Witness evidence. Will the Truth stand up!

[miakaal4]

It seems to me that a common theme running through the JtR case is the constant contradictions that appear when one reads the statements of witnesses. My question here is how do we sift and choose who to believe?
We have drunks, opportunists, ambitious policemen and all other types of character, including doctors who cannot agree.
An example is one around Annie Chapman, she had a fight with one Elizer Cooper. But according to the various statements it could have occured on the 30th of August, the 2nd or 3rd of September. It could have happened in the pub where Chapman and Cooper argued, (the reasons for the arguement is disputed too.)or could have occured in some lodgings! Given this sort of evidence should we assume that most of the witness statements around the murders would be of the same caliber? The doctor who performed Chapmans autopsy stated he felt the killer had some anatomical knowledge. This is disputed by other, medical professionals. So who is right?
Did the killer of Chapman have medical knowledge, but the killer of the others not?
The police are no better, all having a personal favourite it seems, some even saying the killer died or was locked away in an asylum. So how do we sort out the wheat from the chaffe? And what do we use as a filter?

[Sally]

Hi Miakaal

You're quite right - and I think similar discussions have been held on the forum before.

The bottom line is that humans are subject to human error - we make mistakes. I'm sure that anybody who encounters witness statements in their line of work could tell you how flawed they often are. We can see this ourselves, by comparing police statements with inquest testimony for the case, where available. Inquest testimony often appears as more detailed.

Why is that? Does that mean that we should treat such inquest testimony as embellished; is it that memory, notoriously elusive under stress, resurfaces in the interim between initial statement and inquest? Or does the mind 'fill in the gaps' of memory where it finds the remembered experience lacking?

In short, people remember selectively. How do we judge, then, when we have contradictory accounts?

I'd llike to hear what others think about this.

Always an interesting discussion. Thanks for starting it Miakaal

[Wickerman]

Absolutely, and some of these comments strike at the very foundation of many an argument here.
Is the witness at the inquest providing more accurate information just because they are at the inquest?

On the one hand they face the stress of speaking in front of a crowd and potentially being ridiculed for their troubles, but then are they embellishing what they saw because of that natural human trait of trying to please the court.
On top of this we have court proceedings in the press which are never complete, and often differ on small details.

Compare that with the more relaxed statement of a witness to a press reporter where no stress is expected, but then are we dealing with someone who is looking for their proverbial 15 minutes of fame?

When we have contradictions our task is made easier, but when there is no contradiction, and no reason to dispute the witness (be they sworn or unsworn), how do we judge, and where no contradiction is evident, why is there need to judge?

Regards, Jon S.

[miakaal4]

Thanks for your comments, I'm glad that you too feel the statements are somewhat suspect. And it's a real shame that the chances of sifting the truth is probably impossible. As you both say, we have no way of knowing the agenda's or motivations behind any of the statements. Even the quick notes in a policemans book could have been edited or lengthened. Hutchingson is another example of dubious integrity. I believe most people on this board have or would in general ignore his statements, because of the (rumour?) fact that he was paid by the police to wander the area in an attempt to ID the killer for some time after MJK. All we really know is that someone killed these 5 women, some of them, one of them or all of them, and that is it.

[Sally]

Hi Miakaal

Thanks for your comments, I'm glad that you too feel the statements are somewhat suspect. And it's a real shame that the chances of sifting the truth is probably impossible. As you both say, we have no way of knowing the agenda's or motivations behind any of the statements. Even the quick notes in a policemans book could have been edited or lengthened.

I think witness statements could be suspect. On the other hand, they may simply be subject to human error - and even if mistaken, not intentionally deceptive.

Hutchingson is another example of dubious integrity. I believe most people on this board have or would in general ignore his statements, because of the (rumour?) fact that he was paid by the police to wander the area in an attempt to ID the killer for some time after MJK.

Well, you know, lots of objections to Hutchinson's account have been raised on the boards. At the end of the day we should remember that we only have the facts; and that we are lacking the full story - as with all witnesses. The 'rumour' regarding his payment, incidentally, comes from one source only - a gossip column in an American paper. I wouldn't personally consider that to be very strong evidence.

All we really know is that someone killed these 5 women, some of them, one of them or all of them, and that is it.

That's it, exactly. So, we might ask (and I'm sure some do) why bother at all?

Well, I think, as with all historical enquiry, that there is always new ground to cover and old ground to reassess. Researchers in 'Ripperology' do make new discoveries, thanks to hard work and patience. That's the way forward. It has to be, because there is no other. Otherwise, we only engage in endless, circular arguments

Some, of course, are just in it for the fun. It's a hobby. That's fair enough too.

