What "Evidence" Could I Use In A Lesson?

[ChrisGeorge]

My suggestion would be the weather and light conditions. Also a memory test,in which each pupil would be tested,either singularly or as a group.
For instance a similarity of the George Hutchinson sighting.Some one dressed up,and the pupils tested after a reasonable time,of what they remember.A restaging of an a reported occurance.

Hello Syrius

If you were to have your students study weather and light conditions, you will probably find the work of Dave Yost to be helpful. Go to the following URL and use the menu on the left --

http://jfiles00.tripod.com/main.htm

Best regards

Chris

[Syrius]

Just to let everyone know how this went (final project not in for a week or two!)

I used the apron piece, the GSG and the Whitechapel Knife.

13 students in the class, all of them decided to trust the apron.

4 of them decided to trust the graffiti.

2 of them (a different two) decided to trust the knife.

I've not been through their projects in detail (it's best to wait to the end) but it seems that the most common theory about the apron is that it was discarded by the Ripper after it had served some other purpose (the two most common being to carry organs around in, or to act as a souvenir later considered to be too incriminating.)

One student had the (I thought) quite novel theory that the apron was intended for George Lusk, but was discarded as being too cumbersome and not as scary as a kidney!

If anyone's interested, I'll put together a collection of their thoughts and novel ideas in a future post...?!

Witness statements tomorrow!

[Syrius]

Well, I thought I'd share with you the findings of the witness statements exercise...We only got up as far as the Stride witness statements, and I was impressed that many of them quickly spotted the similarities between Matthew Packer, PC Smith and James Brown.

Much more fun was their description of me, from memory.

I'm a man (well done, they got that) with a beard (and that.)

Then it began to go seriously downhill.

My height, 6'0", was estimated at being anything between 5'7" and 6'4".

My camel-coloured jacket was described as yellow, brown, cream, tan, grey, multicoloured and blue.

My brown Gladstone bag was described as dark red (understandable), brown, and blue.

My tie - yellow, with bees on - was "blue and yellow striped", which was apparently "because you'd worn that one yesterday" (I hadn't.)

Impressively, one student spotted rectangular red and black cufflinks, but no-one else did.

My age (37) was apparently "between 35 and 53".

So, new plan - let's just bin all the witness statements!

Hey-ho.

We continue with Eddowes and Kelly next week, then they get to pick suspects off a shortlist...

[GUT]

Well, I thought I'd share with you the findings of the witness statements exercise...We only got up as far as the Stride witness statements, and I was impressed that many of them quickly spotted the similarities between Matthew Packer, PC Smith and James Brown.

Much more fun was their description of me, from memory.

I'm a man (well done, they got that) with a beard (and that.)

Then it began to go seriously downhill.

My height, 6'0", was estimated at being anything between 5'7" and 6'4".

My camel-coloured jacket was described as yellow, brown, cream, tan, grey, multicoloured and blue.

My brown Gladstone bag was described as dark red (understandable), brown, and blue.

My tie - yellow, with bees on - was "blue and yellow striped", which was apparently "because you'd worn that one yesterday" (I hadn't.)

Impressively, one student spotted rectangular red and black cufflinks, but no-one else did.

My age (37) was apparently "between 35 and 53".

So, new plan - let's just bin all the witness statements!

Hey-ho.

We continue with Eddowes and Kelly next week, then they get to pick suspects off a shortlist...

Not surprised, once upon a time, many years ago, in a place far away, I worked in a bank, we were given this type of exercise regularly to try and improve the prospects of identifying any robbers, eventually it was abandoned as the descriptions never really improved, also why judges in most jurisdictions are required to give juries a warning about accepting identification evidence.

[Robert]

Hi Syrius

An interesting experiment would be for you to ask your students to spend a couple of minutes studying you carefully, and then to close their eyes tight shut....and then to ask them what THEY are wearing! I'm sure there will be some who won't remember the colour of their own shirts etc.

It sounds as though you're all enjoying the project. You'd just better hope they never find out that they should have had a school trip to this place :

http://happydays-restaurant.co.uk/

[Michael W Richards]

Wow, thanks for all these ideas everyone!

I already do a visual memory test with them...when we move on to witness statements, we discuss what the problems may be with recall and then, to illustrate it, I stand at the back of the class and forbid them to turn round...and ask...am I wearing a tie? If so. What colour is it? Describe my suit. Do I have facial hair? Do I have any visible scars? How tall am I? And the funniest of all, how old am I (I now have proof that when you're 14, every adult is ridiculously old!). This year I'm considering having someone just cut through the classroom, then give them a test on that...even worse results to be expected!

The map idea has certainly got possibilities...it would be interesting to see whether students concluded that the killer of Stride fled away from their familiar area, or towards it, or just anywhere...this would require knowing where each suspect lived if they were going to use this in their evidence, but that should be straightforward enough to find out, I'd guess.

Robert...I did not include the apron piece, as I was worried that we'd have the same result as with the kidney...if you discount From Hell, you discount the kidney that accompanied it. However, now you've mentioned it, there's no reason to see the apron and the GSG as connected, so that's a strong contender. Ruling out one doesn't mean you have to rule out the other. Does anyone know where I can find a summary of the apron piece? And what ultimately happened to it, by the way?

The only problem with the diary (I'm not adverse to using highly questionable evidence, as you can tell from the inclusion of the knife, and at least two of the three letters I use, if not all of them!) is that police didn't have access to it at the time, and if I gave it to the students, they'll either have to trust it - so name Maybrock as the killer even before witness statements and so on - or not trust it at all, so conclude it tells us nothing.

The best type of evidence for this task will be one that drops hints as to what kind of person the killer may have been, without actually naming him...which is a tall order.

Paddy...I would be very keen to have a copy of the account you mention, if it's not too much trouble, so thank you very much indeed!

St Devil...I don't think I can use the photos, although goodness knows that students can access them easily enough via Google...but I have chosen to use the GSG despite the obvious anti-Semitic issues...I mean, it's not pleasant,but neither is any aspect of the murders, really...and I need to teach the Holocaust next term, so there's no ducking the issues associated.

C.d...who is the cigarette carrying guy with a doctors bag...I'm confessing my ignorance here but I have never heard of this...

Thanks to all for what you've suggested so far...keep 'em coming if you can!

Syrius

Hi Syrius,

On the above line that I highlighted, that's a presumption being made, not a valid reason to omit discussing the apron section and the GSG. The problem with this topic as Im sure youre discovering is that the "truth" of these cases and investigations depends upon with whom you speak about what is reliable and bankable and what is not. The point on the GSG and apron section is that historically and factually they were both discovered at the same time by someone who had within the half hour had passed by that same spot and saw "nothing". The fact that they appear on record at the same time and their obvious proximity to one another suggests that they both may well have been connected to the killer in Mitre Square, who it is rightfully assumed left the apron section.

I suggest you look at the witness timings, they are taken from statements given directly by the characters involved, and they provide timelines and storylines that suggest some possible answers and also refute some others.

[Syrius]

Surely ANY fish and chip restaurant that trades on the Whitechapel murders should be called "Jack the Kipper"...?

Michael, you're absolutely right when you say that any attempt to teach the topic hinges on the fact that "the "truth" of these cases and investigations depends upon with whom you speak about what is reliable and bankable and what is not", but I can't agree with you when you say it's a "problem". As a History teacher, it's the ultimate selling point!

The whole purpose of secondary school History, I strongly believe, is to develop two skills useful (if not essential) for the adult world - the skill of forming an argument, and the skill of judging the validity of evidence. A History teacher usually faces a huge struggle, at least at first, with getting students to see this, and getting them to drop the notion that History is all dates and essays. Lots of them find this difficult, and even in higher years you get students who want to know what the "right" answer is. The reality is that there's not, usually, a "right" answer, only one that's well supported.

So whilst I personally don't believe the Ripper to have been George Chapman, it is possible to construct arguments that say he was. I will not give a low mark to a student who argues for Chapman; it's down to how well they do so. A student who baldly states, "Jack the Ripper was George Chapman" will get next to nothing; one who states, "Jack the Ripper was George Chapman because..." gets more; one who states that and adds, "here are the problems with that theory..." gets still more, and one who does all of that AND then says, "here's how I refute those problems" gets the highest marks.

As we cannot say with absolute certainty that it was or wasn't Chapman, their evidence-sifting and their argument-creation will get them the points. And each of these, in turn, depend on their ability to spot potential problems in witness statements (I do give them the timings, by the way! :-)) and evidence (George Hutchinson, for instance, and his ridiculously detailed description, or the fact that Best and Gardner colluded in their statement so may have influenced each other, or the potential sighting of Kelly after her murder) and then decide if these potential problems are sufficient in ruling out the statement/evidence. Most of the students, for instance, spotted that if the Ripper had genuinely dropped his knife in Whitechapel Road between 12:30am and 1:00am, he'd either have to be carrying a spare knife, or have gone and bought one, or stolen one, or gone home and collected one, before meeting and killing Eddowes. Any of these scenarios seem unlikely, so the majority of them decided it was a coincidence that a knife had been dropped, but a couple chose to run with them...which will be fine, as long as they can justify it.

