Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[Herlock Sholmes]

Back to the clocks...

I have to ask the following question.
"Do i consider it more likely that a couple of people in London 1888, used general expressions around the times of events... not having the means by which to ascertain the precise time, not having any reason to commit the event to memory at the time of it occuring... or more likely that three people experienced unconnected mental/psychological events causing one to experience delayed auditory hallucination, another to confuse which day they had seen a woman and man, and another to somehow erase a body in the backyard from his mind/memory WHILE he was looking at a it to the point where could sit on a step inches away from the discarded innards of the body and pooling blood and focus on his own FEET?

We are asked to believe that those things "might" have happened.
But suggesting that witnesses, just like so many other people who lived in that place, in that period, estimated the time of day rather than knowing it exactly, and that a five minute estimation was probably pretty good for people who didn't have watches or particularly demanding appointment schedules.
THAT's the crazy talk???

And we have Cadosch’s own words which clearly tell us that he was only estimating times so there can be no mistaking the fact. I really can’t understand the resistance to something so everyday and normal AP. To suggest that times are somehow being ‘moved’ makes no sense because we don’t have a time in the first place so it can’t apply to Cadosch.

And as no checks were done into the accuracy of the brewer’s clock as far as we know combined with the indisputable fact that even today clocks can be significantly wrong and poorly synchronised there really should be no problem accepting the possibility of that clock being fast.

To sum up AP what we can say is that whilst we clearly can’t prove that Long and Cadosch’s testimony tied up perfectly as far as times go we also cannot claim that they didn’t tie up. We don’t have enough information to suggest either on the subject of times.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Is it at all likely that Long would have been able to identity Chapman three days after the murder, even though it seems that she was unable to describe any of her clothing?

We have absolutely no way of knowing. Memory is far from infallible of course but it’s simply the case that some people have a better memory for faces than others do so maybe Long was in that category? Maybe she wasn’t…..we can’t know. The fact that she paid more attention to her face than her clothing can’t really be surprising combined with the fact that the poorest women were hardly extravagantly dressed. Most of them would have worn very similar clothing unlike today.

What is worth remembering though is that she was much closer to her subject and in better conditions than Lawende was to the couple that he saw. The reality is that we have absolutely no way of gauging the accuracy of Long’s sighting. She might have been mistaken or she might not have been. But still, what we are left with is a woman who had no reason to lie claiming to have seen a woman who at least looked like Annie Chapman at (around) the correct time and in the right place (close to number 29) on the morning of the murder. This makes her evidence at the very least important. Impossible to prove or disprove.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There really should be no problem accepting the possibility of that clock being slow rather than fast, in which case the church clock has to have been about 20 minutes too slow.

[A P Tomlinson]

And we have Cadosch’s own words which clearly tell us that he was only estimating times so there can be no mistaking the fact. I really can’t understand the resistance to something so everyday and normal AP. To suggest that times are somehow being ‘moved’ makes no sense because we don’t have a time in the first place so it can’t apply to Cadosch.

And as no checks were done into the accuracy of the brewer’s clock as far as we know combined with the indisputable fact that even today clocks can be significantly wrong and poorly synchronised there really should be no problem accepting the possibility of that clock being fast.

To sum up AP what we can say is that whilst we clearly can’t prove that Long and Cadosch’s testimony tied up perfectly as far as times go we also cannot claim that they didn’t tie up. We don’t have enough information to suggest either on the subject of times.

What would they even check the times against? The clock at Greenwich? The Police station clock? Which station? The ME's arrival on scene? The watch of the most senior investigator on scene?

When the times are all matched up at Mitre Square, are ALL the Police watches at the City division so well synchornised to be able to agree that Watkins precision at 1.44am wasn't out by a minute or so compared to the Inspectors' watches? Or is it more likely that when establishing the timeline they might go by the coroners offering of Morris' estimate of "about quarter to two" and work back a minute?
When the police made an established timeline, like Buck's row and Mitre Square they would have been the MOST accurate, and the specific position of the hands of the clockface are slightly less relevant to any discrepancies between witnesses. Timelines that the police didn;t establish would be less accurate, especially if no formal timeline were even presented.
A few minutes here or there are quite clearly a normal matter of routine 1888 criminal investigation. If more precision were possible and expected you can be sure the coroners would have wanted to know why the times WERE so disparate.

