An experiment

[Mayerling]

Hi Wigngown,

Pierre has fixed ideas about how evidence can be assessed and indeed what can be counted as evidence, it does make for some strong exchanges indeed.

The main issue is that Pierre has a theory, the suspect of which he will not at present name, that does make any discussion of things difficult, and fuels a degree of frustration..

So we wait, while thread after thread appears, in the hope that he may at some stage give a name so the real debate can begin.

regards

Steve

Hi Steve,

I agree, as you know, with the assessment that Pierre has fixed ideas of the concept of "evidence" and how to assess it. Unfortunately it is apparent that Pierre (for whatever reason) is seeking to dominate the thinking on this website so we follow his ideas only. He has (as of today) not given us any reason to do so.

He still could if he would produce names and citations of his own work - as well as critiques of that work - in his sphere of studies. He still has not done so.

Instead he just continues to attack all of us for being critical of his failings - which he could easily disperse if he would just produce what we have been asking for. It is not even asking for his theory of the true identity of the Ripper - just proof that we can rely on his methods. I find I cannot do so. It's a pity, but his intellectual self-centered point of view just smashes it.

Until he does reveal anything of his actual non-Ripper related work to examine, maybe we should just ignore what he is writing back. It's a sad commentary, but if he insists we all have to confront him with our arms tied up in his idea of a boxing match, we may have no choice.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

We can refer to the bias of a historical document but one doesn't normally refer to the "bias" of an eyewitness in a criminal case: the issue is whether they are giving honest or dishonest testimony.

Pierre constantly refers to the "tendency" of a witness. In the Wikipedia article, there is a single reference to the word "tendency" which comes in the section attributed to two Swedish writers, Torsten Thurén (of the Department of Journalism, Media and Communication at Stockholm University) and Sebastian Olden-Jørgensen (a lecturer in Archeology, Ethnology and History at Copenhagen University). This is in the pair of sentences stating: "The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations." As far as I am aware, the work of neither author has been translated into English which suggests a certain obscurity and I am not aware of the use of the word "tendency" in this context in any other historical work. Nevertheless, I am sure that the writers are referring to issues with sources, i.e. historical texts, rather than issues with witnesses in criminal cases.

The fundamental flaw that I perceive in Pierre's analysis is that he does not consider the difference in motivation between someone writing a document giving an account of a certain event and a witness providing evidence to the authorities in a criminal case. The author of the document probably has an audience in mind and may well be writing propaganda so the historian needs to be aware of this but the witness is in a different position. Their role, in theory, is to provide a straightforward factual account of what they saw to the police and to any subsequent judicial inquiry. They will potentially be subject to questioning and cross-examination so they do not have an unfettered forum in which to promote a bias like the author of a document who may draft and re-draft that document until it says exactly what he or she wants it to say. No doubt a witness may lie for their own reasons in the witness box but, if making such an allegation against a witness, one needs to provide a convincing explanation as to why they would have done so. It is not enough to identify a possible "bias".

Hi David,

Interesting point regarding "bias" and witness testimony. A number of years back I wrote an essay (which was published in "Medicine, Science, and the Law") regarding the career of Captain John Donellan, an 18th Century poisoner (he poisoned his brother-in-law, a baronet, so Donellan's wife could inherit the estate). At his trial in 1781, the noted physician, Dr. John Hunter, appeared for the defense against a bunch of country doctors who tended the dying man in his last hours. Hunter was supposed to produce (as an expert witness) his view of what killed the victim, Sir Theodosius Boughton, and how the prosecution's medical evidence was questionable.

The judge in the case, Mr. Justice Buller, was later pilloried in some quarters for being too rough on Hunter, a highly respected medical researcher (he was the creator of the Hunterian Medical Museum Collection that still exists), and many felt Hunter was being met by a biased judge, but in fact the reverse was true. Hunter had never given expert testimony in any trial before, and was treating his testimony to the judge, court, and jury like a lecture he would give in public - that is he never actually pinpointed what he was supposed to pinpoint: what did he actually feel caused the dead man to die. He gave several alternatives, which just muddied the water, and Buller was struggling to figure out which of these Hunter actually believed was THE cause of death. Hunter never made it clear, so that at the end Buller dismissed Hunter's testimony when summing up to the jury. And Donellan hanged. Hunter always maintained this was unfair to Donellan, but aside from an examination of the body of a duelist shot and killed in a duel, for the cause of death, was not called as a medical expert in any other trial.

When I was in law school, I learned that when an expert presents his findings in any case he has to carefully lay out the basis for his or her theory. Then he or she has to apply the facts he or she sees match his or her view of what is that basis. Inevitably there may be some bias - he or she is representing a party involved in the case - but the expert can't be so partisan as to throw out evidence that is glaring (i.e., statements like, "X just poisoned me") as though they never existed. If there was a question about certain facts, like did the victim drink the entire glass of wine or only take a sip or two, he or she might point this out and suggest that in his or her reconstruction of events it was one or the other. He or she can't do that if a room full of witnesses saw it was definitely one or the other. So expert witnesses do have to restrain any biases they may have.

Of course this same balance has to be maintained by regular witnesses as well, but the level of bias in their cases may be more personal than the level of the expert witnesses, whose only concern is their professional reputations.

Jeff

[GUT]

It's what we refer to in these parts as an "ugly baby" dilemma.

He has a precious precious baby. He will not tolerate any aspersions against his darling little baby. The problem is, it's a ugly baby. And calling it an ugly baby is the truth. But he won't hear it. Because it's his baby.

Researchers cannot afford babies of any complexion. And if people say the baby is ugly, they have to stand there and take it, because that's the job. If you cannot behave like a researcher, you cannot claim the benefits of being called one.

My mumbai that problem.

Ugly baby I mean.

[Hercule Poirot]

I just can't believe how some members have been making things more complicated than they are in real life situations. I spent years studying at the university level in social science, law, mathematics (and currently in archeology) listening to all the methods, technics, approaches one has to follow in order to obtain a valid conclusion in whatever project one would be involved. The thing is that in the real world there has rarely been a situation where on could apply directly any of the methods he might have learned.

One quickly finds out that each situation commands a method or elements of a method and not the contrary.

The funny thing about becoming aware of this is that academics will only offer you a global way, a mindset for one to understand a situation and will never be able to determine a single method for each and every case, situation or project.

In other words there's an ongoing myth about academics as being the only way to gather and process data.

Respectfully,
Hercule Poirot

[GUT]

I just can't believe how some members have been making things more complicated than they are in real life situations. I spent years studying at the university level in social science, law, mathematics (and currently in archeology) listening to all the methods, technics, approaches one has to follow in order to obtain a valid conclusion in whatever project one would be involved. The thing is that in the real world there has rarely been a situation where on could apply directly any of the methods he might have learned.

One quickly finds out that each situation commands a method or elements of a method and not the contrary.

The funny thing about becoming aware of this is that academics will only offer you a global way, a mindset for one to understand a situation and will never be able to determine a single method for each and every case, situation or project.

In other words there's an ongoing myth about academics as being the only way to gather and process data.

Respectfully,
Hercule Poirot

Yep spent a long time studying junk in law that I never use.

[wigngown]

You & me both GUT,

Best regards.

[wigngown]

Hercule,

Agree with all you say.

I learned quickly that the thing a University can't teach you is common sense, it's something you have or you haven't. I know some very intelligent people who can disseminate information, are first class investigators and have never been to University.

Best regards.

[GUT]

You & me both GUT,

Best regards.

I'm not sure where you are located, but here in Aus, when you become a barrister you spend a period of "Reading" basically observing other barristers in Court, that taught me more than any study, in fact 6-12 months of watching others could easily have replaced 5 years of law school.

[wigngown]

GUT,

I'm in the UK. Very similar training to Australia, I believe. I agree, the theoretical side is over long, and the practical side is too short. Also, as you will know, all the theory in the world can't prepare you for your first day in Court!

Best regards.

[GUT]

GUT,

I'm in the UK. Very similar training to Australia, I believe. I agree, the theoretical side is over long, and the practical side is too short. Also, as you will know, all the theory in the world can't prepare you for your first day in Court!

Best regards.

Remember my first trial like it was yesterday.

Drug charge (supply) heck I was nervous, bu heard the two most beutiful words in the Criminal Justice System at the end of it all.

Major ID problems.

[wigngown]

GUT,

I smiled when I read your post. Mine was supplying drugs too! Half way through the trial, one of the witnesses said something he shouldn't have under my brief and hackneyed cross examination and the case was discontinued. I learned so much from the first case.

Best regards.

[GUT]

GUT,

I smiled when I read your post. Mine was supplying drugs too! Half way through the trial, one of the witnesses said something he shouldn't have under my brief and hackneyed cross examination and the case was discontinued. I learned so much from the first case.

Best regards.

I think half the barristers currently in practice probably cut their teeth on drugs. So many briefs around. The problem is its usually a legal aid rates, which here really suck.

[John G]

To the extent that reference is supposed to support the folded clothes I think it's a dud. Checking my records, it appears that MEPO 3/140, f225, 226 is no more than an extract from the Daily Telegraph of 13 November 1888 of the inquest proceedings (contained within the police file on the Kelly murder) and this report doesn't mention any folded clothes. From just having a quick look around this evening I'm wondering if the folded clothes are actually a myth that gets repeated until it has the appearance of fact. In any event, a better reference is needed.

Hello David,

Yes, it's possibly a myth or hearsay. It's also mentioned in the Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper, Jakubowski and Brand, 2008, p891. However, frustratingly no reference is cited. Is it referred to in the Ultimate I wonder.

[wigngown]

GUT,

Same here, the profession is having to tighten its belt. Ive been in practice for 13 years, so relatively new in comparison with some. I moved to a specialised are of law 3 years ago, which is always busy. I'd loath to be starting off again in the current climate.

Best regards.

[GUT]

GUT,

Same here, the profession is having to tighten its belt. Ive been in practice for 13 years, so relatively new in comparison with some. I moved to a specialised are of law 3 years ago, which is always busy. I'd loath to be starting off again in the current climate.

Best regards.

Sent you a pm.