Evidence to prove a suspect valid

[Wickerman]

.... What Dr. Phillips is pointing out is that most people, suicide or murderer, don't know or think to divide the carotid. Whoever killed Stride knew what he was doing. One of the numerous factors that point to her having killed by the Ripper.

On that basis then both McKenzie and Coles were Ripper victims.

[curious4]

Victims

On that basis then both McKenzie and Coles were Ripper victims.

Hello Wickerman,

Indeed and I think this was also what was suspected at the time.

Best wishes,
C4

[Wickerman]

We have two rather similar examples of a witness changing their story. The first example is from the Tabram murder case and involves a Mr Hewitt, who at first claimed to see, hear and know nothing of this murder!

That he heard....."no voices nor sounds of struggle".

But then after a time was reported to provide this 'theory':

"It is my belief that the poor creature crept up the staircase, that she was accompanied by a man, that a quarrel took place, and that he then stabbed her"

Tom has concluded that Mr Hewitt's detailed theory is now the true story, but apparently has formed no opinion as to why Mr Hewitt initially denied hearing anything.

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/ws-silence-of-violence.html

The second example of course is Matthew Packer, who also initially said he heard & saw nothing, yet then after a time appeared to be more comfortable sharing a detailed explanation of what he saw that night.

Tom believes Mr Hewitt after he changed his mind because Tom concludes his summary by writing:
"...It was a true witness account of the murder of Martha Tabram."

But Tom does not believe Mr Packer, one might wonder if there is a double standard here.

I have already tried to explain why the ordinary citizen is initially reluctant to get involved and may deny hearing or seeing anything. An explanation which is consistent with the initial denial's of both Mr Hewitt and Mr Packer, but apparently one consistent explanation which appears justified in two separate cases is not good enough.


Yes Tom I am just teasing you, nevertheless, you appear to have placed yourself in an awkward position by offering inconsistent conclusions for the same scenario.


The bottom line is of course, when a witness changed their story, should we accept that change as the truth, or not?
If so - why?, but if not - why not?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Wick. Same situation? What did Packer have to lose? Hewitt had his job, home and position to lose. And in the Tabram case do you have Hewitt giving the police an honest statement, then speaking with a conman known to pay people to give false evidence, and suddenly offering a wild tale?

There is nothing in common between the cases. Hewitt may or may not have heard a struggle. If he did he might feel it worth his while not to say as much.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[GUT]

G'Day Tom

I don't understand why would an honest man wanting to protect his job, home and position:

Hewitt may or may not have heard a struggle. If he did he might feel it worth his while not to say as much.

Can you elaborate for me, my instinct, and that's all it is, is that a man trying to cover his backside, so to speak, would tell the authorities what he heard. Wouldn't he be at greater risk if he kept shut and it came out later that he hadn't spoken up? Happy to admit that I may be way off.

[Tom_Wescott]

G'Day Tom

I don't understand why would an honest man wanting to protect his job, home and position:



Can you elaborate for me, my instinct, and that's all it is, is that a man trying to cover his backside, so to speak, would tell the authorities what he heard. Wouldn't he be at greater risk if he kept shut and it came out later that he hadn't spoken up? Happy to admit that I may be way off.

Hi Gut. I don't know what Hewitt did or didn't hear. I only know that the police considered it 'remarkable' that he didn't hear anything. Hewitt said there was nothing to hear, but then said he believed a struggle had taken place. That might be seen as inconsistent. He was the building manager and thus responsible for what went on in the building. If he admitted to hearing what sounded like a woman being attacked and he did nothing to interfere, he'd likely lose his job, which would also mean losing his home.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[GUT]

G'Day Tom

Thanks that makes sense to me, I too find it hard to believe that if we accept everything else that is said, or even most of it, that he would not have heard anything at all.

If he admitted to hearing what sounded like a woman being attacked and he did nothing to interfere, he'd likely lose his job, which would also mean losing his home.

hadn't considered that aspect. Again many thanks.

[Tom_Wescott]

Just for the record, I don't think Hewitt can be implicated in the murder. I didn't bring him up, Wicker did, apparently because he sees similarities between Hewitt and Packer. But there are none as far as I can tell. Tabram was killed 12 feet from Hewitt's door, for what it's worth.

