Evidence to prove a suspect valid

[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

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]

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

[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?

[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]

.... 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]

Liz

Hi Curious. No, I'm often blunt when being disagreed with on no or little grounds. I'm quite polite when corrected, however. I'm usually good at picking up a joke but didn't see one there. 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.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hello Tom,

No problem. Perhaps I should have had Liz slipping on a banana (or perhaps grape) skin before falling ;-)

We are on common ground as far as Liz is concerned, I definitely agree that all points to her being a Ripper victim.

Best wishes,
C4

[Tom_Wescott]

Dear Tom,

Dr Phillips: "I have seen several self-inflicted wounds more extensive than this one, but then they have not divided the carotid artery." I was joking. Didn't realise it was against the rules. I shall attempt to rein in my sense of humour in the future and will put your rudeness down to the stress of publishing your book.

C4

Hi Curious. No, I'm often blunt when being disagreed with on no or little grounds. I'm quite polite when corrected, however. I'm usually good at picking up a joke but didn't see one there. 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.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[curious4]

Joke

Do you just make stuff up as you post? Of course the wound could have been self-inflicted. Much worse self-inflicted wounds have been reported and people continue to kill themselves by cutting their throats (think Charles Rocket from SNL). But no knife was found in her hand or nearby. Or maybe it was but the police covered that up along with the grapes?

My point is that the police and doctor concluded she was murdered. These same people concluded Packer was lying. If you want to say they were wrong or part of some vast cover-up on the one point, then why so easily accept their conclusions on the former? As for myself, I'm completely satisfied that Stride was murdered and equally as satisfied that Packer was a liar, as were contemporary investigators and all but maybe three of the current pack.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Dear Tom,

Dr Phillips: "I have seen several self-inflicted wounds more extensive than this one, but then they have not divided the carotid artery." I was joking. Didn't realise it was against the rules. I shall attempt to rein in my sense of humour in the future and will put your rudeness down to the stress of publishing your book.

C4

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Tom,

We-ell - we do have the doctor's opinion that the wound couldn't have been self-inflicted. I suppose that does leave either accident or murder. Perhaps Stride could have tripped and fallen on a knife and a handy animal could have made off with the knife.....

No, I'll stop now.

All good wishes,
C4

Do you just make stuff up as you post? Of course the wound could have been self-inflicted. Much worse self-inflicted wounds have been reported and people continue to kill themselves by cutting their throats (think Charles Rocket from SNL). But no knife was found in her hand or nearby. Or maybe it was but the police covered that up along with the grapes?

My point is that the police and doctor concluded she was murdered. These same people concluded Packer was lying. If you want to say they were wrong or part of some vast cover-up on the one point, then why so easily accept their conclusions on the former? As for myself, I'm completely satisfied that Stride was murdered and equally as satisfied that Packer was a liar, as were contemporary investigators and all but maybe three of the current pack.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[curious4]

Not self-inflicted

It's considered accurate to say that Packer is lying. To say that's not a fact is a matter of semantics. It's not a fact that Stride was murdered but the weight of the evidence suggests she was so take it as a working hypothesis that she was murdered. Same with Packer. A mountain of evidence pointing towards a lie with absolutely nothing to argue for him having told the truth.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hello Tom,

We-ell - we do have the doctor's opinion that the wound couldn't have been self-inflicted. I suppose that does leave either accident or murder. Perhaps Stride could have tripped and fallen on a knife and a handy animal could have made off with the knife.....

No, I'll stop now.

All good wishes,
C4

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom are you doing a lecture tour to promote the pre publication of your (Le Grand) book?
[ATTACH]15859[/ATTACH]

I'm Trevor Marriott's opening act.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom
I haven't suggested Batchelor was particularly significant in the grape story - I was picking you up on a comment you made about Batchelor's altercation with Le Grand.

I haven't read about that episode for years. Whatever I have in my essay is correct.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Did Le Grand know Albert Bachert?

There's no hard proof they knew each other but I've wondered for years if they might not have, for a few different reasons. Nothing so solid though that it compelled me to conclude they knew each other.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Tom,

Why has no-one mentioned the bicycle before! :-D. I am familiar with the fact that Packer changed his story and don't deny that he seemed to be a man who was easily manipulated. However, to say that it is a fact that he was lying when he said he sold grapes to Stride's companion is wrong. Not proven, as the Scots say.

I wish you all success with your book. I am sure it will make fascinating reading!

Best wishes,
C4

P.S. As for the killer being left-handed, most lefties were forced at the time from childhood to use their right hands, so perhaps we can land on ambidextrous?

It's considered accurate to say that Packer is lying. To say that's not a fact is a matter of semantics. It's not a fact that Stride was murdered but the weight of the evidence suggests she was so take it as a working hypothesis that she was murdered. Same with Packer. A mountain of evidence pointing towards a lie with absolutely nothing to argue for him having told the truth.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott