Witnesses are no use in JtR case

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

The eye-witness accounts are pretty worthless in my opinion and don’t help in attempting to solve the case. This effectively means that none of the suspects can be ruled in or out with any certainty because of their appearance.
To explain better, this is how a right-wing TABLOID might describe “witness statements” gathered by police if the serial killings happened today:

Witnesses

At least two eyewitnesses claim the killer wore a “black felt hat” but another claims it was “definitely a deerstalker”. And yet a third is certain the Whitechapel murderer wore a “sailor’s hat”.
Little wonder the police have admitted they are “baffled by the conflicting accounts” and cannot explain why “no cohesive picture” of the killer has emerged.
To add to their confusion, the man now known as “Jack the Ripper” has been described variously as “5ft” in height or “5ft 6in” or 5ft 7in”, depending on what day of the week it is, with a “shabby genteel” or “Jewish” or “well-to-do” appearance.
In other words, the police have no idea what the killer looks like, or do they?
They claim to be certain about one important fact – that the killer wears a moustache. Surely this is progress. So what colour is the moustache then?
“There is no conclusive answer,” says one helpful police source “because the facial hair is also a riddle.”
Eyewitnesses have described the whiskers variously as “fawn” on two occasions, “black” at least once, and also “grey” at least once.
And this is why we pay our taxes so the police can make fools of us all.

In fact, the London Evening Standard led the way in 1888 (and after) in castigating the police for their incompetence/ mishandling the case etc, etc. They claimed it would be either a miracle or an accident if the police ever caught JtR.
The police also allowed journalists and “researchers” to pinch vital evidence over the years – another scandal - so that modern forensic scientists have been left with little or nothing to go on. Terrible but true.

[Hunter]

Hello, Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy and welcome to the forums.

Even today witness testimonies can cause consternation for the police... for the same reasons they did in 1888. Unfortunately, with very little else in the way of hard evidence, witnesses are much of what we have to go by. Calculating which ones were mistaken, which ones embellished their stories, which ones outright lied and who may have been correct has always been at the core of the Ripperologists debates. Each student of this case weighs the avalable evidence in light of their own predications as well; thus the many theories that have been promulgated over the years... and yet, all of this may be a large reason why this particular case is still the classic 'whodunnit'.

I personally give the crime scene evidence, as gleaned from the investigators and medicos, priority over witnesses; realizing that too, can be contradictory. The recent debates on the Stride threads are a good example.

Some of the tabloids were very critical of the police, but these were mainly left wing or so-called progressive papers. The conservative papers were more reserved in their assesment of the police. There were those - such as the Star that sensationalized the murders in order to sell good copy. Ironically,we understand that it was the contemporary press - such as it was - that gave birth to the legend of Jack the Ripper, and I doubt if that had not been so we would not be here today discussing it.

Hope you enjoy the forums.

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

Witnesses

Thanks for the welcome Hunter.
I was thinking when I wrote the start of the thread of the tragic Madeline McCann abduction case a few years back (ongoing) where the best evidence the police came up with after gathering "eyewitness statements" was an oval shape of a man's head with no eyes, ears, mouth etc. which they actually issued to the media.
It just seems after so much investigation by police and other experts in the JtR case they have just as little concrete visual evidence as in the above case - in spite of the fact that various "photofits of him" have been produced, most recently, the tv programme claiming to know exactly how he looked.
I have not examined the forensic evidence at all but thanks for the heads up.
A bit squeamish! But might give it a try when feeling a bit braver...
Best to you.

[Adam Went]

Some witness descriptions are more valuable than others. For example, the one from a police officer, PC Smith, should be taken more seriously, along with witness descriptions that occurred just moments before the murder happened, as they are the most likely to have seen the killer. There will always be argument over the value of statements such as that of George Hutchinson, but at the end of the day, those descriptions are all we have to try and pluck some of the common traits out of and piece together an image of the killer.

Those who would denounce the witness statements as useless would probably be the first to use them as "evidence" to suit their own theory or suspect. That's just how it goes!

Anyway, welcome to the forums, Siobhan.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

The eye-witness accounts are pretty worthless in my opinion and don’t help in attempting to solve the case. This effectively means that none of the suspects can be ruled in or out with any certainty because of their appearance.

Hi, Siobhan,

I totally agree with you.

I did try to demonstrate this point in an oblique fashion, by starting a thread
in Pub Talk asking for people`s own witness experiences (not many replies !);
certainly my own experiences prove to me that, unless you have a particular reason to try and fix a detailed description of someone in your mind as you`re looking at them, you won`t get it right.

Infact the children`s party game, of remembering objects on a tray and then listing them back, proves that even when someone consciously tries to remember a list of details, they still get it wrong - the degree depends on the capacity of observation of the person and their age ( children seem to be
much better at `memory` card games than adults )!

Then you have adults who have very imaginative, `visual` brains -try doing `creative meditation`-you can `see` a `memory` in your mind -as real as
any true memory, yet totally fabricated by your subconscious> ( No wonder that `reincarnation` fantasies and `recovered memory` under hypnosis are so dangerous). This type of person will `write in details to their description and be as firm as.. as Johnny Depp..(lets not go there...but there are advantages in having this type of imagination). Still, you could `write in`
details such as a `deerstalker hat`, and really `see them` in your mind`s eye,
and yet still be wrong...(to continue)

[Bob Hinton]

Very interesting but,

I’m sorry but you are way off the mark here, regardless of what the papers may say it’s what the police think that is important. For example in your news piece you keep talking about “the killer”, which is of course nonsense. You have no idea whether the person described was in fact a killer or just a passerby. The police would have enough experience to realise this and not assume that they had a killer who kept changing his appearance or that the witnesses were necessarily in error. What the police would be looking for, just as today, would be common factors.

Does a certain type of person keep cropping up? If so who is he and what is he doing and so on. I think the Evening Standard was quite correct in stating that it would be by accident if the killer was ever caught – just like today when even though we have all the amazing technology at our disposal the majority of serial killers in Britain have been caught by accident.

No experienced investigator would accept anyone’s statement as completely accurate, but the hope is that by checking them carefully certain constants might emerge. It is in the winnowing of the chaff to get to the wheat where the skill lies.

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

The face of Jack the Ripper revealed

Thanks Adam...Had a look at PC Smith evidence.. have you seen this? I had a search on Casebook and couldn't find it. It's a photofit image created by Scotland Yard for television - a programme stating that the face of JtR would be revealed using all of the witness statements - Channel 5, November 2006. (The image was widely distributed to the media at the time so is not subject to copyright).
What I would like to know is how the clever folk at Scotland Yard could know that JtR had a full head of hair when every witness said he was wearing some kind of hat. (Slouch or black felt or deerstalker or sailor...) The mind boggles. JtR could have been bald as a coot under the hat! For further information on the programme, here's a newspaper article about it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-417474/Revealed-The-face-Jack-Ripper.html

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

Photofit

Hi Ruby,
I totally agree with you. See "photofit" image of JtR I posted earlier. Thanks.

[Rubyretro]

cntd: There are also points to be taken into consideration , such as very bad lighting, British Reserve (minding your own business and not staring -averting your eyes to a prostitute and her client)..

All in all, these Witness Statements are useless......

....and yet...

SOME details just MIGHT be true !

I think that one of the fascinations of the JtR case is that there ARE so many witnesses ; he`s like the Scarlett Pimpernel -lurking under those descriptions, a `master of many ( witness-imagined) disguises`, and yet, tantalisingly, just out of our reach.

What`s more, we get the feeling that he was a person who read his own publicity in the papers, knew that the descriptions were shite, and it led him on to take risks..

Which neatly leads me to MY theory:

There are there`Witness Statements` which `meduse` me ( I live in France, and can`t find a better word) :

the first is Lawende`s (which is generally accepted as the best): It is the one generally accepted as the best. I don`t give alot of credence to the details of the `dress` description (for all the reasons that I`ve already given)...but I think that the emotional response to `Jack` ,of Lawende, Harris and Wotsit are very, very much to be taken seriously ; I do NOT believe that the feelings of threat and aggression which they felt, were things that they were mistaken about. Given the the timescale between the sighting and the murder, I think they saw `Jack` and he projected a personal `hate` at them.
Given that he had been spotted before, and it was to his advantage to not denote himself as anything other than a regular ` john`(benefiting from `British Reserve` of course) doesn`t any one think that it`s important...or could be linked.. to the cry of `Lipski` at a very similar murder scene on the same night, a short distance away..? given that the witnesses were also Jewish, and also in the proximity to a Jewish Socialist club ?)

Then there is the witness statement of the woman who saw Hutch in front of Miller`s court -there is no doubt that that she described Hutch ; indeed, he corroborated it by stepping forward and identifying himself as the person that she saw ( unless we want to invent a hypothetical `other` lurker, not seen by Hutch in this tiny courtyard)> I think that THIS witness got the best
description -so good, that Hutch came forward, because he saw that she`d seen enough to identify him>

And my third favourite `Witness Description` is Hutch`s of Astrakhan Man
-which is so beautifully precise. I`ve already said -I don`t believe that it`s possible to be that truthfully precise; I`m sure that he made it up.

I`ve already shown that it`s possible to innocently `imagine` Witness Statements..but if you take other facts...such as Hutch being (factually)
placed at the Crime Scene of a JtR murder at the`right` time then surely he is a very valid suspect.

If you suspend your disbelief as to his guilt for a minute and consider his statement -~(imagining` that he was JtR.). his `subconscious inventions have to be of the utmost interest to our understanding of his mindset, Past and motivations).

In short, although baring in mind that Witness Statements are crap...they are worth studying.

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

The value of eyewitnesses

In short, although baring in mind that Witness Statements are crap...they are worth studying.

Hi Ruby, I haven't heard of the more important witness you mention but will check it out. Thanks.
As to the value of eyewitnesses in some criminal cases...

This is a "photofit" image released by Portuguese police to the worldwide media a few years back. It related to the abduction of toddler Madeleine McCann who still has not been found (mentioned earlier in this thread). The police issued it after spending time interviewing "eyewitnesses" who claimed they were near the scene at the time of the abduction. And you wonder why the culprit or culprits in this case have yet to be found...

Best,

[claire]

Ah. So Freddie Mercury was JTR

Seriously, it's worth distinguishing different types of witness statement. It's no use just using the term 'witness statement' as a generic phrase; clearly, there are several kinds of witnesses, who provide different types of account of various events. A victim statement is a witness statement, and must be treated differently to one made by a passer-by, who would have no reason at the time to commit to memory any detail at all. If someone actually sees a criminal act occur, that makes them a different sort of witness to a person who sees someone at a scene that is later identified as a crime scene.
For example (I'll pick your fave, rubyretro ), if George Hutchinson had *not* stated that he had known MJK, we would have more reason to distrust his account, because he'd have had no good reason to pay any mind to a strange woman and her companion. As it was, he said he knew her, had just had a brief conversation with her, and hence police would have been more willing to accept his witness statement.
Another eg., had Lawende et al not felt threatened by the man they saw, they would have had little or no reason to commit to memory any detail about him. He would have just been another Joe (oh, please no one read Barnetts or Flemings into that!!!).
Now, of course, people can be mistaken; memories can superimpose themselves on one another, particularly if they pertain to events in similar locales/circumstances. But it is not good enough to say, 'witness statements are useless.' We rely on them: on common or garden witnesses (Lawende); on witnesses who knew one or more parties (Hutchinson); victims (Emma Smith); special/professional witnesses (George Bagster Phillips [love typing that name!]; Walter Dew etc). In building up an investigative picture, surely, you look at witness statements in the knowledge that some will be useful, and some less so, and the useful ones are those that you can state tally with what else is emerging about a case.
But, sorry; stating that 'witnesses are no use' is an untenable blanket statement.

[Rubyretro]

For example (I'll pick your fave, rubyretro ), if George Hutchinson had *not* stated that he had known MJK, we would have more reason to distrust his account, because he'd have had no good reason to pay any mind to a strange woman and her companion.

But we have no way of knowing whether or not Hutch knew the victim, and he could simply have lied about that...we certainly can`t trust his witness statement on that account.

For the record, my personal belief is that he DID know her, because of my belief that plausible liers mix fact with their fiction -but that is pure speculation.

Another eg., had Lawende et al not felt threatened by the man they saw, they would have had little or no reason to commit to memory any detail about him.

Of the three men, (et al) only Lawende felt ready to advance a description.
Since he felt threatened, one wonders if he was really staring at `Jack`, and
memorizing details, or rather glancing and then glancing away for a few seconds, and trying to slink away.

I still believe that his memory of his general emotional response to the man, is more important to us than his physical description.

[claire]

Sorry, I mustn't have been clear...my point was that the police treated his statement differently because he stated that he knew the victim. If he didn't, and hadn't already done away with her by the time he said he saw her, he was on dicey old ground.
My point was simply to distinguish the different types of witness statement, rather than to dig up a Hutch line again Sorry for the lack of clarity; was typing in a hurry

[Fleetwood Mac]

I'd have to disagree that witnesses are no use.

But you have to weigh them up for reliability.

For example - there are holes in Maxwell's story such as certain claims about Kelly's habits (e.g. going around alone most of time) being untrue. So she didn't know her that well and this lends weight to doubting Maxwell's statement. And even the possibility that she had the wrong woman - not the wrong day.

Whereas Cox says nothing that should lead to doubting her statement.

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

Witness reliability

But you have to weigh them up for reliability.

Hi Fleetwood Mac,
Absolutely agree that witness statements are unreliable (or useless as I put in original thread). There are myriad descriptions of the Ripper. No wonder he was never caught...You also have to remember that some of the witnesses may have been trying to curry favour with the police because of their own misdeeds. We see it in almost every murder drama on tv. It is true in real life too when you hear police statements such as "persons known to the police are helping them with their enquiries..." They are not actual suspects usually, but people trying to avoid prosecution for other crimes. Also, known as "doing a deal to get off"... If it is true today, it was proably true then too...People will help the police no problem if they think it means avoiding a possible jail sentence! Thereby making their witness accounts unreliable to say the least.

Best,
Siobhan