Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[NotBlamedForNothing]

What certainly is a Straw Man argument is that we are attempting to ‘move’ Cadosch’s time……because Cadosch didn’t quote ‘a time.’ He quoted ‘an approximated time,’ and an approximated time allows for a measure of leeway. Just as a reminder to assist those who might have forgotten:

“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 uncertainty could hardly have been more clearly stated. In a house full of clocks I could tell you ‘about’ what time I went to bed last night but in my case I’d have to give a + or - 10 minutes on that (possibly even slightly longer)

Cadosch arrived at the estimated time that he entered the yard by adding an estimated period or time (probably around 12 hours or so earlier) to an estimated time that he got up. He estimated his time period at around 5 minutes. So he could have got up at 5.18 and the period of time could have been 7 minutes.

These are tiny amounts of time….applied either way (so he could equally have been later or earlier) So, by applying a minimal margin for error, he could have gone into the yard from around 5.15 to around 5.25. This should be an acceptable way of assessing undoubted estimations.

Abraham Herschburg: It was about a quarter to 1 o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter in the gateway.

If +/- 5 minutes is a minimal margin of error for time estimates, what would be a reasonable maximum?

[Doctored Whatsit]

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.

Victorian clocks, especially the large ones in churches etc, were almost always well made and kept fairly accurate time. Unfortunately, there was no universally agreed standard time, and GMT was not used by very many of them. It was used by the railways and the police, but not many others. I read an article written by a man who lived in the east end of London all of his life, who was presented with a watch on his retirement in about 1893. He set his watch to Big Ben, and reported that almost all clocks in the East End were inaccurate, usually by about 5 minutes, and often ten or more. One London district had clocks which were off GMT by 20 minutes - another source at the time confirms this. The question of the accuracy - not the quality or time-keeping of Victorian clocks - was discussed on another thread some time ago. There was total agreement that time was rather approximate in those days. Time was certainly important, as a man had to get to work on time, but the clock at his place of work was unlikely to use GMT.

[JeffHamm]

The thing with Long is how she provided a positive identification of Annie. That means we have to consider the possibility that she did actually see Annie alive at the time she passed #29 Hanbury Street. The identification appears to have been made by showing her just Annie for a "Was this the woman you saw", which unfortunately gives us good reason to also consider the possibility that her identification was in error. There is, however, no way for us to know which is the case.

Long states the time of her sighting as being just after hearing the 5:30 chimes of the Brewers clock. Cadosche states he passed the Spitalfields clock at 5:32, and given it's about a 2 minute walk from his house, that would mean he left at 5:30. He states he did not see a couple, nor does he state he saw Long, and Long does not state she saw him.

That suggests that there is some amount of time between Cadosche leaving and Long's sighting, but again, we do not know "which came first."

Now, if Long's sighting is in error, it doesn't really matter, but it also means that Long and couple could very well be a few minutes after Cadosche's departure. Of course, it would also work if Long and the couple were spotted a couple of minutes before Cadosche's departure. Either of those are easily accounted by the Brewers clock and the Spittalfield clock being out of sync by a few minutes.

The other possibility is that Long did see Annie, and that her identification is correct. In that case, Long must have seen the couple well before Cadosche left, in enough time for Annie and JtR to get into the backyard for Cadosche to have heard the conversation, and the later fence noise.

While that could also reflect the two clocks differing, with the Brewers Clock being fast relative to the Spitalfield's clock, it can also be easily explained by Long misrecalling the chimes. This isn't to say she misheard the chimes at the time they rang, only that when she later recalled her walk to work, she recalled hearing the chimes but misrecalled which chimes they were. This is the sort of thing that witnesses do make errors on. Moreover, that would mean Long's sighing was at 5:15.

Basically, if Long's identification is accurate, then we have to account for how Long testifies 5:30, and it isn't hard to do so.

There is also some information that indicates that considering Long's sighting to have occurred at 5:15 rather than 5:30 is not to be dismissed lightly. Long's address was stated variously as Church Street or Church Row, Spittalfields, but that doesn't exist. There is a Church Row in Bethnal Green, however. There's an old thread here where attempts were made to try and track down where exactly Long was living.

A couple posts include references to the 1891 Census, and there were Long's living at 31 Church Row, and this couple was living at 17 Church Row in the 1881 census. This couple doesn't include an Elizabeth Long. There was an Elizabeth Long living in Blyth Street, in Bethnal Green in the 1891 census. In the old thread there was some wondering if the Church Row couple might have some relation to Elizabeth Long (in-laws), and that she may have been living with them in 1888, later moving to Byth Street. This was never determined, but was an interesting idea given that I think her address is sometimes stated as something like 32 Church Row or Church Street.