What I was saying in my second post on this thread was that I'd made a mistake in seeing the apron and GSG as connected, because there's not any guarantee that they are. Essentially, I'd made a reverse of the mistake I warn my students not to - don't discount one piece of evidence unless it's irrefutably linked with another piece that you are also discounting (so for instance, if you don't believe the "Dear Boss" letter was real, you can't really believe that "Saucy Jack" was; equally, if you don't believe that "from hell" was real, you can't then argue that the accompanying kidney was actually from Eddowes.) What I had done was treated the GSG and the apron as two elements of the same piece of evidence, and not recognised that they could have been decoupled. What I should have done in the past, and did do this year, was present the GSG and the apron as two separate pieces of evidence that may have been connected, but not necessarily...

I acknowledge they were found by the same person at the same time, and that "nothing" was noted about half an hour previously in the same spot, but equally, you don't see things unless you're looking for them, so it could be argued that "I saw nothing at 2:20" means, "I saw nothing out of the ordinary at 2:20". I don't know, but in Whitechapel in 1888, wouldn't people be used to seeing graffiti? It's possible the spotter of the apron's thought process was "I don't remember seeing that rag before...oh my God it's covered in blood and there's quite a few horrible murders at the minute...hey, look, some graffiti, I didn't notice that before". But it's unlikely they then thought, "ooh, and it's on a wall. Didn't see that wall there before!".

Obviously I don't want to get into the semantics of it beyond a very superficial amount, but I do reckon it's conceivable that the policeman accurately spotted the apron at 2:55am, accurately claimed it was not there at 2:20am, but inaccurately claimed that no graffiti was present at 2:20am.

[niko]

Surely ANY fish and chip restaurant that trades on the Whitechapel murders should be called "Jack the Kipper"...?

Michael, you're absolutely right when you say that any attempt to teach the topic hinges on the fact that "the "truth" of these cases and investigations depends upon with whom you speak about what is reliable and bankable and what is not", but I can't agree with you when you say it's a "problem". As a History teacher, it's the ultimate selling point!

The whole purpose of secondary school History, I strongly believe, is to develop two skills useful (if not essential) for the adult world - the skill of forming an argument, and the skill of judging the validity of evidence. A History teacher usually faces a huge struggle, at least at first, with getting students to see this, and getting them to drop the notion that History is all dates and essays. Lots of them find this difficult, and even in higher years you get students who want to know what the "right" answer is. The reality is that there's not, usually, a "right" answer, only one that's well supported.

So whilst I personally don't believe the Ripper to have been George Chapman, it is possible to construct arguments that say he was. I will not give a low mark to a student who argues for Chapman; it's down to how well they do so. A student who baldly states, "Jack the Ripper was George Chapman" will get next to nothing; one who states, "Jack the Ripper was George Chapman because..." gets more; one who states that and adds, "here are the problems with that theory..." gets still more, and one who does all of that AND then says, "here's how I refute those problems" gets the highest marks.

As we cannot say with absolute certainty that it was or wasn't Chapman, their evidence-sifting and their argument-creation will get them the points. And each of these, in turn, depend on their ability to spot potential problems in witness statements (I do give them the timings, by the way! :-)) and evidence (George Hutchinson, for instance, and his ridiculously detailed description, or the fact that Best and Gardner colluded in their statement so may have influenced each other, or the potential sighting of Kelly after her murder) and then decide if these potential problems are sufficient in ruling out the statement/evidence. Most of the students, for instance, spotted that if the Ripper had genuinely dropped his knife in Whitechapel Road between 12:30am and 1:00am, he'd either have to be carrying a spare knife, or have gone and bought one, or stolen one, or gone home and collected one, before meeting and killing Eddowes. Any of these scenarios seem unlikely, so the majority of them decided it was a coincidence that a knife had been dropped, but a couple chose to run with them...which will be fine, as long as they can justify it.

What I was saying in my second post on this thread was that I'd made a mistake in seeing the apron and GSG as connected, because there's not any guarantee that they are. Essentially, I'd made a reverse of the mistake I warn my students not to - don't discount one piece of evidence unless it's irrefutably linked with another piece that you are also discounting (so for instance, if you don't believe the "Dear Boss" letter was real, you can't really believe that "Saucy Jack" was; equally, if you don't believe that "from hell" was real, you can't then argue that the accompanying kidney was actually from Eddowes.) What I had done was treated the GSG and the apron as two elements of the same piece of evidence, and not recognised that they could have been decoupled. What I should have done in the past, and did do this year, was present the GSG and the apron as two separate pieces of evidence that may have been connected, but not necessarily...

I acknowledge they were found by the same person at the same time, and that "nothing" was noted about half an hour previously in the same spot, but equally, you don't see things unless you're looking for them, so it could be argued that "I saw nothing at 2:20" means, "I saw nothing out of the ordinary at 2:20". I don't know, but in Whitechapel in 1888, wouldn't people be used to seeing graffiti? It's possible the spotter of the apron's thought process was "I don't remember seeing that rag before...oh my God it's covered in blood and there's quite a few horrible murders at the minute...hey, look, some graffiti, I didn't notice that before". But it's unlikely they then thought, "ooh, and it's on a wall. Didn't see that wall there before!".

