Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[Elamarna]

Clocks being set to Greenwich mean time doesn't mean we are talking about all clocks being set accurately to exact minutes. Prior to GMT being adopted as a standard, there were different local mean times, and railway times, that differed from GMT. Adopting GMT meant everyone synched THE HOUR and the basic concept of the general minutes. It is impossible to sync clocks to the minute even when all are set to "GMT".

The two above statements aren't contradictory. Adjudicated.

Absolutely.
That clocks were using GMT is not the the question. Rather the question is how syncronizied were the various clocks and watches to each other?

Trying to judge just how syncronizied public clocks or even watches were in 1888 is impossible, but we can look at public clocks today, and see just how syncronizied they are.

As I showed in my East End Conference talk of last year, 2022, which is available on this site with slides, even in 2021/22 public clocks are rarely syncronizied to either GMT or other public clocks within the area.

If people look at some of the slides, they will see several multi-faced public clocks, and astoundingly sometimes a clock will show different times on different faces.

For reference:

Levy and Lawende used the same time source for their accounts, but the times they give for their sightings are not fully syncronizied even then.

Harvey, arrived the time he gave by using the Post Office clock in the High street, and then estimating how long before that time he was in the passage way.

Watkins had his own watch, but we can have no idea how closely syncronizied it was to any of the other times mentioned by witnesses.

Steve

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

But the timings do not clash.

If, for example, we take Levy's earlier estimate of 1.33 a.m. and the clock he used was three minutes fast relative to the post office clock (assuming Harvey was right) and the couple had been chatting for two minutes, then Harvey would certainly have seen them.

[Ally]

But the timings do not clash.

If, for example, we take Levy's earlier estimate of 1.33 a.m. and the clock he used was three minutes fast relative to the post office clock (assuming Harvey was right) and the couple had been chatting for two minutes, then Harvey would certainly have seen them.

I am sorry, I have read through the last several pages of this thread and I cannot for the life of me, fathom what you are arguing.

People, ESTIMATE Times. This cannot be in dispute, correct? All functional human beings know, that if you go ask ten people what time it is "RIGHT NOW" you will get ten different answers. People also overestimate and underestimate how long a task takes them to complete. Because how people experience the passage of time ... is ... subjective.

Time perception being a subjective experience is backed up by all science. There are branches of neuroscience devoted to this. There's a famous scene in a movie where a lawyer is asking a witness how long it took him to make breakfast, and he's like "About five minutes" and the lawyer then goes on a diatribe about how No southerner could make breakfast in five minutes when they were making grits, because grits take 20 minutes to boil. Which is true. But MANY people over and underestimate daily tasks, because, again, people experience time subjectively.

So what exactly is being argued here? Witnesses are not going to agree on times. Times that witnesses give will ALL be estimates with a wide degree of variance. People think it takes five minutes to make breakfast, when it takes 20 minutes. The vast majority of people, to a percentage that would presume every witness we are discussing would be included in that percentage, do not have internal chronometers that function in keeping with exact time. People experience time subjectively. That's just facts. Why are we arguing facts? To what end?

What is the POINT of this argument?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I have never denied that timings could be out by a few minutes.

I have argued that it is unlikely that the two clocks involved in the Chapman murder timings were wrong in just such a way as to enable Cadoche to have heard the woman seen by Long say 'no'.

For example, the brewery clock would have had to be fast by at least six minutes and the church clock slow by at least six minutes.

I am arguing that that is unlikely.

With the Eddowes murder timings, there are no conflicts.

If the clock at the Imperial Club had been several minutes fast relative to the Post Office clock, then Harvey would have seen the couple seen by Lawende.

If the clock at the Imperial Club had been several minutes slow relative to the Post Office clock, then not only would Harvey have seen the couple, but the murder could not have happened.

[Ally]

The lack of discrepancy in Eddowes murder timings is irrelevant. Just because something doesn't occur within a given set of circumstances is evidence of absolutely nothing in another.

The clocks timings do not have to be set 12 minutes apart. There is nothing to indicate that they weren't, as it is possible, we have no way of knowing, but that is not the sole way this discrepancy is able to be resolved. This entire thread started on the premise that human recollection is fallible. Memory is fallible. If you are asked to recall what time you passed a church that you walk past every day of your life, on a totally NORMAL day for you, do you think you are going to remember exactly or do you think you are going to drudge up a memory you have of walking past that church clock and looking at it at any given day that week?

All of the people who are giving witness accounts (other than the ones who discovered the bodies obviously) were having perfectly normal days. Long had probably seen people squabbling in the streets before. Cadoche had walked past that church every time he went to work. Cadoche had absolutely no particular need or reason to imprint in his mind, exactly what time he was passing a clock on a perfectly normal day.

