Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

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

Having caught up with this thread it'd be a blessed relief...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Both this thread and the Richardson one were pretty much a waste of time. All we needed was this:

[Coroner] Did you notice whether there was any object outside? - I could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there then.

That’s game over. Forget the waffle. Forget the inventions. Forget the increasingly imaginative ways of trying to show how he could have missed a mutilated corpse in a small space behind a door that you could have pushed a coster’s cart under. We have it in a sentence. A man with absolutely no reason to lie looks into a yard, he can see all around, there is no body there. Even before he’d put his feet onto the flags he’d have seen the body when he pushed it open to allow himself to descend (unless someone is going to suggest that he pushed it open with his face - which frankly wouldn’t surprise me on here)

Has anyone ever read of such lengths being gone to in trying to discredit witnesses? I struggle to think of another example that comes close - anyone would think that some have some bias in their desire to do this. We have only three non-professional witnesses relevant to the ToD, and would you believe it, they were all making it up or else mistaken or morons. Does the fact that we know that a Victorian doctor’s ToD estimation help? No, of course it doesn’t because it’s back to the kindergarten we go with efforts to show that modern day textbooks should all be re-written or that (and this is a cracker) that you can assess a ToD estimate by looking at a completely different body - you couldn’t make this silliness up)

Basically this comes from three misconceptions:

1. That just because a Victorian doctor was a competent professional then he was a miracle worker. He could accurately, by touching a body and by noting a commencement of stiffening, assess a Tod accurately and reliably. Even when he himself admitted the possibility of error. Modern day authorities with their advances in knowledge are ignored. This isn’t error or poor judgment. It’s dishonesty which cannot be dressed up politely. We have the evidence all around us from those authorities. But no….tear up the papers, re-write the textbooks because a couple of posters on Casebook believe that their ‘knowledge’ renders all of this obsolete. Could anything be more of an embarrassment to the subject?

2. That they can somehow second guess how a Victorian serial killer would or would not have acted. Despite not knowing who he was. Despite not knowing his character traits. Despite not knowing his level of intelligence. Despite not knowing if his own circumstances were any different on September 8th than they were on other days. Yet we still have oracles on here claiming to be able to tell us with confidence what he would or wouldn’t have done. Again…you simply couldn’t make this up!

3. That they can somehow second guess how a Victorian slum-dwelling prostitute would or wouldn’t have acted. The tea leaves have been cast; the crystal ball has been polished to gleaming and the Ouija board has been taken from beneath the monopoly board in the cupboard. I’d say that more nonsense has been written about what Long ‘would’ have done after leaving the lodging house than anything - and that’s up against some exceptionally strong competition!

These three ‘misconceptions’ aid in promoting a ‘preconception.’ The result……a never ending tirade of complete guff.

[Abby Normal]

i wonder what the chances are that three independent corroborating witnesses all have "false memory creation" that just happens to falsely corroborate all there false memories. lol.

[Trevor Marriott]

i wonder what the chances are that three independent corroborating witnesses all have "false memory creation" that just happens to falsely corroborate all there false memories. lol.

I think if you carefully scrutinize each of the witness's testimony how unsafe they are becomes even clearer

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think if you carefully scrutinize each of the witness's testimony how unsafe they are becomes even clearer

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If you scrutinise them properly you see how reliable they are you and you can’t fail to notice what leaps of faith have to be taken and what poor thinking has to be employed in the quite deliberate attempt to discredit them.

[Herlock Sholmes]

i wonder what the chances are that three independent corroborating witnesses all have "false memory creation" that just happens to falsely corroborate all there false memories. lol.

About as likely as you swimming over to England tonight for a beer Abby.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A thought.

Although I can’t quote any specifics at the moment (because I haven’t looked) isn’t it the case that some serial killers have used prostitutes at times without killing them? And isn’t it the case that an urge to kill can come upon a killer quite suddenly? Perhaps triggered by something the victim said or did or by something that triggered some kind of memory or impulse?

If the above are reasonable, and yes of course I’m speculating and speculation appears to only be acceptable on the earlier ToD side, then couldn’t it be at least possible that the killer didn’t initially intend to kill Annie, only to have sex with her? And if that’s plausible then might it not provide at least a potential explanation as to why he wasn’t so concerned about the location or the time of day? Because he wasn’t bothered about being disturbed whilst having sex and because he only decided to kill her when he was already in the yard and the urge to kill came over him?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I think if you carefully scrutinize each of the witness's testimony how unsafe they are becomes even clearer

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Apart from the conveniently-forgotten fact that the testimonies of two of the three witnesses do not agree with each other and that a leap of faith is required to reconcile them.

[Lewis C]

A thought.

Although I can’t quote any specifics at the moment (because I haven’t looked) isn’t it the case that some serial killers have used prostitutes at times without killing them? And isn’t it the case that an urge to kill can come upon a killer quite suddenly? Perhaps triggered by something the victim said or did or by something that triggered some kind of memory or impulse?

If the above are reasonable, and yes of course I’m speculating and speculation appears to only be acceptable on the earlier ToD side, then couldn’t it be at least possible that the killer didn’t initially intend to kill Annie, only to have sex with her? And if that’s plausible then might it not provide at least a potential explanation as to why he wasn’t so concerned about the location or the time of day? Because he wasn’t bothered about being disturbed whilst having sex and because he only decided to kill her when he was already in the yard and the urge to kill came over him?