I don't know if she was killed by one or more men, but I can tell you there's absolutely no reason to suspect that soldiers did it. Actually, Hewitt indirectly and unintentionally played a part in Pearly Poll's fictional story. He talked to the Times about the evidence of Jane Gillibank, who thought the dead woman was a lady named Whithers. She said she saw Whithers with a soldier the day before the murder. Hewitt garbled the story (or the reporter did) and published it on the 8th that the dead woman was seen in the company of soldiers (plural) on the day OF the murder. That's what Pearly Poll's story was built around.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Tom, seriously, no employer gives a rats a$$ about what an employee might tell the press.

What you might not realize is that people deciding to fabricate a story are more concerned about what they might gain, than what they might lose.

[GUT]

G'Day Jon

Tom, seriously, no employer gives a rats a$$ about what an employee might tell the press.

I seriously doubt that in the social conscious LVP. When appearance meant so much. And it certainly doesn't apply to all jobs and all employers today.

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom, seriously, no employer gives a rats a$$ about what an employee might tell the press.

What you might not realize is that people deciding to fabricate a story are more concerned about what they might gain, than what they might lose.

What are you talking about? Hewitt's job was not to hear a woman being attacked and do nothing. Of course he'd be in trouble. And I wouldn't say that Hewitt 'fabricated a story'. He MAY have lied about having heard a struggle. And that's only a maybe. Packer and Pearly fabricated stories. In Packer's case it was, like you said, for gain.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

..... I too find it hard to believe that if we accept everything else that is said, or even most of it, that he would not have heard anything at all.

Agreed.
I too prefer to believe Hewitt did hear something, my interest is in the fact that his first choice was to avoid telling the police anything that would get him involved.
Just like Packer!

Yet, Tom thinks Hewitt's first story to police was a lie, but that Packer's first story to police was the truth.
With no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, to help justify the difference of interpretation.

The difference that jumps out at me is the desire to implicate LeGrand.

[Wickerman]

... Hewitt's job was not to hear a woman being attacked and do nothing. Of course he'd be in trouble.

Who is going to get him 'in trouble'?, when it was a reality that cries of "murder" were common place in their neighborhood.
Opening that door could expose his wife to immediate danger, he was about 58 years old after all (same as Packer?).

Where would your concern lie?

[Tom_Wescott]

Agreed.
I too prefer to believe Hewitt did hear something, my interest is in the fact that his first choice was to avoid telling the police anything that would get him involved.
Just like Packer!

Yet, Tom thinks Hewitt's first story to police was a lie, but that Packer's first story to police was the truth.
With no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, to help justify the difference of interpretation.

The difference that jumps out at me is the desire to implicate LeGrand.

I'm not motivated by 'desires', Wick. I became intrigued by Le Grand because up to that point people believed Packer lied to suit some need of his own. It occurred to me that it made far more sense that Le Grand - the bonafide conman - was being the ruse and not Packer. I naturally began to look at Le Grand with suspicion, particularly where Stride's murder was concerned. As a result of this, it was discovered that he was indeed a contemporary Ripper suspect. How many Ripperologists can say they became genuinely interested in a suspect BEFORE it was known that he was a suspect?

In any event, it was already known by all that Packer was a liar before it even became known that Le Grand was any sort of conman. Your attempts to paint me as someone rewriting history to suit my needs does not become you nor does it even remotely resemble reality. If anything, I often feel alone in my pursuit of what is and isn't factual. Everyone else seems more interested in nitpicking, pessimism, discouragement, and preserving their long-held but flawed beliefs.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Who is going to get him 'in trouble'?, when it was a reality that cries of "murder" were common place in their neighborhood.
Opening that door could expose his wife to immediate danger, he was about 58 years old after all (same as Packer?).

Where would your concern lie?

I wouldn't blame him at all for not getting involved. But then I wasn't paying him to do so. His boss was. There's also reputation to consider. In any event, it's all speculation in regards to what Hewitt did or didn't hear. But with Packer it's a fact that he lied.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott