Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

When there is a discrepancy between timings, it has to be explained.

That happened in the testimony given at the Nichols inquest.

Edward Stow has consistently chosen to ignore it, but it cannot be ignored.

The other three timings were in agreement with one another.

The explanation for that is not necessarily that all three had the wrong time and that their timings were wrong in more or less the same way!

The explanation is of course that one of the witnesses got his timing wrong.

To allege that when I point out such a discrepancy, I am guilty of 'categorical dishonesty' is itself intellectually dishonest.

Unless there is a provable explanation for the discrepancy that enables one to resolve the conflict between the two witnesses' testimonies, then the discrepancy remains.

That is the only honest approach to take.



Now to the allegation that a certain poster has 'rubbed up' a large number of other posters 'the wrong way'!

As I pointed out the other day, some posters are refusing to respond to questions put to them even though the questions were put perfectly politely and entirely within the rules.

One of these posters who has allegedly been 'rubbed up the wrong way' addressed posts to me, but when I responded, reminding him that he had failed to respond to posts in which I refuted an argument he had put forward both in posts on this forum and in a dissertation of his, he made no response.

I have asked him to respond about eight times in total so far.

He is now being described as someone who 'won’t bother engaging on threads with' me.

Anyone can check our exchanges and see for himself that it is not true.

He is perfectly willing to address posts to me when it suits him, but he resolutely refuses to respond to posts in which I have refuted what he has written.

He has not been 'rubbed up the wrong way' at all.

It is just that he is unwilling to admit that he is wrong.

[JeffHamm]

The thing that keeps getting ignored is that none of the testimony actually conflicts, and all of the testimony is consistent with a ToD of around 5:20. When I say none of the testimony, I means Richardson, Long, Cadosche, and Dr. Phillips.

There are a bunch of things that continue to be presented that are invalid. The argument that the times give by Long and Cadosche conflict is wrong. we know the clocks and memory is open to error and the give times fall within the known ranges associates with time error. That is all that matters, arguments like " but you have to say the clocks are out in this particular way .. " simply reflect ignorance of how to deal with data. It is not a valid concern and needs no rebuttal.

Also, the concern that witness memory is potentially influenced is not a reason to prefer anything given we also know that medical estimates of ToD also have wide ranges of error. One has to demonstrate the witness is wrong, not simply show they could be wrong.

All this doesn't mean the later ToD is proven, but it does mean the later ToD is far more supported than the earlier given what we know.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The thing that keeps getting ignored is that none of the testimony actually conflicts, and all of the testimony is consistent with a ToD of around 5:20. When I say none of the testimony, I means Richardson, Long, Cadosche, and Dr. Phillips.

There are a bunch of things that continue to be presented that are invalid. The argument that the times give by Long and Cadosche conflict is wrong. we know the clocks and memory is open to error and the give times fall within the known ranges associates with time error. That is all that matters, arguments like " but you have to say the clocks are out in this particular way .. " simply reflect ignorance of how to deal with data. It is not a valid concern and needs no rebuttal.

I am not going to reciprocate your insinuation that I am ignorant of how to deal with data.

I suppose I could say that you have 'rubbed me up the wrong way'.

What you are saying is ridiculous.

There was no such conflict in the testimony given at Catherine Eddowes' inquest.

In that case, there was no need to resort to the explanation that the clocks is (sic) open to error.

How can you say that when the timings agree, there is no problem, but when the timings do not agree, there is not a problem either?

Of course what I wrote is correct - and your comment about ignorance is completely uncalled for.

The clocks would have had to be wrong in just the right way.

Had they been wrong in the wrong way, then the two witnesses' evidence could still not be reconciled.

Surely you can see that?

[Abby Normal]

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

on my way! cheers Gaffer! ive just past the Chesapeake lighthouse.

[Lewis C]

I am not going to reciprocate your insinuation that I am ignorant of how to deal with data.

I suppose I could say that you have 'rubbed me up the wrong way'.

What you are saying is ridiculous.

There was no such conflict in the testimony given at Catherine Eddowes' inquest.

In that case, there was no need to resort to the explanation that the clocks is (sic) open to error.

How can you say that when the timings agree, there is no problem, but when the timings do not agree, there is not a problem either?

Of course what I wrote is correct - and your comment about ignorance is completely uncalled for.

The clocks would have had to be wrong in just the right way.

Had they been wrong in the wrong way, then the two witnesses' evidence could still not be reconciled.

Surely you can see that?

The timings that are given should be viewed as falling within ranges, since it's clear that estimated timings won't always be exactly right. Just because they sometimes are doesn't mean that they always are. If we give an allowance for 10 minutes Cadosch's estimated time for hearing the "no" was 5:25, that would men a range of 5:15-5:35. If Long thought she saw the couple at 5:31, that would be 5:21-5:41 if we assume that she heard the 5:30 chime rather than the 5:15 chime, which is assuming a lot. So the beginning of Long's range is 14 minutes earlier than the end of Cadosch's range. All that is needed to show that there's no conflict between Cadosch and Long is that there is a possible timing where they fit. It's beside the point that one can come up with other timings where they conflict.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

What is the truth that you seek to rely on ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The timings that are given should be viewed as falling within ranges, since it's clear that estimated timings won't always be exactly right. Just because they sometimes are doesn't mean that they always are. If we give an allowance for 10 minutes Cadosch's estimated time for hearing the "no" was 5:25, that would men a range of 5:15-5:35. If Long thought she saw the couple at 5:31, that would be 5:21-5:41 if we assume that she heard the 5:30 chime rather than the 5:15 chime, which is assuming a lot. So the beginning of Long's range is 14 minutes earlier than the end of Cadosch's range. All that is needed to show that there's no conflict between Cadosch and Long is that there is a possible timing where they fit. It's beside the point that one can come up with other timings where they conflict.

Thank you for taking the trouble to answer my post.

I was of course waiting for Jeff to answer, but it may be that he thinks that after his making a remark about my alleged ignorance, it is I who have rubbed him up the wrong way and not vice-versa.

I am sure that your estimate of 14 minutes is an over-estimate, because Cadoche's estimate was obviously earlier than 5:25.

He indicated that it was very soon after 5:20.

What you say is beside the point is obviously not beside the point!

What is the point of giving a range if you are going to disregard most of it?

If Cadoche heard the 'no' between 5:12 and 5:32 and Long passed by at 5:21 to 5:41, then by the time the couple could have finished their conversation, walked to number 29, gone through the passage and into the yard, the Long range for hearing 'no' is at least 5:23 to 5:43.

That means most of the Cadoche rage for hearing the 'no' is too early.

The odds are still against the discrepancy between the two timings being resolved.

You wrote:

... if we assume that she heard the 5:30 chime rather than the 5:15 chime, which is assuming a lot ...

Is it?

Is it as great an assumption as the assumption that she arrived at the market early, even though she testified that she arrived there at about 5:32, and the evidence suggests that she went there regularly at about the same time?

Is it as great an assumption as the assumption that Cadoche arrived late for work without any of his colleagues or superiors noticing it, and even though he must have gone to work at about the same time each day?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

What is the truth that you seek to rely on ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Maybe the kind of truth relied upon by many religious fundamentalists and true believers.

To such people, everything else is a lie.

[JeffHamm]

The timings that are given should be viewed as falling within ranges, since it's clear that estimated timings won't always be exactly right. Just because they sometimes are doesn't mean that they always are. If we give an allowance for 10 minutes Cadosch's estimated time for hearing the "no" was 5:25, that would men a range of 5:15-5:35. If Long thought she saw the couple at 5:31, that would be 5:21-5:41 if we assume that she heard the 5:30 chime rather than the 5:15 chime, which is assuming a lot. So the beginning of Long's range is 14 minutes earlier than the end of Cadosch's range. All that is needed to show that there's no conflict between Cadosch and Long is that there is a possible timing where they fit. It's beside the point that one can come up with other timings where they conflict.

Hi Lewis C,
Exactly, and the same notion of ranges applies to all bits of information. Some types of information, like estimates of the ToD have known ranges (+-3 hours by todays standards), so all we can say for sure is that the true ToD will be within 3 hours of the estimated time. Other ranges, like when a witness estimates an age, have known ranges too (I cited some research data based in over 1000 estimates, and it was found that just under 50 % of the time the witness estimated an age within 10 years of the true age - which basically tells us that the ages people give are pretty useless really. Estimates of height and weight were a little better, but I can't recall the ranges at the moment. In this study people had to give estimates in feet and inches, ir pounds, ir years, etc. A while back I posted a study where they looked at subjective terms (tall/short, or heavy/thin, or warm/cold etc) where it was shown such descriptions are so variable between people they were all but meaningless. Sadly, this is the kind of statements we often have. I am still looking for a study on the reliability of statements of relative height, as in some cases we have witnesses making those kinds of statements, and relative estimates may be more reliable than absolute estimates - ir they may be just as useless. Hopefully there is a decent study addressing this question.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Other ranges, like when a witness estimates an age, have known ranges too

Estimates of height and weight were a little better

Hi Jeff,

I once worked with a guy that was so phenomenal at estimating age that it was suggested that he must have been secretly accessing personnel files to achieve his purpose. When my wife worked in our shop she would recognise customers from years before, and remember their names and what they bought, to the astonishment of said customers (and myself). When it comes to estimating age, height and weight, I fall into the category of "worse than useless". However, my facial recognition is excellent, and my wife informs me that my hearing rivals that of Mr Spock. These are the problems we encounter in the judging the description by Hutchinson, or the contradictory heights observed by Lawende and Levy, particularly when said observations are made in less than optimum circumstances.

Best regards, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I once worked with a guy that was so phenomenal at estimating age that it was suggested that he must have been secretly accessing personnel files to achieve his purpose. When my wife worked in our shop she would recognise customers from years before, and remember their names and what they bought, to the astonishment of said customers (and myself). When it comes to estimating age, height and weight, I fall into the category of "worse than useless". However, my facial recognition is excellent, and my wife informs me that my hearing rivals that of Mr Spock. These are the problems we encounter in the judging the description by Hutchinson, or the contradictory heights observed by Lawende and Levy, particularly when said observations are made in less than optimum circumstances.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Group data tells us the range of the distribution in the population, not the ability of a given person. As with everything, individuals vary, some are are very good some are very bad, and most in the middle. We know nothing about the witnesses, so we have to consider possibility they are very good, or very bad, or in the middle, so we look to the population range and that is our range we have to work with. By working with that range we are not assuming anything specific, and effectively we are considering all options simultaneously.

Otherwise, what is to prevent me from saying Long has your memory for faces? Or you saying she is your polar opposite? we would both be wrong to do so, rather we have to look at the population range Of course, if we were there in 1888 we could find out about the individuals and set population distributions aside.

Because we can't do those tests, we are always left with ranges. Where we have two ranges we can sometimes narrow things down by looking at overlap.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Group data tells us the range of the distribution in the population, not the ability of a given person. As with everything, individuals vary, some are are very good some are very bad, and most in the middle. We know nothing about the witnesses, so we have to consider possibility they are very good, or very bad, or in the middle, so we look to the population range and that is our range we have to work with. By working with that range we are not assuming anything specific, and effectively we are considering all options simultaneously.

Otherwise, what is to prevent me from saying Long has your memory for faces? Or you saying she is your polar opposite? we would both be wrong to do so, rather we have to look at the population range Of course, if we were there in 1888 we could find out about the individuals and set population distributions aside.

Because we can't do those tests, we are always left with ranges. Where we have two ranges we can sometimes narrow things down by looking at overlap.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I hope that you have not misinterpreted my post. It was meant to promote the idea of ranges by highlighting the extremities. To that end I will take the liberty of quoting Errata's comments on a Richardson thread:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/suspects/general-suspect-discussion/9754-was-john-richardson-jack-the-ripper/page12

She posted:
I feel it necessary to point out for the sake of argument that the things we don't notice in our daily lives, things we should have noticed, are legion. There is a 75 year old hackberry tree in my front yard I didn't notice until a year ago. And I've lived here for five years. And it was a big enough deal that I wracked my brain trying to figure out if someone could transplant a tree that size. Because obviously I didn't just somehow fail to notice an enormous tree next to my garage. Except that's exactly what I did. I'm sure I saw it, but it didn't register.

Have you ever wondered how many people walk past a corpse before someone calls the cops? In New York City, it's a lot. And most of those people don't see the corpse. Or they think they didn't. Most people's brains dismissed the corpse as a homeless person of or a drunk before it ever made it into their conscious mind. Had they registered that person as dead, they likely would have said something. But they didn't.

Can a man sit down and try to trim his shoe next to a corpse without seeing it? I could, easily. I'm absent minded and somewhat notorious for not paying attention to her surroundings. If your mind is on something else, and there is at least some history of people being in that back yard... you see what you want to see. And even then you only see what your unconscious mind hasn't already filtered out as irrelevant. It's a very well known phenomenon. And it seems outlandish to think that you could be a foot away from a mutilated corpse and not notice, but people don't notice all the time. That's why it's rare that the first person to see a body in a trash can is the one to call the cops. The brain just edits it out for a lot of reasons, leaving a person able to throw out their trash while blissfully ignoring the body in the dumpster.

She might have been there, and he might not have seen her. It just depends on what he was thinking about at the time. The more lost in thought or irritated he was, the less likely he was going to register a corpse in yard.

On the bell curve of observational prowess, and by her own acknowledgement of absentmindedness, she MAY be placed as an outlier. Never the less, she has a place on the range of observational data. Posters on this forum also fall under the range of an opinion bell curve, and while the centre of the curve is currently occupied by those who favour a later ToD, that does not necessarily reflect the consensus on previous threads, or the reality of what actually happened, as it is all part of the bell curve. I agree that we have no way of knowing the individual strengths, weaknesses or susceptibility to suggestion of any of the witnesses, so we resort to discussion, exchange of ideas, and assessments of probabilities, as we are doing here.

Best regards, George

[A P Tomlinson]

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.

Did you not read what I just said? I never said it was speudo science. But we'll get to that down the line. Lets see how long your attention can actually be held before wandering and the self inflicted "Misinformation Effect" grabs hold.

(OK PI, cover your eyes, this is going to contain vehemence)

Show me the science (the stuff that YOU keep citing) applied to Albert Cadosch in terms of how it shows his memory was flawed in giving testimony.
YOUR topic, YOUR witness, YOUR scientific evidence.
Now show how they work together. Not in some weaker than water "Here's some science." (insert Link) and leaving it at that.

I'm not going to stop asking for this since THIS is what you claim you have done, but havent.

Is there a specific Latin phrase for "Starting a discussion then avoiding the subject because you realised you don't understand what you actually said?"

Here's the nearest you came... back in your very first post.

"Psychological scientist Elizabeth Loftus studies memories. More precisely, she studies false memories, when people either remember things that didn’t happen or remember them differently from the way they really were. It’s more common than you might think, and Loftus shares some startling stories and statistics, and raises some important ethical questions we should all remember to consider.

And this:

Contrary to common intuition, however, courtroom statements of confidence are very poor predictors of accuracy (26–29). The cause of this confidence–accuracy disparity is well captured by Daniel Kahneman’s cognitive “illusion of validity” (30). Subjective confidence in a judgment is not a reasoned evaluation of the probability that this judgment is correct. Confidence is a feeling, which reflects the coherence of the information and the cognitive ease of processing it. Declarations of high confidence mainly tell you that an individual has constructed a coherent story in his mind, not necessarily that the story is true."


NONE of which carries anything approaching a case against Cadosch's reliability.
It's two vague statements saying that scientists have shown memory can be influenced. It doesn't even start to show HOW. And I think that's your problem.. you didn't go into the HOW and WHY. You settled for the introductions and Abstracts and didn't bother to learn. You were just happy to find something that at face value supports your position.
When in fact I don't think you even understand your own position!
Anybody who actually understood this who has your flair for quoting Latin would cite the specific science in specific case... IF they understood them!!
You don't... you post links to what clever people said, but can't interpret them yourself. You have to cut and paste, which means you can't apply it to a specific case!

PLEASE demonstrate that I'm wrong by actually applying the SCIENCE to the SUBJECT... the thing I have been asking you to do all along and you have avoided like the plague.

ALL you have done is post links and pseudo-INTELLECTUAL definitions of Latin arguments, and not yet even tried to do the scientific thing and apply the science to the subject.

Now you want to play PI's game of "I'm only prepared to argue things that I might be able to steer to a victory".

I'm prepared to have a serious discussion when the person who Started the Thread, chose the subject, and cited the science decides to actually add those things together in a coherent fashion.

And since you clearly lack the attention to actually READ anything beyond skimming. Here is me using the phrase "pseudo science"... (Post #110 if you care to read it all in full context)

"OK, what percentage of overall convictions are overturned? 75% is a big number, but if it's 75% of a couple of pecrent of all convictions that's very different to 75% of half of all convictions.

I saw a stat recently claiming that between 2% and 10% of all convicts in America may be innocent. If its 10% that's a lot and suggests a systemic failure, if its 2% it's not that bad for a country that lacks a single justice system while many jurisdictions employ the sorts of cowboy justice techniques the people who write the studies you keep quoting are trying to highlight and tackle. It is also increasingly down to bull**** pseudo science masquearding as reliable forensic evidence.
But it also means that over 92% of convinctions based on EYE WITNESS testimony are sound.

I've mentioned this before, but DNA evidence has put the wrong person behind bars because of bad practice and cross contaminaton at the source of testing on numerous occasions, and "Bite Mark" evidence of the sort that is often portrayed as being game breaking in the TV shows and movies, has been exposed as little better than phrenology.
Do we consider DNA or "Forensic Science" to be "Unreliable"? No, we apply better standards and protocols so that a very useful tool can be used properly.
The same should apply to witnesses, and their questioning. (A point the "Misinformation Effect" studies goes to great lengths to push.)"

Since I think I've adequately answered you childish insistence on qualifying my use of "pseudoi science"
And since the chances of you saying "Ah... sorry I was wrong" are nil, lets just pretend it happened and move on.

My turn...
Are you able to either put up or shut up?

Apply the science to the subject... you know the whole point of the Thread you started.
or
Just come clean, and tell everyone you read a headline in a magazine in some waiting room, didn't read the body of the text, googled the headline when you got home, found a few links, copied and pasted them into a forum post, and copied and pasted some text that appeared clever... and at some point spotted a coffee table book on "Confrontational Latin Phrases for Dummies" and wrote few down.

I'm not dancing to your numbered questions till you start supporting YOUR own statements with some evidence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Did you not read what I just said? I never said it was speudo science. But we'll get to that down the line. Lets see how long your attention can actually be held before wandering and the self inflicted "Misinformation Effect" grabs hold.

(OK PI, cover your eyes, this is going to contain vehemence)

Show me the science (the stuff that YOU keep citing) applied to Albert Cadosch in terms of how it shows his memory was flawed in giving testimony.
YOUR topic, YOUR witness, YOUR scientific evidence.
Now show how they work together. Not in some weaker than water "Here's some science." (insert Link) and leaving it at that.

I'm not going to stop asking for this since THIS is what you claim you have done, but havent.

Is there a specific Latin phrase for "Starting a discussion then avoiding the subject because you realised you don't understand what you actually said?"

Here's the nearest you came... back in your very first post.

"Psychological scientist Elizabeth Loftus studies memories. More precisely, she studies false memories, when people either remember things that didn’t happen or remember them differently from the way they really were. It’s more common than you might think, and Loftus shares some startling stories and statistics, and raises some important ethical questions we should all remember to consider.

And this:

Contrary to common intuition, however, courtroom statements of confidence are very poor predictors of accuracy (26–29). The cause of this confidence–accuracy disparity is well captured by Daniel Kahneman’s cognitive “illusion of validity” (30). Subjective confidence in a judgment is not a reasoned evaluation of the probability that this judgment is correct. Confidence is a feeling, which reflects the coherence of the information and the cognitive ease of processing it. Declarations of high confidence mainly tell you that an individual has constructed a coherent story in his mind, not necessarily that the story is true."


NONE of which carries anything approaching a case against Cadosch's reliability.
It's two vague statements saying that scientists have shown memory can be influenced. It doesn't even start to show HOW. And I think that's your problem.. you didn't go into the HOW and WHY. You settled for the introductions and Abstracts and didn't bother to learn. You were just happy to find something that at face value supports your position.
When in fact I don't think you even understand your own position!
Anybody who actually understood this who has your flair for quoting Latin would cite the specific science in specific case... IF they understood them!!
You don't... you post links to what clever people said, but can't interpret them yourself. You have to cut and paste, which means you can't apply it to a specific case!

PLEASE demonstrate that I'm wrong by actually applying the SCIENCE to the SUBJECT... the thing I have been asking you to do all along and you have avoided like the plague.

ALL you have done is post links and pseudo-INTELLECTUAL definitions of Latin arguments, and not yet even tried to do the scientific thing and apply the science to the subject.

Now you want to play PI's game of "I'm only prepared to argue things that I might be able to steer to a victory".

I'm prepared to have a serious discussion when the person who Started the Thread, chose the subject, and cited the science decides to actually add those things together in a coherent fashion.

And since you clearly lack the attention to actually READ anything beyond skimming. Here is me using the phrase "pseudo science"... (Post #110 if you care to read it all in full context)

"OK, what percentage of overall convictions are overturned? 75% is a big number, but if it's 75% of a couple of pecrent of all convictions that's very different to 75% of half of all convictions.

I saw a stat recently claiming that between 2% and 10% of all convicts in America may be innocent. If its 10% that's a lot and suggests a systemic failure, if its 2% it's not that bad for a country that lacks a single justice system while many jurisdictions employ the sorts of cowboy justice techniques the people who write the studies you keep quoting are trying to highlight and tackle. It is also increasingly down to bull**** pseudo science masquearding as reliable forensic evidence.
But it also means that over 92% of convinctions based on EYE WITNESS testimony are sound.

I've mentioned this before, but DNA evidence has put the wrong person behind bars because of bad practice and cross contaminaton at the source of testing on numerous occasions, and "Bite Mark" evidence of the sort that is often portrayed as being game breaking in the TV shows and movies, has been exposed as little better than phrenology.
Do we consider DNA or "Forensic Science" to be "Unreliable"? No, we apply better standards and protocols so that a very useful tool can be used properly.
The same should apply to witnesses, and their questioning. (A point the "Misinformation Effect" studies goes to great lengths to push.)"

Since I think I've adequately answered you childish insistence on qualifying my use of "pseudoi science"
And since the chances of you saying "Ah... sorry I was wrong" are nil, lets just pretend it happened and move on.

My turn...
Are you able to either put up or shut up?

Apply the science to the subject... you know the whole point of the Thread you started.
or
Just come clean, and tell everyone you read a headline in a magazine in some waiting room, didn't read the body of the text, googled the headline when you got home, found a few links, copied and pasted them into a forum post, and copied and pasted some text that appeared clever... and at some point spotted a coffee table book on "Confrontational Latin Phrases for Dummies" and wrote few down.

I'm not dancing to your numbered questions till you start supporting YOUR own statements with some evidence.

[A P Tomlinson]

Hi Jeff,

I once worked with a guy that was so phenomenal at estimating age that it was suggested that he must have been secretly accessing personnel files to achieve his purpose. When my wife worked in our shop she would recognise customers from years before, and remember their names and what they bought, to the astonishment of said customers (and myself). When it comes to estimating age, height and weight, I fall into the category of "worse than useless". However, my facial recognition is excellent, and my wife informs me that my hearing rivals that of Mr Spock. These are the problems we encounter in the judging the description by Hutchinson, or the contradictory heights observed by Lawende and Levy, particularly when said observations are made in less than optimum circumstances.

Best regards, George

Memory IS weird. Last year I bumped into an old friend on Facebook I hadn't seen since school, and when she mentioned something about a funny incident at some morning registration or other, for the liife of me I couldn't remember the name of the teacher who was our 3rd year form tutor... but I could remember my friends old phone number.
OK... Sounds a bit creepy, but I'll explain. When we were in sixth form she used to say that the easy way to remember her number was "56 - George Orwell" and that stuck in my mind. I hadn't thought about it, or needed to think about it, for about 40 years, and as soon as we started talking it was there.
I had to be VERY careful how I phrased... "I remember your childhood phone number..."

There was another girl at my school who could remember every world capital city, every US State Capital, and all the county towns of England and Wales. Another guy could recite the periodic table (with atomic weights) at about 11 or 12 but would have struggled to wire a plug.
I think the best I could manage at that age was the ability to recite all the weapon and armour stats from the Dungeon Masters Guide and if someone asked me the AC of something from the Monster Manual, I would be right at least 90% of the time... PRIORITIES!!!!