People keep treating elements of Victorian life such as forensic pathology and accurate time keeping like they would a modern, 21st century situation, and by modern I mean how almost everything in life these days comes equipped with a time stamp.
Medical science was barely aware of the need for things like simple disinfection in 1888, but we are expected to accept that these quacks by modern day standard could use the back of their hand more efficiently than a modern medical examiner with a digital thermometre and probe for liver temp, who also understands lividity and that measuring post mortem processes are more important in establishing ToD than a guess at the scene... And these people could tell time as accurately as if every low born guttersnipe had a synchronised wrist watch (that had only just been invented as a concept.)

We've got witnesses who would apparently have been absolutely ****-on with their to-the-minute time keeping but couldn't recognise a human face???
We've a doctor who knew Time of Death but thought the wounds took quarter of an hour to inflict... and he's apparently MORE reliable on the situation he has never encountered before, than his estimations over the practice of cutting someone up... and he's a bloody surgeon. (Oh he was WAY off with the time on the wounds... but that Time of Death... see no reason to doubt THAT!)
But it's ALBERT.... ALBERT is the one whose evidence and reliability are questioned, because some scientists say that memory can be faulty... we've not got any specific events or conditions or situations that we can point at that would cause him to have any of these episodes... but his memory is unreliable because a sudden psychic storm MIGHT have made him conflate the news of a murder with an old memory of a packing case hitting a fence... but most importantly ALL those things that point toward a later time of death than the doctor said, NEED to be brushed aside or discredited.
Not because the evidence says so, but because people who don't like the evidence, because it interferes with their wider theory, say so.

[Herlock Sholmes]

When we talk about a margin for error we’ve repeatedly stated that we have to allow for both ways. So if we say 5 minutes then 5.25 - 5.35.

So the suggestion is:

Cadosch gets up at around 5.20.

Long passes the couple at around 5.25.

Cadosch goes into the yard at around 5.25/6 and hears the ‘no.’

He returns an estimated 3/4 minutes later so around 5.30.

He goes back inside and straight out as he said so around 5.31.

He passes the Spitalfields clock which said 5.32.


I see no issue.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What would they even check the times against? The clock at Greenwich? The Police station clock? Which station? The ME's arrival on scene? The watch of the most senior investigator on scene?

When the times are all matched up at Mitre Square, are ALL the Police watches at the City division so well synchornised to be able to agree that Watkins precision at 1.44am wasn't out by a minute or so compared to the Inspectors' watches? Or is it more likely that when establishing the timeline they might go by the coroners offering of Morris' estimate of "about quarter to two" and work back a minute?
When the police made an established timeline, like Buck's row and Mitre Square they would have been the MOST accurate, and the specific position of the hands of the clockface are slightly less relevant to any discrepancies between witnesses. Timelines that the police didn;t establish would be less accurate, especially if no formal timeline were even presented.
A few minutes here or there are quite clearly a normal matter of routine 1888 criminal investigation. If more precision were possible and expected you can be sure the coroners would have wanted to know why the times WERE so disparate.

People keep treating elements of Victorian life such as forensic pathology and accurate time keeping like they would a modern, 21st century situation, and by modern I mean how almost everything in life these days comes equipped with a time stamp.
Medical science was barely aware of the need for things like simple disinfection in 1888, but we are expected to accept that these quacks by modern day standard could use the back of their hand more efficiently than a modern medical examiner with a digital thermometre and probe for liver temp, who also understands lividity and that measuring post mortem processes are more important in establishing ToD than a guess at the scene... And these people could tell time as accurately as if every low born guttersnipe had a synchronised wrist watch (that had only just been invented as a concept.)

