work in the way we imagine, and it comes with an interesting inference:

Why we remember — and forget. And what we can do about it — Harvard Gazette

Neurologist Andrew Budson and neuroscientist Elizabeth Kensinger not only explain how memory works, but also share science-based tips on how to keep it sharp as we age in their new book. They go on to state:

Many people think that forgetting is bad and that an optimal memory system is one where forgetting doesn’t occur. Forgetting is important because if every time that we were trying to make a prediction about the future or understand what is going on right now, we had to sift through everything that’s ever happened to us, it would be inefficient. There’s tremendous utility in pruning because it allows us to use the pieces of our past that are most likely to be relevant for understanding what’s going on right now or what might happen tomorrow or next year.

One of the most common times when memory errors arise is in the initial encoding phase, where often what happens is that we’re just not devoting enough effort or paying enough attention.

The article suggests that we are hard-wired to forget in the interests of our well-being, which has obvious implications for Albert: his brain may have discarded information as a matter of course and there's nothing that the Albert existing outside of his brain could have done about that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No matter how many times this is explained we still have someone deliberately avoiding the obvious. Here we have it yet again…

. I would also argue that since both Long and Cadoche were taking their respective routes regularly and at about the same time each day, they can be expected to have known whether it was a quarter past or half past the hour.

Furthermore, Long noted that she arrived at the market a few minutes after half past, which suggests that she was keeping track of the time.

As for Long's identification of the woman, I would suggest that that would be more difficult than distinguishing the number of bongs she heard.

Deliberately ignoring the fact that all that was required was a 5 or 6 minute difference in time between Cadosch and Long. No need for of the ‘heard the bongs wrong’ stuff.

The level of invention and manipulation on here is getting worse.

—————

Oh, and here’s another article telling us that witnesses can sometimes be mistaken…..how useful.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Oh, and here’s another article telling us that witnesses can sometimes be mistaken…..how useful.

Not quite.

The articles inform us of which witnesses are most likely to be mistaken:

One of the most common times when memory errors arise is in the initial encoding phase, where often what happens is that we’re just not devoting enough effort or paying enough attention.

Food for thought when it comes to Albert, in his own words he had other things on his mind.

[GBinOz]

Surely if one of those memories is likely to be impacted it would be the bongs?
Remember George and FM have gone to GREAT lengths to show how the memory of sound is apparently a terrible thing in human beings, in order to eliminate Albert.

It appears we are being presented an opportunity to practically examine the reliability of memory.

Can you point to even one post of mine where I specifically mention the memory of sound?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Remember George and FM have gone to GREAT lengths to show how the memory of sound is apparently a terrible thing in human beings, in order to eliminate Albert.

It's not my research/work. I've simply borrowed it and posted it here.

That's what people qualified in that field have concluded.

As for 'eliminating Albert', this is hyperbole.

I'm not attempting to do that, and the qualified people are not suggesting that either. I'm pretty sure that I've claimed Albert's recollection is open to doubt all along, including in the OP. Doubt is not akin to eliminating.

They have concluded that memory is malleable and should be treated with caution, and I'm merely posting their conclusions based on their years and research in that field.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I was called to Buck's-row about four o'clock... Her hands and wrists were cold, but the body and lower extremities were warm.

(Mr. Henry Llewellyn)


[A doctor arrived] About twenty minutes after the constables came up... The doctor said the body was quite warm.

(LOUIS DIEMSCHUTZ)


I consulted my watch on my arrival, and it was 1.16 a.m... The neck and chest were quite warm, as were also the legs, and the face was slightly warm.

(Mr. Frederick William Blackwell)


I was called on Sunday morning last at twenty past one to Leman-street Police-station, and was sent on to Berner-street ... body still warm, face warm, hands cold, legs quite warm...

(Mr. George Baxter Phillips)


I was called shortly after two o'clock on Sunday morning, and reached the place of the murder about twenty minutes past two...

The body had been mutilated, and was quite warm - no rigor mortis.

(Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown)




Nichols' legs were still warm half an hour or more after she had been murdered.

Stride's legs were still quite warm more than half an hour after she had been murdered.

Eddowes' body was still quite warm about 42 minutes after she had been murdered during the same night.

Yet we are being told that it is obvious that Chapman would have been cold after only an hour.

[A P Tomlinson]

It's not my research/work. I've simply borrowed it and posted it here.

That's what people qualified in that field have concluded.

As for 'eliminating Albert', this is hyperbole.

I'm not attempting to do that, and the qualified people are not suggesting that either. I'm pretty sure that I've claimed Albert's recollection is open to doubt all along, including in the OP. Doubt is not akin to eliminating.

They have concluded that memory is malleable and should be treated with caution, and I'm merely posting their conclusions based on their years and research in that field.

But you have done nothing to apply any of it to any specific situation that you want to bring into question.

If you think that any of the science that you keep linking has merit in establishing a specific witness (in the case you chose to pursue, Albert Cadosch) experienced any of the triggers or situations that would cause the memory lapses, false memories and general befuddlement you want to apply to him, then show it.
I don't see his name in any of the linked reports, so I can't find which elements you want to apply. Unless you broadly want to discredit ALL witnesses by suggesting that the same memory problems would apply to absolutely everyone.

YOU chose to apply the science to Albert. But haven't done that yet. The science you keep referring to is pretty clear that for memory to be as flawed as you would have us believe Albert's was requires certain factors to cause the abnormality. The overwhelming majority of studies you linked referred to deliberate manipulation of memory as the key trigger, and others due to various stress points such as being overwhelmed by data input when witnessing a crime.

Unless you can support a premise that HE was special in some way you cannot discriminate between him and anyone else, and all you are effectively saying is that every single witness who possesses the capacity for a memory is exactly as reliable as any other.
And that sometimes memory is unreliable, but you can't show anything specific as to why Albert is any less reliable than... say... a couple of blokes leaving the pub at closing time around 1.30 in the morning.
If THAT is the point you've been trying to make all aong, maybe leave Albert's name out of it and call the thread, "Is memory reliable?" and most people will say, "Not completely..." Because despite the science, everyone reading this HAS a memory, and everyone they have ever known HAS a memory, and we all know that sometimes people forget things and that memory can be flawed. But without being able to give a valid reason why someone who cliams to have remembered something is wrong, you are merely waving studies around to cherry pick who you want to apply "They were wrong, because memory can be bad." to.
And that's not very scientific.

[A P Tomlinson]

It appears we are being presented an opportunity to practically examine the reliability of memory.

Can you point to even one post of mine where I specifically mention the memory of sound?

You are rght George, I apologise. I got that "amphitheatre of echoes" comment lodged in my head and associated it with FM's science...

[GBinOz]

You are rght George, I apologise. I got that "amphitheatre of echoes" comment lodged in my head and associated it with FM's science...

Apology accepted AP, and thank you for your honesty.

[GBinOz]

The following is offered as an example of false memory creation.
Star 10 Nov:
A HUNDRED HIGHLY CIRCUMSTANTIAL STORIES,
which, when carefully sifted, prove to be totally devoid of truth. One woman (as reported below) who lives in the court stated that at about two o'clock she heard a cry of "Murder." This story soon became popular, until at last half a dozen women were retailing it as their own personal experience. Each story contradicted the others with respect to the time at which the cry was heard. A Star reporter who inquired into the matter extracted from one of the women the confession that the story was, as far as she was concerned, a fabrication; and he came to the conclusion that it was to be disregarded.

Also offered, as general interest for discussions, are Carl Sagan's baloney detection rules:

1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses.
7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.
9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

Cheers, George