[Ayailla]

I think it would be a good idea to not believe ANY of the witness statements unless another one backs it up. For example, if one person says that it can't be Joseph Barnett because they saw him on holiday in India at the time of the killings, whereas another witness says they saw him buying a knife on the day of the first killing, neither of them are particularly trustworthy. However, if two people say they saw him buy the knife, and there isn't a single person saying anything different, you would have to look at whether the two people who saw him buy the knife knew each other and could have been making up the story to gain their 15 minutes of fame, or whether they knew Joseph Barnett and could have had something against him. Even witnesses who agree on something could have a reason for agreeing other than the fact that it's the truth.

I know that there isn't a single part of that above paragraph related to facts, other than the name Joseph Barnett, but it was just an example.

Basically, unless a lot of people who don't know each other, and haven't had any significant prior dealings with the person they are claiming to have seen, come up with the same witness statement, they shouldn't be trusted.

Anybody want to disagree with me on this?

[Wickerman]

I think it would be a good idea to not believe ANY of the witness statements unless another one backs it up.

Hi Ayailla.
We wouldn't have much to discuss if we ignored all single witness statements

The Coroner does not work that way, neither do the police.

In fact, whatever story you tell the police, within reason, they will accept at face value unless they know of something, or find something which contradicts your story.
The police have faith in witnesses being basically honest always allowing for human nature, that witnesses can make mistakes. Most witnesses are not intentionally deceptive.

This being the case, why should we not follow the same logic?
That's the reasoning I follow. I know it does not sit well with some but unless we find something to contradict the statement of a witness, what possible reason do we have for calling them liars?

We don't have to believe, verbatim, everything a witness say's, but neither should we dismiss what they say.
An added concern for us of course is that several of our witnesses gave their story to the press, so how accurately has their story being presented?, that's an unknown quantity sadly.

One of the most significant aggravations for us is that I think we all believe we should be able to place most reliance on witness statements given at an inquest.
The reality is, they are no more reliable than what we read in the papers.
- Sworn witnesses can be just as mistaken as an unsworn witness.
- A sworn witness can be swayed by the pressure of speaking in front of the public, and often being queried on what they have just said.

Another concern is that 'we' think the official inquest should be complete, sadly we know this not to be true. We only have two official inquest records to judge by, but even with these two we can see witness responses are incomplete. Questions from the court to the witnesses are also omitted.

The rest of the inquest records come to us via the press and an easy comparison between each newspaper shows how selective these reporters were on what to report and what to ignore.

With all these concerns and considerations is it any wonder there is so much disagreement across the boards.

Regards, Jon S.
Oh, and I almost forgot,...then we have this "invented witness" (enough said about that).....good grief. As if this debate isn't trying enough without adding a fringe element.

[miakaal4]

Wickerman, what you say makes a lot of sense mate, and we cannot possibly judge the honesty of those who came forward to give statements. Personally I have trouble seeing lies when I can see and hear them being told, let alone from a 100+ year old statement! For all we know, an important witness may have lied about the time he saw something, because it would get him in trouble in some way if he told the truth. We also have no way of knowing if those who did state a time used a watch or clock that was accurate. People who (seem) to have actually seen the killer, I mean those on the spot at about the right time, cannot agree on hats or skin colour. Some say whiskers, some clean shaven. The more statements one reads the more it looks like two or three people were involved. I havn't mentioned prejudices or personal revenge but they must be considered too.
I think there is a case for the idea that JtR wore a disguise or radically changed his appearence for each kill, I think they were planned and that he took certain actions to throw off the scent. I do not believe that he killed for note, despite the arrogance of the letters, but I do believe that he did not want to be caught or stopped. If your killing ground was full of drunks, vags, whores, thieves and late-workers, how easy it would be to become "grey".
Darkness hides colour, creates shadows on the face, and can make one almost invisable. Would a patrolling policeman stop and closely question a gentleman with top hat, stick and gold watch, who had just wished him well, or the creepy man in dark clothes trying to sneak by? And when later asked, would he remember either?

[Ayailla]

Wickerman, I agree with everything you said, and I wish to clarify what I meant. All I meant was that we should look deeper into the witness statements. Don't just ask ourselves if there are any contradictions. Look into the witnesses, if they knew the victim / suspect / etc. There could be some hidden information that tells us whether they are telling the truth or not.