We've got witnesses who would apparently have been absolutely ****-on with their to-the-minute time keeping but couldn't recognise a human face???
We've a doctor who knew Time of Death but thought the wounds took quarter of an hour to inflict... and he's apparently MORE reliable on the situation he has never encountered before, than his estimations over the practice of cutting someone up... and he's a bloody surgeon. (Oh he was WAY off with the time on the wounds... but that Time of Death... see no reason to doubt THAT!)
But it's ALBERT.... ALBERT is the one whose evidence and reliability are questioned, because some scientists say that memory can be faulty... we've not got any specific events or conditions or situations that we can point at that would cause him to have any of these episodes... but his memory is unreliable because a sudden psychic storm MIGHT have made him conflate the news of a murder with an old memory of a packing case hitting a fence... but most importantly ALL those things that point toward a later time of death than the doctor said, NEED to be brushed aside or discredited.
Not because the evidence says so, but because people who don't like the evidence, because it interferes with their wider theory, say so.

Couldn’t have put it better AP. We have to separate then from now. It’s the same as when it’s assumed that we can deduce how a woman like Annie Chapman would or wouldn’t have thought and acted. We just can’t begin to understand how much their lives differed from ours. How much their thinking differed from ours. And then we get it stated that the killer wouldn’t have done this or that. A man who murders and disembowelled women can hardly be considered as a paragon of logical thought and action. There’s often a reluctance to accept just how much we don’t and cannot know.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Cadoche could not have heard 'no' at 5:26 and passed the church at 5:32.

Swanson estimated that he heard the fall against the fence at 5:28.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why not?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Cadoche could not have heard 'no' at 5:26 and passed the church at 5:32.

Swanson estimated that he heard the fall against the fence at 5:28.

According to Cadoche's evidence, it must have been a few minutes earlier than 5:26 when he heard 'no'.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Again:

“On Saturday, Sept. 8, I got up about a quarter past five in the morning, and went into the yard. It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think.”

Cadosch’s evidence is based on him estimating the time that he got up. If he’d been certain of the time he wouldn’t have used the word ‘about.’ He then estimated a period of 5 minutes before he went out into the yard. So both the time and the period of time cannot be considered completely accurate. Therefore he could have:

….got up at 5.20 (plus 6 minutes) takes his entry into the yard to 5.26.
…got up at 5.21 (plus 5 minutes) takes his entry into the yard to 5.26.
….got up at 5.19 (plus 7 minutes) takes his entry into the yard to 5.26.

or maybe:

…got up at 5.20 (plus 7 minutes) takes his entry into the yard to 5.27.
….got up at 5.21 (plus 6 minutes) takes his entry into the yard to 5.27.
…got up at 5.19 (plus 8 minutes) takes his entry into the yard to 5.27.

Yes, it could have been the other way too before you say it. Margins for error work both ways to give a range. So when did he go back into the yard a second time?

“..about three or four minutes afterwards..”

Another estimate. Maybe it was only 2 minutes, or 2 and a half minutes, or 4 and a half minutes or 5 minutes?

We have a range of entirely plausible possibles.

[GBinOz]

Apologies to the brass.
I'll keep that in mind, must have missed it in the rules...

Hi AP,

It's not in the rules. The thread was closed due to excessive personal attacks. It has recently been re-opened with strict rules involving such attacks. The thread is here:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/social-chat/other-mysteries/10932-jfk-assassination-documents-to-be-released-this-year/page177#post825342

Cheers, George

[Lewis C]

Cadoche could not have heard 'no' at 5:26 and passed the church at 5:32.

Swanson estimated that he heard the fall against the fence at 5:28.

He could have heard "no" at 5:26 and passed the church when the clock said 5:32 if the clock was a little slow.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The mechanism of this clock runs so efficiently that it only has to be wound a couple of times each year.


https://spitalfieldslife.com/2010/05...-spitalfields/



Christ Church in Spitalfields. The clock mechanism is said to be so accurate it only needs to be wound 3 or 4 times a year

https://twitter.com/The_East_End/status/1627576982484537346

[Fleetwood Mac]

The mechanism of this clock runs so efficiently that it only has to be wound a couple of times each year.


https://spitalfieldslife.com/2010/05...-spitalfields/



Christ Church in Spitalfields. The clock mechanism is said to be so accurate it only needs to be wound 3 or 4 times a year


https://twitter.com/The_East_End/status/1627576982484537346

Watches and clocks in the Victorian era - The Watch-Collector Leeds

Watches and clocks were an intrinsic part of Victorian culture and society. According to historians, Victorians had a “mania” for punctuality, so watches and clocks were taken on every journey and embedded into every aspect of day to day life.

