Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Fisherman]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggg gggggggghhh... rrivederci

De niente!

Fisherman

[Monty]

Accepting that we both know witness testimony can be most unreliable, in the situation that we are faced with, unable to cross-examine the witness, I think we have no choice but to accept what they said.
So long as there is no contentious testimony from another witness to permit us to dispute the fact, then we have no cause to question their words.

A fine example is Cox's claim that at 1:00am Kelly was singing and a light was in her room, and Cox walked down the passage shortly after 1:00.
While Prater says that between 1:00-1:20 there was no light, no singing, and no-one walked passed her.

Clear cause exists here for calling one or the other witness 'mistaken'. But, when you have a statement for which there is no conflicting testimony (or conflicting evidence), then what justification do we have to question their words?

So witness testimony must be believed unless there is a discrepancy, like we have with Long.

Monty

[Monty]

Tosh? No. It is the simple truth: when two witnesses give different versions of the same event, only one can be correct. The other one must be wrong.

Like now, for instance.

Actually I CAN pick and choose, should I want to. And to some extent, we all do; when we have a choice, picking and choosing is what we do. You included.
However, pointing out that it is impossible to reconcile Mizen and Lechmere is not picking and choosing. It is the plain truth.

As for Long, we either accept his evidence - and I think you have voiced that itīs the better idea, if I am not misremembering? - or we pick and choose the option to disagree. But at the time of the inquest, nobody voiced any disagreement about him finding the apron was not in place at 2.20. All the efforts that have gone into that department are courtesy of late time Ripperologists who think they have the answer to what the killer did after Mitre Square.

They donīt.

Gesundheit!
Fisherman

I find this contradiction in how you assess witness testimony interesting.

Monty

[GUT]

I think the best term used was "non-adversarial", perhaps that is the term I should have used.

No argument from this little black duck that they are intended to be non-adversarial.

I should add for completeness that today the victims family is also often represented with the right to cross-examine, but I am not sure when this came in.

[Wickerman]

No that is not strictly true, there certainly can be cross-examination at an inquest, but normally that only occurs when there is someone in the frame, do concede that as no one was suspect in these inquests there was no cross examination.

We chewed this over some weeks ago when comparing an Inquest with a Trial.

I think the best term used was "non-adversarial", perhaps that is the term I should have used.
A Coroner's Inquest, when compared with a Trial, is intentionally non-adversarial.

[GUT]

G'Day Jon

There is no cross-examination at a Coroner's Inquest. However, the Coroner can always ask the witness, "are you sure?", but the Coroner is not a Judge.

No that is not strictly true, there certainly can be cross-examination at an inquest, but normally that only occurs when there is someone in the frame, do concede that as no one was suspect in these inquests there was no cross examination.

The lack of cross-examination is one of the things that makes inquest evidence less reliable. It is a very old adage in law that a witnesses evidence is almost always at its strongest just before cross begins.

It is the Jury who decides, not the Coroner, his role is to make sure the jury get to hear all the relevant evidence in a clear and understandable fashion (among other responsibilities).

Yes it was the job of the Jury to decide, but with the guidance of the Coroner and one of the issues that he [or today she] is required to provide guidance on is the acceptability [or otherwise] of the evidence that they have heard. A real issue in such matters is often, "Is there an alternate explanation that fits the facts that we know?"

[Wickerman]

But that isn't what happens in inquests, the Coroner has to consider all the factors including the plausibility of the evidence and the possibility that a witness is genuinely mistaken.

There is no cross-examination at a Coroner's Inquest. However, the Coroner can always ask the witness, "are you sure?", but the Coroner is not a Judge.

It is the Jury who decides, not the Coroner, his role is to make sure the jury get to hear all the relevant evidence in a clear and understandable fashion (among other responsibilities).

While I personally am prepared to accept what Long said I also defend the right of others to ask, "is it possible he was mistaken?"

Certainly he 'could' have been mistaken, but if you can't prove it, or even demonstrate it, then what value is there in believing it?

[GUT]

G'Day Jon

The point I am trying to get across is that unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, we should accept what they say, no different that what is done at an Inquest.

But that isn't what happens in inquests, the Coroner has to consider all the factors including the plausibility of the evidence and the possibility that a witness is genuinely mistaken.

While I personally am prepared to accept what Long said I also defend the right of others to ask, "is it possible he was mistaken?"

[Wickerman]

G'day Jon



But if witnesses were always 100% correct in their evidence we wouldn't need inquests or Courts.

Believe me witnesses give inaccurate evidence, deliberately or otherwise, every day.

Hi Gut.
Agreed, there is no suggestion here that witnesses are always correct, I think we all know this.

The point I am trying to get across is that unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, we should accept what they say, no different than what is done at an Inquest.
We need evidence to the contrary, not an "I think he was mistaken". We can say that about everyone in this case.
Perhaps Lawende was mistaken, what about Mrs Long, Schwartz?, were they all mistaken about some detail?
Perhaps PC Smith was mistaken about the hat (deerstalker), should we re-write his testimony too?
I'm sure there are those who think Abberline was mistaken, and then of course, what about Hutchinson?

Where do we draw the line in re-writing witness testimony?
And, why are we re-writing it, ...is it because we don't like the implication of what they said?
Is that sufficient reason?
Don't we need something better than that?

[GUT]

G'day Jon

If a person's word is of no value, then what value is an Inquest where all the evidence is verbal?

But if witnesses were always 100% correct in their evidence we wouldn't need inquests or Courts.

Believe me witnesses give inaccurate evidence, deliberately or otherwise, every day.

[Wickerman]

Jon,

That's true but what about credibility? All we have is his word.

DRoy.
If a person's word is of no value, then what value is an Inquest where all the evidence is verbal?

If he's wrong/mistaken about other things, then I think there is good reason to question how valuable his word truly is.

I dare say that Coroner Langham has made some mistakes in his life (haven't we all?), but he's still a Coroner. Hands up anyone who has never been wrong....

Then factoring in what timing scenario is more likely...discarding the apron piece while passing the spot or keeping the apron on his person for much much longer and for any number of fantastic reasons?

It makes no sense carrying the cloth so far in the first place, that's the first problem.
Wiping your hands is not sufficient justification for the distance involved, so using the apron to carry something makes better sense.
Returning to the streets to drop it somewhere as a red herring is a simple enough explanation, especially at a predominantly Jewish residence.

The only significant point we might learn from this is that he must live nearby. Hardly a grand revelation considering that the police thought the killer was a local man anyway (ref: house-to-house searches, etc.).

[Wickerman]

..... and you can't intelligently declare the apron wasn't there.

We don't need to Mike, a witness who was actually there has already done that.
What better evidence is there?

You can declare it, but again, not intelligently. One guess is as good as another. If you choose to disregard human factors, which you do in this case, you can fool yourself and look the fool for it.

Which human factor are you in favor of Mike?
Was PC Long down a back alley having a quick nip from his hip-flask?, or was he having pie & peas at a nearby chandlers shop?, or did he really pass that spot but completely missed it due to chatting with someone while walking his beat?, or was he huddled up on some steps in a quiet corner, having 40 winks?
All human factors, all perfectly understandable?

But more important Mike, is the real question - "why is it so unreasonable, or so unbelievable, to accept PC Long at his word?"

[DRoy]

But, when you have a statement for which there is no conflicting testimony, then what justification do we have to question their words?

Jon,

That's true but what about credibility? All we have is his word. If he's wrong/mistaken about other things, then I think there is good reason to question how valuable his word truly is.

Then factoring in what timing scenario is more likely...discarding the apron piece while passing the spot or keeping the apron on his person for much much longer and for any number of fantastic reasons?

Cheers
DRoy

[DRoy]

Fish,

No, it does not. The built in magnitude in the discussion between Mizen and Lechmere is much more significant. So yes, I AM right.

More "interpretation" and saying you're right it capital letters doesn't make it so. No matter how you turn, twist, dissect, interpret, translate, wiggle or speculate, we end up with the same: There is more value in the disputes between Long & Halse's testimony than there is between Mizen & Lechmere's.

The credibility of Long must be considered when talking about the time-gap. It would be ignorant to just accept what he says when other evidence conflicts with his testimony 'evidence'.

Cheers
DRoy

[Wickerman]

Then we should acccept every witness statement John,

Including Cross.

Monty

Accepting that we both know witness testimony can be most unreliable, in the situation that we are faced with, unable to cross-examine the witness, I think we have no choice but to accept what they said.
So long as there is no contentious testimony from another witness to permit us to dispute the fact, then we have no cause to question their words.

A fine example is Cox's claim that at 1:00am Kelly was singing and a light was in her room, and Cox walked down the passage shortly after 1:00.
While Prater says that between 1:00-1:20 there was no light, no singing, and no-one walked passed her.

Clear cause exists here for calling one or the other witness 'mistaken'. But, when you have a statement for which there is no conflicting testimony (or conflicting evidence), then what justification do we have to question their words?