Therefore, given that he had no actual pressing personal reason to KNOW when he passed that clock, or impress it in his memory, it is perfectly plausible that he was suffering from time illusion.

The same could be said of Long, and her for some reason impressing into her mind EXACTLY when she approached a random street, on a random day and saw a couple quarreling that she said wasn't any big deal.

And again.. so what? What is the point? If you think the woman seen by Long wasn't Chapman, fine. Arguing that all witness accounts are flawless and must be taken literally is not going to prove that. Because humans don't work like that.

Ordinary people going about ordinary days, aren't actually going to impress random, trivial, daily events into their brains with any degree of accuracy. Cadoche was probably dead certain he heard and saw what he did, because that's unusual. Knowing what time he passed a clock after several intervening activities on a perfectly average day, would actually be unusual. The things you do by rote, on ordinary days, don't get imprinted with any degree of accuracy.

If you wish to discount Long, or Cadoche, feel free. But convincing other people to your point of view requires a far superior argument than what is being offered here. Because you seem to discount human fallibility and real life, and presume all things in a case must align perfectly because that's how it goes on TV murder cases.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Because you seem to discount human fallibility and real life, and presume all things in a case must align perfectly because that's how it goes on TV murder cases.

On the contrary: I have never underestimated human fallibility in the Whitechapel Murders case - and that goes for police officers' recollections as well as those of witnesses.

[GBinOz]

Ordinary people going about ordinary days, aren't actually going to impress random, trivial, daily events into their brains with any degree of accuracy. Cadoche was probably dead certain he heard and saw what he did, because that's unusual.

Hi Ally,

Inquest, Evening Standard Sep 20:
And you had not the curiosity to look over? - No, I had not, as it is usual for people in the yard next door. They are very early risers.

It is not usual for thumps against the palings? - They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings. I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over.

Cadosch didn't see anything. When the coroner asked if thump against the fence was unusual, Cadosch did not reply in the affirmative, but that he had previously heard such sounds which were made by packing cases. He also testified that his mind was on other things.

I'm just not seeing this testimony as being from a man confident of his recollections. JMO.

Cheers, George

[A P Tomlinson]

Hi Ally,

Inquest, Evening Standard Sep 20:
And you had not the curiosity to look over? - No, I had not, as it is usual for people in the yard next door. They are very early risers.

It is not usual for thumps against the palings? - They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings. I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over.

Cadosch didn't see anything. When the coroner asked if thump against the fence was unusual, Cadosch did not reply in the affirmative, but that he had previously heard such sounds which were made by packing cases. He also testified that his mind was on other things.

I'm just not seeing this testimony as being from a man confident of his recollections. JMO.

Cheers, George

George, nether did he reply in the negative... he gave an explanation.
All he's saying is that the noise of a packing case hitting the fence isn't happening all the time, but when one does hit it he knows what it is that usually makes that sound.
It's not like he's in the yard all day to hear how often they bang against the fence, bercause he's at work.

He noted that they are early risers, but he didn't know that they didn't have much work on at the time and that business was slow. So he's no reason to think that it isn't Mrs Richardson and her employee (whose name escapes me right now...) starting early.

If he's heard them in the yard before, it is most likely to be before he sets off for his own work.
When he says he was thinking about his work, I think he means he was more concerned about getting there on time after having lost a few minutes from his routine to his secondary ablutions, rather than his mind being filled with fantasies of how much fun stuff he had to look forward to, or dread at the day ahead. And as a result just didn't bother to stop and poke his nose over the fence because he didn't want to be late.

And if his memory has had a psychological trigger event and conflated memories from other days, we'd need to know how often he needed to make two trips to the privvy on a morning, making himself late to make that claim.
I'd argue that if it were a regular thing he would have learned to just... get up a few minutes earlier and wait a few minutes on his first visit for the seconod need to arise?
If the two trips is an aberration in his routine, then it is far more likely his recollection of what happened during his two trips... happened on that day.

I don't see any reason to doubt his recollections, beyond wanting to find fault.

[Pcdunn]

Re "spats" vs. "gaiters" I looked them up, as I thought Scrooge McDuck wore the more formal spats, not gaiters, which suggest outdoorsmen such as hunters or gamekeepers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spats_(footwear)

Wikipedia does state that "spats" (from the original name "spatterguards") cover the ankle and instep of shoes, to keep the upper shoe and lower part of the trouser clean and dry.
It states spats aren't the same as gaiters, which go above the shoe or boot and cover the lower leg and more of the trousers. (I don't know if "gaiter" and "legging" are different names for the same thing, but the area covered would seem to be similiar.)

This is a minor distinction, of course, and has no impact on the discussion of the "spring". I am inclined to think it was just random trash found in the yard, and not related to the murder.