Obviously I don't want to get into the semantics of it beyond a very superficial amount, but I do reckon it's conceivable that the policeman accurately spotted the apron at 2:55am, accurately claimed it was not there at 2:20am, but inaccurately claimed that no graffiti was present at 2:20am.

Hello Syrius !!when you refer to the Whitechapel knife do you refer to the knife Thomas Coram found ? if so you have your timeing wrong when it was found.

Mary Anne Nichols found dead on the 31st of August at 03.40 am.

Annie Chapman was found dead on the 8th of September at close to 06.00 am

Elizabeth Stride was found dead on the 30th of September at close to 01.00am

Catherine Eddowes was found dead on the 30th of September at 01.45am


The knife that Coram found and picked up by pc Joseph Drage was found on Momday the 1st of October at 12.30am, this is nearly 24 hour's after Stride's death and not like I belive you think !! in between Stride's and Eddowe's death.

I truely belive then knife which I have in my posession is the same knife Thomas Coram found that night. When I found the knife it had a cloth wrapped around the handle secured with a thin string, this ia also mentioned in an inquest, so my belief's are that the police did not remove the hankerchief that was wrapped around the knife's handle which was in their custody and taken to Leman street police station by pc Joseph Drage.

On the other hand I did remove the hankerchief on the knife that I found !! and which some year's later discovered three notches that are carved on the handle of the knife !! I wonder what would of the police of thought about the blood stained knife if they had removed the hankerchief and discovered the three notches ? a whole diferent story !!

I canot say if the knife was used by the ripper !! but if it was, were this three notches to indicate his crimes,!! When the knife was found 4 of the carnical victims were murdered !! was he trying to indicate that he had only commited 3 murder's up to that time !! just a hipothesis !!

All the best,

Niko

[Syrius]

Hi Niko,

I think you're right.

What I've done is read the bit in the "victims" section for Stride, which states in bold, "September 30th, 1888", and then, underneath, "6:30pm - Tanner sees her again...".

Then I've followed this through to 12:45am (which would, if it was originally 30th September, make it 12:45am on 1st October), and noted that as the last time she was seen alive, then built everything from there...

Well, I'll know for next time, although frankly it's better for the students this way!

Interesting points about the knife in your possession...can I ask how you came to get hold of it?

Syrius

PS...Any moderator reading this, any chance that the Liz Stride page could be amended to stop anyone else being as daft as I have been?!

[niko]

Hi Niko,

I think you're right.

What I've done is read the bit in the "victims" section for Stride, which states in bold, "September 30th, 1888", and then, underneath, "6:30pm - Tanner sees her again...".

Then I've followed this through to 12:45am (which would, if it was originally 30th September, make it 12:45am on 1st October), and noted that as the last time she was seen alive, then built everything from there...

Well, I'll know for next time, although frankly it's better for the students this way!

Interesting points about the knife in your possession...can I ask how you came to get hold of it?

Syrius

PS...Any moderator reading this, any chance that the Liz Stride page could be amended to stop anyone else being as daft as I have been?!

Hello again Syrius, I found the knife in a railway arch that was used as a taxi repair garage, it was burried in the floor, I worked there as an apprentice, I was a kid at the time, more or less the same age as your student's. Some year's earlier I wittnessed the police searching the arch floor with metal detector's before it became a taxi repair garage.the railway arch is situated in the East End, three minutes walking distance from where Elizabeth Stride was murdered !! sorry I don't know how to put the link on here but I started a thread on here titled The could be Thomas Coram knife, 1st October 1888, look it up it maybe of interest.

All the best.

Niko.

[Joshua Rogan]

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5557

[niko]

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5557

Thankyou Joshua !!

[niko]

Hello again Syrius, I found the knife in a railway arch that was used as a taxi repair garage, it was burried in the floor, I worked there as an apprentice, I was a kid at the time, more or less the same age as your student's. Some year's earlier I wittnessed the police searching the arch floor with metal detector's before it became a taxi repair garage.the railway arch is situated in the East End, three minutes walking distance from where Elizabeth Stride was murdered !! sorry I don't know how to put the link on here but I started a thread on here titled The could be Thomas Coram knife, 1st October 1888, look it up it maybe of interest.

All the best.

Niko.

Here in this picture you can clearly see the three notches that are carved into the handle of the knife.

[niko]

Here in this picture you can clearly see the three notches that are carved into the handle of the knife.

I am haveing problem's wit the picture.