Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[Fleetwood Mac]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

When it comes to Albert, he has been taken at face value because people do not understand the memory process, I didn't until a few days back.

Reading the articles and research, we are hard-wired to remember sound that may signal a threat or some sort of problem, and to forget innocuous incidents rapidly. It's an inbuilt survival strategy.

We are surrounded by sounds every minute of every day but how many do we remember? You'd remember the sound of a wolf because that's a threat but you wouldn't remember the sound of say a car passing on the road. We hear hundreds of cars passing on the road every day, but how many of those events do we remember the next day? It's not a threat, it's innocuous, and so those sounds do not make it into short term memory, they're discarded within seconds.

Albert was thinking about work and just going about his business of going to the toilet a couple of times in the early morning.

We are told by researchers that one of the most common errors in memory is that the event is not fully encoded into the mind because that person is not taking much notice.

Albert must be a prime candidate for that, like we all would be in his situation, simply because memory is malleable and we are hard-wired to remember certain events and forget others.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

Chapman did not in fact lose a kidney.

Eddowes was even more extensively mutilated.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

Why assume that the clocks are off in such ways that the discrepancy shrinks rather than widens?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

A ‘fact’ that is only sustained by a lie.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Hi Lewis,

Thanks for that. It wasn’t a point I was intending to push strongly.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But Herlock cant see or wont accept that fact

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Because it’s untrue.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

The above can and should be ignored on the grounds of being poorly informed.

Plus, why do you keep quoting Wolf Vanderlinden as if he’s some kind of holy text? Just a man with an opinion. Nothing more.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

More pointlessness.

[Herlock Sholmes]

ToD around 5.25/5.30.

All else requires dishonesty.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

But Herlock cant see or wont accept that fact

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

As you may have noticed, his 'refutation' of that fact is to accuse me of relying on a lie (# 664), which seems very close to calling me a liar.

He has also accused me of dishonesty (# 669), has accused me of invention and manipulation (# 637) and, four times in a single post, of invention (#552).

He consistently relies - and has done so for a long time - on personal attack rather than reasoned argument, and that is why I am no longer prepared to respond directly to his provocations.

[A P Tomlinson]

Chapman did not in fact lose a kidney.

Eddowes was even more extensively mutilated.

And in one third of the time, according to the Doctors...

[Herlock Sholmes]

To make a claim of a ‘discrepancy’ between Long and Cadosch in an attempt to discredit one or the other or both is based on a categorical dishonesty. It’s relies on a claim that clocks and watches at the time were all accurate and synchronise.

This claim cannot be honestly made. It’s not even a claim that can even be made in 2023. The only honest approach is to allow for a reasonable margin for error. Five minutes or so is well within that margin.

Its as simple as that. One side is true the other is a lie. I choose to go with the truth. Others choose other courses because it suits them to do so.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And my last post of the evening. A view in the mirror might be helpful for some. Im no stranger to a heated debate, I’ve never denied it. I hold my hands up to it…I should walk away sooner. But in the short space that a certain other poster have been posting the amount of posters that they have rubbed up the wrong way is staggering. So much so that many won’t bother engaging on threads with that person. In just over a year that person has probably fallen out with more individual posters than I have in 6 years of posting.

I said it last night but I intend to give this thread a wide berth. All meaningful discussion died long ago due to the terminal bias of some posters.

[A P Tomlinson]

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.

That's fairly simple, and if you'd read any of my posts to you regrding this you'd know that I have consistently said that I consider the science to be sound.
The issue I have is with the way YOU continue to avoid applying it scientifically.
You have not done anything more than repeat that the science shows that memory can be flawed. Anyone who has a memory will know that without the need for the repeated links to studies.
The studies you DO link to talk about HOW the specific effects are caused, and mostly (in the case of the ones you started out linking) talk about how the MisinformationEffect can be used by unscrupulous/incompetent forms of questioning that cause the witness to believe what they are told rather than what they saw. You have not shown how any of the specific triggers or illiciting effects that the study pretty clearly states are required ofr the effect to take place were a factor in the testimony of Cadosch.

When asked what those are you immediately switch to "You are challenging the work of experts!" mode rather than actually paying attention to the point being made and do not and will not start applying the science YOU keep citing in the testimony of the witness YOU chose to be the focal point of the thread.

While I'm here I'll do the rest.
2) You are dismissing the reliability of a witness based on nothing at all. You keep linking these studies, as if they are some catch all to all people and everyone's memory without reading them and understanding that they are specific in how various memory issues happen and the causes that can be identified. Without applying them and simply continuing to either post links or claim that anyone who asks you to be specific in the application of the science is attacking the scieence and not your failure to apply it.

3) NO... that's hogwash! That is what I said about the Misinformation Effect... to which it was entirely applicavblee because THAT is what the report you linked to discussed. Try readin them instead of just linking them.
It seems your memory is playing up... so go back to what you posted links to in your OP as grounds for considering Cadosch's testimony as unreliable. That was all about a very specific phenomenon known as "The Misinformation Effect" and specifically how it results from people being tricked/misled into giving false testimony. You still haven't shown how any of the marker, illiciting events or triggers explained in those reports would have applied to Albert. Some people have stepped in to try with "He might have..." or "What if he..." with no tangible statements to say "This thing DID happen and WOULD have caused a serious memory lapse or creating a false memory!"

Unless you can apply the science and explain it in the context YOU established it's worthless in any case taht is made to discount a witness based on memory issues.

4) You haven't taken any of the studies you linked to and said "X, Y, or Z event occuredm, which would have caused Albert to have forgotten/misremembered/created a false memory as shown by THIS piece of reasearch. You have simply held up the research and said "Look at this!" then left it. You seem to have an awful lot of this material, I can't believe that at no point you have been able to find ONE thing in there where you can say something along the lines of, "This statement of Alberts is flawed, because of THIS event, which will have caused a memory lapse/false memory as shown by THIS research!"

My objection remains the same as it always has been. You don't know how to aply the science YOU cite to the wtiness YOU chose to question the reliability of.

[Fleetwood Mac]

That's fairly simple, and if you'd read any of my posts to you regrding this you'd know that I have consistently said that I consider the science to be sound.

At one point, you stated it was pseudo science. I have no interest in hauling you over the coals and going back a few pages to prove the point.

It seems you are now saying: it is not pseudo science. Do I have this correct?

If so, we can move onto point 2.