[New Waterloo]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Cadosch did not hear a noise of something hitting the fence. Correct me if I am wrong. I think we can accept that he heard something. Any suggestion that this is a noise made by packing case makers at that specific time in the morning doesn't hold water. Where is the evidence of a packing case maker bumping into the fence at that time. No where. There was nobody in the Hanbury Street back yard at that time to make that noise. Or if I am incorrect and one of the occupants of the house can be shown to be in the yard at that time well, then perhaps it was them. Otherwise it strongly suggests it was Chapman or her murderer and importantly when Cadosch leaves the house there are no signs of the couple that Long has just seen.

No because Chapman lies bleeding in the yard and her killer either still in the yard or climbing fences to make good his escape. Surely it must have been Chapman and her murderer seen by Long otherwise we have two couples hanging around number 29 looking for somewhere discreet to go. The evidence just seems so strong.

So who was the murderer? We have a description. It may not be the description we want but that's how it works in real life.

NW

[Elamarna]

So who was the murderer? We have a description. It may not be the description we want but that's how it works in real life.

NW

A very interesting point NW.

Let me offer an alternative.

I think everyone knows my position on the killer, and to a degree Long's description supports that view; yet for many years I dismissed her description, and undervalued her statement, not because it was NOT the description I wanted, but because it was just too much what I wanted( ignoring age. Which is I suggest very hard to judge, and only applies to some of those covered by the generic Anderson's suspect anyway).
It was late last year, when a very good friend, asked pointedly why I always placed her statement under that of Richardson and Cadosch that I actually realised why I rejected her.

In short, I found her statement, too good to be true.

Your original point, that we often reject stuff because it does not fit the picture we have of the kill is very true.

Steve

[A P Tomlinson]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Cadosch did not hear a noise of something hitting the fence. Correct me if I am wrong. I think we can accept that he heard something. Any suggestion that this is a noise made by packing case makers at that specific time in the morning doesn't hold water. Where is the evidence of a packing case maker bumping into the fence at that time. No where. There was nobody in the Hanbury Street back yard at that time to make that noise. Or if I am incorrect and one of the occupants of the house can be shown to be in the yard at that time well, then perhaps it was them. Otherwise it strongly suggests it was Chapman or her murderer and importantly when Cadosch leaves the house there are no signs of the couple that Long has just seen.

No because Chapman lies bleeding in the yard and her killer either still in the yard or climbing fences to make good his escape. Surely it must have been Chapman and her murderer seen by Long otherwise we have two couples hanging around number 29 looking for somewhere discreet to go. The evidence just seems so strong.

So who was the murderer? We have a description. It may not be the description we want but that's how it works in real life.

NW

Ah, I'm not sure you've read all the posts NW.
I agree with that completely, but... DID Albert actually hear ANYTHING that morning?

An argument has been made, along with many links to psychological studies that mainly talk about how easy it is for police/prosecutors to deliberately manipulate a witness into giving favourable testimony... (though less vociferously now than at first,) that Albert heard NOTHING untoward that morning, but upon returning home from work and discovering that there had been a murder next door, his subconscious created for him a scenario where he conflated memories from past days when he had heard bumps and voices, and convinced himself that they had occured that very morning.
Because at the time, his mind wasn't focused on the fence, and he was more concerned about getting to work... his memory played tricks on him.

And because of their atomic clock like levels of time keeping ability, the differences in Long and Cadosh's times, means that they could not have heard/seen what the claimed to have heard/seen, because their memories of those events are far more likely to have been made up by some psychological event than them simply being a bit out by a few minutes on their estimates of what time these things occured. (A link says that Public Clocks were all accurate to GMT by 1885 apparently...)

That seems to be the crux of the proposition.

(Though even if the times were absolutely accurate down to the minute, and synchronised to GMT by satellites and WiFi, it would only mean that ONE of them was wrong...)

[Herlock Sholmes]

When we look at any witness it’s right that we should accept the possibility of human error. In the case of Elizabeth Long it’s absolutely possible that the couple that she saw wasn’t Annie and her killer as we have no way of further assessing her reliability as a witness or of checking the accuracy of clocks or of gauging how accurate Cadosch’s estimates of periods of time was, for example. In the absence of unimpeachable evidence we are usually left with a range of possibilities then we attempt to make an assessment on likelihoods if we can. Often we don’t even have solid reasons to move likelihoods one way or another.

I think we can all accept that even today with our advanced technology and our easy and instant access to accurate times, that errors and discrepancies still regularly occur, so it goes without saying that these would also have occurred in 1888 and even to a greater degree. We also still make errors when we estimate periods of time, especially when thinking back, so it also goes without saying that this fallibility would have been in evidence in 1888.