So I mapped out what looks to me to be the most direct route from Church Row, Bethnal Green, to the Spitalfields market. That entire route measured about 0.63 miles (3326.4 feet), which at an average walking pace would be covered in 12 m 12s. the marker shows #29, and the clock would be on Brick Lane roughly about at the height of the marker. The distance from the clock to the market was 1242 feet, which would take about 4m 33 seconds. Long says she left home about 5:00, and if she left right at 5:00, she should have reached the market before 5:15. Of course, if she left a bit after 5, then it becomes far more likely she heard the 5:15 chimes. She would have to have left well after 5:00 for those chimes to be the 5:30. Of course, if she stopped somewhere along the way, that could account for the missing time, but the point is that given what we know, if she was living in Church Row Bethnal Green, that would suggest her 5:30 is well worth considering as a possible error.

Now, the other residence location, Blyth Street, Bethnal Green, did have an Elizabeth Long living there, who was a cart minder. This could be our Elizabeth Long. If she was living there in 1888 as well, then her likely route to market would be this one:

which measures to 5454 feet from home to the market, which would require 20 minutes at an average walking speed (I've used 3.1 mph), and it's 15 m 26 seconds to pass the Brewers clock. Again, this points more to the chime being the 5:15 than the 5:30.

What we don't know, of course, is whether or not she stopped along the way, and so forth. We also do not know if she was actually living at either of those addresses in 1888, and I want to emphasize that these two seem promising (the first because it seems similar to her address as reported, the 2nd because there was an Elizabeth Long living there). But the point is, if either of these are correct, the distance would suggest the chimes are more likely to be the 5:15 than the 5:30. Obviously, there are ways to use up the extra time, but the point is that given the distance we really do have to consider the very real and not uncommon problem, that Long has simply misremembered what the chimes were when she heard them.

If her sighting of Annie was accurate, then it seems that a reasonable case for her sighting to have been at 5:15 could be made. Of course, if her identification was in error, then she may still have misrecalled the chimes, but it is also possible she just say the couple a few minutes before or after Cadosche departed for work.

What this means is, it is fairly easy to reconcile how Long could have seen Annie prior to Cadosche hearing them in the backyard. Clock sync could be the issue, or, if either of these residence locations are correct, perhaps a simple recollection error occurred.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Abraham Herschburg: It was about a quarter to 1 o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter in the gateway.

If +/- 5 minutes is a minimal margin of error for time estimates, what would be a reasonable maximum?

I don’t know. Herschburg was estimating and we have no way of knowing how he came by a time that clearly made no sense in regard to other witnesses.

[Herlock Sholmes]

“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.”


The statement that “watches and clocks were taken on every journey,” clearly can’t include those that didn’t own them in the first place. It’s even the case that many, or even most, police officers didn’t even own a watch and were totally reliant on various public clocks. No one would dispute the increasing importance of timekeeping in Victorian society but we have to be aware that this, like everything else, was led by the upper and then the middle classes.


——————————————


“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.”


And we can safely conclude that the clock wasn’t accurate all year round but just became instantly inaccurate on a certain day 3 or 4 times a year. In the periods between windings it would have lost time gradually…1 minute then 2 then 3 then 4 etc until it was re-wound. This therefore suggests to us that this clock was actual ‘wrong’ for the majority of the year. If it was considered vital for spot-on times it would have been wound up more than 3 or 4 times.


——————————————


“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.”


If he did hear the clock it would have meant that he ‘knew’ the time. But this can’t have been the case because he said “I got up about a quarter past five in the morning.” If he’d heard the clock he wouldn’t have been estimating the time.


——————————————


Again, I’ll ask a general question because I have to admit that for a considerable time I’ve been struggling to understand certain viewpoints. Do we all agree that modern day clocks, watches and phones can be inaccurate? Do we agree that these devices are often poorly synchronised? The radio for example has just told me, via the news, that it is 10.00. My mobile phone tells me that it’s 10.03 however. The clock on the microwave tells me that it’s 10.06 and the clock on the kitchen wall tells me that it’s 10.04. As you walk around all day check each clock that you can. See how wide ranging the differences are…….

….in 2023. With GMT, with modern technology, with time being even more important today than it was in 1888…..

So please, can someone explain to me, in simple terms, why they confidently believe that clocks and watches,135 years ago in an East End slum, were more reliable than todays high tech? Why are any of you so confident in their unerring precision that you are quite happy to dismiss a potentially important witness on a matter of 5 or 6 minutes? And how confident are you in this level of confidence?


——————————————

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another point that I think worth mention is this….

Its been asked on here many times “why didn’t anyone come forward to say that they had seen Annie in the period after she left the lodging house?”

Therefore it’s also valid to ask “why didn’t either of the two people that Elizabeth Long saw come forward?”

[A P Tomlinson]

Abraham Herschburg: It was about a quarter to 1 o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter in the gateway.

If +/- 5 minutes is a minimal margin of error for time estimates, what would be a reasonable maximum?

I'd suggest doing an experiment. Say something to someone, or make them a coffee, then the next day ask them what time you did it.

When my wife works from the office she rarely, if ever, gets home exactly at 5.30 but its always "around 5.30" it can be anything from sometimes being as early as quarter past or as late as quarter to six.

My kid catches the 3.05 bus from the shops near his school and takes "about 20 minutes" to walk from the bus to home. So he gets home "around half past" but this can be ten minutes either way.

I feed the dogs "Around 7.30" every morning. If this morning I was as late as quarter to eight, I;d still say it was "around half sevne" because I don;t measure the exact time I do it on a daily basis.

Going back to my first point on saturday just gone I was sittng with a couple of friends in the beer garden next to my house. After having been through this thread, I thought I'll ask them. "without looking at your phones... what time did we come out here, and how long have we been sitting here?"
One thought "about 8.15" and "about fiteen minutes" the other " about 8.10 and about twenty minutes". We'd left the bar at 8.10 and had been out there for twenty five minutes.
I did it again, but telling them, "It's 8.45, In a while I'm going to ask how long has passed and what time you think it is." and ten minutes later I asked them... both said about 15 minutes...

[A P Tomlinson]

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.

Oh good God... again with the links...

Again, as with your science no one is disputing the ability of Victorian clocks to KEEP time. they were mechanical marvels!

But it is also well known that they were not set to one single time and that the hours would ring out across London from many clock towers that all kept DIFFERENT times.

If the Police Station clock (which keeps fantastic time) is set to midnight, but Officer Dibley's exceptional pocket watch is set to 11.50, and the highly reliable mechanism of the Church Clock sayys 12.07... which one is CORRECT?????

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I don’t know. Herschburg was estimating and we have no way of knowing how he came by a time that clearly made no sense in regard to other witnesses.

Should the margin of error on time estimates be the same for all witnesses, or should it change depending on how well an estimate conforms with those given by other witnesses?

The later could be problematic for the same reason that multiple eyewitness descriptions are never blended into one, in case or more of those witnesses saw someone different. In this case, if it is not certain that Mrs Long saw Annie when she thinks she did, then she cannot be used to narrow the time range that Cadosche was outside. That is, the estimate given by Cadosche is no more precise than that given by Herschburg.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Lawende reckoned he saw Eddowes at about 1.35.

Levy made it about 1.34.

Neither saw Harvey, who was there at 1.28 by the post office clock.

Harvey did not see the couple.

Watkins was in Mitre Square at 1.30.

He did not see Harvey.

Harvey would probably have been able to see the couple as early as 1.38 had they still been in Church Passage.

He did not see Lawende and company either.

There is no conflict whatsoever.

With clocks often being out by five or ten minutes, would you expect that?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Should the margin of error on time estimates be the same for all witnesses, or should it change depending on how well an estimate conforms with those given by other witnesses?

The later could be problematic for the same reason that multiple eyewitness descriptions are never blended into one, in case or more of those witnesses saw someone different. In this case, if it is not certain that Mrs Long saw Annie when she thinks she did, then she cannot be used to narrow the time range that Cadosche was outside. That is, the estimate given by Cadosche is no more precise than that given by Herschburg.

I’d simply say that a margin for error has to be applied to all. Individuals can debate that likelihood of any proposed margin. Herschburg’s time is clearly in conflict with the other witnesses and by a considerable amount.

The point that I make about Long and Cadosch isn’t that we should say that it’s proven that Long saw Chapman because we can’t say that. It’s that we can’t dismiss the possibility just on times. Especially when all that’s needed is a 5 or 6 minute margin on both witnesses.

So how seriously can we take any suggestion that times should be assumed to have been spot on? Especially when Cadosch was very clearly unsure.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No assessment of any part of this case can be considered valid if an margin for error isn’t applied to every single time mentioned in the case without exception.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A comparison. I’ve said that as a general rule we can’t assume that all clocks were correct and perfectly synchronised. An example was then provided of how some clocks appeared to have been accurate. Is that a reasonable point?

To compare I’d say that it’s a reasonable general rule the men are usually physically stronger that women. Would that point be negated in any way if someone posted examples of some women who were stronger than some men?


A general rule like the one where we can’t assume accuracy can’t be negated by individual examples of accuracy.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

almost all clocks in the East End were inaccurate, usually by about 5 minutes, and often ten or more.

The timings given at the Eddowes inquest suggest otherwise.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Does not the information provided in # 763 suggest that the Christ Church clock was more accurate than had been conceded by several posters?

And does not the fact that Harvey's timings do not conflict with Lawende's or Watkins' timings, nor with the movements of Eddowes, if she was the woman seen by Lawende, suggest that the Post Office clock was fairly accurate too?