Hi Herlock,

I would doubt it in this case because as I recall, the evidence seems to be that no one had sex with any of the Ripper victims shortly before their deaths. That leads me to believe that JtR wasn't looking to have sex with any of his victims, but merely acted like he was looking for it to get the women to take him to places where they were unlikely to be interrupted.

[Trevor Marriott]

If you scrutinise them properly you see how reliable they are you and you can’t fail to notice what leaps of faith have to be taken and what poor thinking has to be employed in the quite deliberate attempt to discredit them.

You keep stating that I am trying to discredit them, that is not the case I am merely stating that those 3 witness testimony is unsafe to totally rely on. But you seem to accept their testimony without question, and you are so blinkered in that belief and are not prepared to accept anything or anyone that goes against your belief.

And as long as you keep believing in the testimony of those witnesses this thread is going to go and on with the same old same and to be honest its getting boring now

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Apart from the conveniently-forgotten fact that the testimonies of two of the three witnesses do not agree with each other and that a leap of faith is required to reconcile them.

But Herlock cant see or wont accept that fact

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Lewis C]

Apart from the conveniently-forgotten fact that the testimonies of two of the three witnesses do not agree with each other and that a leap of faith is required to reconcile them.

The two witnesses only appear to not agree with each other if one fails to recognize that clocks and estimations of time in 1888 Whitechapel could sometimes be off by more than 5 minutes. Furthermore, it doesn't even mater if they can be reconciled, because even if you throw out Long's testimony, Richardson and Cadosch are enough to make a later TOD easily the more likely possibility.

[Lewis C]

You keep stating that I am trying to discredit them, that is not the case I am merely stating that those 3 witness testimony is unsafe to totally rely on. But you seem to accept their testimony without question, and you are so blinkered in that belief and are not prepared to accept anything or anyone that goes against your belief.

And as long as you keep believing in the testimony of those witnesses this thread is going to go and on with the same old same and to be honest its getting boring now

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

They can't be totally relied upon, but they can be relied upon with at least 80% certainty.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

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.

(Wolf Vanderlinden)


This time, there is no attempt to refute the arguments presented above, presumably because it has already been explained to me that the time of death of about 5.30 a.m. has already been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of most people who have posted their views here.

Let us take a look at what has been explained to me.

Chapman's body supposedly cooled unusually quickly because she had been eviscerated, with miles of her innards lying over her right shoulder.

Forgive me, but not only had Eddowes been eviscerated, but she had been eviscerated in an almost identical way: both women lost a kidney and uterus.

And not only that, but she too had her intestines thrown over her right shoulder.

Then we get the argument that Chapman died a violent death, which would have speeded up the onset of rigor mortis.

Excuse my naivety again, but did Eddowes not die a violent death too?

Then there is the clincher: the coolness of the morning.

Was it not a cool morning when Eddowes was murdered?

And when all the arguments have been parried, we get the fact that Eddowes had been very drunk and that MUST have kept her nice and warm, whereas sober Annie went almost stone cold.

Again, excuse my extreme naivety, but was not Chapman drunk too?

The rejoinder comes that there was no comparison: Eddowes was so drunk that her reading was off the seismograph.

So let us look at the evidence.

The police found Eddowes drunk and four and a half hours later, she was judged to be sober and released from the police station.

We can deduce from the evidence that by the time of her death, she had not drunk alcohol for more than five hours, although I would not put it past some posters - the kind whose tongues are habitually inside their cheeks when they reply to me - to suggest that she may have acquired some alcohol during that time or secreted a bottle on her person.

Now let us take a look at what happened with Chapman.

[Coroner] Was she the worse for drink when you saw her last? - She had had enough; of that I am certain. She walked straight. Generally on Saturdays she was the worse for drink.

So, we have evidence that Chapman was not sober when last seen, but Eddowes was.

Yet we were assured that Eddowes was still being warmed up.

And not only that, but the truth is that alcohol consumption causes an illusory rise in body temperature, but actually LOWERS it!

Another argument presented is that Chapman's body would have cooled more quickly, or that rigor mortis set in more quickly, because it appears that she was suffering from tuberculosis.

The fact that it appears that Eddowes had Bright's Disease, which leads to kidney failure, is conveniently left out of the equation.


The case for a time of death of 5.30 a.m. presented on this thread is not short of contrived arguments.

[Fleetwood Mac]

"They were wrong, because memory can be bad."

From my perspective, you've had these types of questions answered, and when answered you've rapidly moved onto some other objection rather than discuss that answer.

Assuming you're here for serious discussion, here's your opportunity.

As far as I can tell, your objections over the course of this thread have broadly been as follows, although there may be a few other bits I've missed:

1) It's pseudo-science.

2) I'm attempting to 'eliminate Albert'.

3) Memory errors largely occur because some other person has deliberately introduced false information during the process of memory encoding to memory recollection.

4) I've been unable to demonstrate how and why the articles/studies/widely accepted conclusions relate to Albert.

Feel free to add any other objections you have.

In the meantime, let's take the first objection and when resolved we'll move onto the next one, assuming you're here for serious discussion:

1) Explain how and why the research/articles I put forward is pseudo-science.