If any of us take an unknown (a stated or estimated time or an estimated period of time) and try to narrow it down without actual evidence for this we are in danger of possibly eliminating something that might have been the truth. Alternately we would be in danger of making something appear more likely than it actually might have been. It’s important that we don’t feel reticent in saying “we just don’t know.”

Basically we have all been guilty of prolonging a discussion about some things which were obvious from the beginning. We don’t know if Elizabeth Long saw Annie and her killer….she might have done but she might not have done. We know that we have to make reasonable allowances for clock error, poor synchronisation and inaccurate estimations. And that we can all have an opinion on the reliability of Long’s identification but we can’t dismiss her on the grounds of a minor time discrepancy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A very interesting point NW.

Let me offer an alternative.

I think everyone knows my position on the killer, and to a degree Long's description supports that view; yet for many years I dismissed her description, and undervalued her statement, not because it was NOT the description I wanted, but because it was just too much what I wanted( ignoring age. Which is I suggest very hard to judge, and only applies to some of those covered by the generic Anderson's suspect anyway).
It was late last year, when a very good friend, asked pointedly why I always placed her statement under that of Richardson and Cadosch that I actually realised why I rejected her.

In short, I found her statement, too good to be true.

Your original point, that we often reject stuff because it does not fit the picture we have of the kill is very true.

Steve

Hi Steve,

A while ago I attempted to assess Long and Lawende as witnesses using the police ADVOKATE method for assessing witnesses. Now of course this was only my own assessment and perhaps someone else might come up with a different interpretation, but my final result had Long as a slightly more reliable witness. Points in favour were the fact that she saw her couple in daylight and that she was much closer to them. And yet I think that Ripperology as a whole (if there ever is a ‘whole’) assumes Lawende to have been a more trustworthy witness. A witness who appears rarely, if ever, to be questioned.

[Ally]

Hi Ally,

ICadosch didn't see anything.

True, I realize Cad was an earwitness and therefore shouldn't have included "saw", but my head is trying to murder me this week and I am beyond sloppy. Thanks for keeping the facts straight. Facts are life.

I'm just not seeing this testimony as being from a man confident of his recollections. JMO.

Cheers, George

Agreed. However....

Ah, I'm not sure you've read all the posts NW.
I agree with that completely, but... DID Albert actually hear ANYTHING that morning?

An argument has been made, along with many links to psychological studies that mainly talk about how easy it is for police/prosecutors to deliberately manipulate a witness into giving favourable testimony... (though less vociferously now than at first,) that Albert heard NOTHING untoward that morning, but upon returning home from work and discovering that there had been a murder next door, his subconscious created for him a scenario where he conflated memories from past days when he had heard bumps and voices, and convinced himself that they had occured that very morning.
Because at the time, his mind wasn't focused on the fence, and he was more concerned about getting to work... his memory played tricks on him.

I am not sure that I agree with this. Do I think it's POSSIBLE that he made up the memory of that morning or confabbed an entire event from memory scraps. Sure. But I think it's more likely that he was unwilling to testify that he was running late for work or simply didn't know exactly what time it was and didn't figure it mattered one way or the other. While some amount of time from the morning yard events to his learning of what had transpired would obviously have passed, I don't know that enough would have passed to thoroughly re-write his memory of that morning. At most we're talking about 10-12 hours? And while noises from the yard next door might have been normal, a woman saying "No" is going to be ear-catching if only from a gossip/interest point of view. It's possible of course, but I would lean more towards he just didn't know or didn't care to testify as to what time he was passing that clock and went with his usual "concept" of when he was passing or would have been on any other day.


But as with anything people will take the facts as we know them, shuffle them to come up with the stack that best fits their theory of the events. We are dealing with possibilities and probabilities when it comes to accepting a witness statement as true. I was watching a sentencing hearing yesterday for a juvenile murder offender and the forensic psychologist who was arguing for clemency was doing a quite fascinating (And utterly lost on the knobs watching the trial whose brain capacity extends solely to keeping track of football scores) lecture on developmental psychology and how there was a low risk, virtually minuscule chance of re-offense past maturity. And while I love the science, and I agree with the science, the fact is, if there is ANY probability, no matter how low, that's not ZERO probability and do you risk making the wrong choice? Of course in this case, we have the benefit of not having serious consequences for making a wrong choice, there's low stakes in going with the balance of probabilities.

There's not a zero probability that Cadoche conflated memories. There's not a zero probability that he wasn't just lying to be a part of the drama. Same with Long. In the end, we just don't know. I would tend to go with the balance of probabilities that they were just wrong about the times. But that doesn't mean I'm right. And in the end that's why, this case is still being argued 135 years on. People can shuffle and discard any fact that suits them, because in the end, the probabilities allow for an endless variety of cherry-picking and supposition.