The Victorian years were an unforgettable period and the watches and clocks of the Victorian era are stunning, timeless representations of how clock and watch making has developed throughout history. Victorian watches and clocks were made to be cherished and admired, rather than being simply a day-to-day necessity, and they still have as much capacity for appreciation today as they did in Victorian times.

This does not convey a people unable to keep time and being indifferent to that.

c6ab40287743c45c949828cb2bae870e97d430c0.pdf (d3hgrlq6yacptf.cloudfront.net)

However this is an exception; although there are some 18th century and even earlier clocks in this Diocese, the majority of church tower clocks date from the Victorian era or the early 20th century. In common with most engineering work of this period, they are usually very well-made and if kept in good order are capable of service for many more years, and certainly longer than a modern version.

English Church Clocks by Keith Scobie-Youngs (ecclesiasticalandheritageworld.co.uk)

However, those who care for a turret clock will know well how highly regarded by the local community, not only for it’s graceful appointment of the building but also for it’s link to the community’s past and its timekeeping.

Because of the growing importance of accurate timekeeping, mainly due to the development of the railways, clockmakers throughout the country strived to keep their clocks accurate whilst combating the problems associated with large dials and hands exposed to the elements.

Different escapements were used such as the recoil and dead-beat, but it wasn’t until Lord Grimthorpe developed his double three legged, gravity escapement in 1859 that large clocks could keep time to within a few seconds a month.

The idea that the clocks were unable to keep time accurately and it didn't really matter to the people of the age, has grown legs and become more or less accepted; when it shouldn't have been.

[GBinOz]

The mechanism of this clock runs so efficiently that it only has to be wound a couple of times each year.


https://spitalfieldslife.com/2010/05...-spitalfields/



Christ Church in Spitalfields. The clock mechanism is said to be so accurate it only needs to be wound 3 or 4 times a year


https://twitter.com/The_East_End/sta...4537346

If the reputation of this clock is to be accepted as reported it would not be unreasonable to suggest that it was accurately showing GMT.

Davies testified:
I was awake from three a.m. to five a.m. on Saturday, and then fell asleep until a quarter to six, when the clock at Spitalfields Church struck.

This would indicate that the strike could be heard distinctly, so Cadosch is likely to have heard the clock strike 5:15, which provides a reasonable benchmark for his time estimates as he observed the same clock at 5:32.

Long testified that she was still in Brick Lane, about to turn into Hanbury St, when she heard the Truman Brewery clock strike 5:30. Since the Truman clock was behind her at that time, it would seem unlikely that she mistook the Church Clock for the Truman Clock.

Google maps shows a 1 minute walk from where Long heard the clock strike to where she saw the couple in the street, and a 3 minute walk from #27 Hanbury to. a position where Cadosch could see the Church clock, so if the two clocks were in sync, he would have left #27 about 2 minutes before Long spotted the couple. Obviously this does not make sense. If the clocks were in sync and Long heard the Truman clock strike 5:15, it still doesn't make sense, as it couldn't take her nearly 15 minutes to negotiate a 1 minute walk.

If Cadosch, like Davies, was wakened by the Church Clock strike and got up at around that time, it would not seem unreasonable that he was returning from his trip to the Loo and in the doorway, at around 5:20. It is assumed that the "no" and the thump were both related to the murder, but the "no" would require Jack and Annie to be in the yard when Albert was in the Loo, necessitating a clock sync error of around 12 minutes. But if the "no" was sourced from a neighbour, and unrelated to the murder, then Jack and Annie might have arrived during Albert's second sojourn in the Loo, with the thump being Annie's fall against the fence. This reduces the sync error by about 5 minutes (including the time actually spent in the Loo). While this in an entirely reasonable sync error for that era, and is possible, while a little convenient, we need to bear in mind Jeff's advice that possible does not mean probable.

Cheers, George