Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Wickerman]

Firstly, I'd like to see the "expert" who "cannot agree" with this specific conclusion of Canter's ...

This may come as a bit of a shock to you Ben, but most ordinary people will tell you that in some cases it is possible to use body language (well established fact), and in other cases body language is not in itself sufficient.

'We' do not need a David Canter to educate us on that, well, you might, but the average person doesn't.

And secondly, who said anything about "profiling"?

You did!
David Canter's claim to fame is Offender Profiling, and the point you were attempting to make is drawn from Canter's teachings.
Hence, you are dabbling in Offender Profiling.

I've provided the proof.

I don't even slightly care if you dispute this, ....

Then why respond? - of course you care
And you have not provided anything like 'proof'.

I do care when you demand that anyone who agrees with me must contribute to a slanging match of your own crafting purely at your behest, and threaten to claim victory if they don't. Because such behaviour is faintly comical in its immaturity.

I agree you care about this, but not for the reason's you offer.
You care because it enables me to expose the fact that you do not have the broad support you claim to have.

[Ben]

'We' do not need a David Canter to educate us on that, well, you might, but the average person doesn't.

But when we have an expert in the field informing us that judgments based on body language are notoriously unreliable, and that it is "nonsense" to claim that an honest man can always be told apart from a liar on the basis of such judgments, it is sensible to pay heed to that advice, as opposed to insisting that looking a person "in the eye" counts for more than the actual bonafide experts know that it does.

David Canter is a psychologist who specialises in true crime, where he is highly respected for his contributions to that field. However, his observation regarding interviewing techniques and relying on body language to gauge a witness' truthfulness and/or a suspect's guilt had absolutely nothing to do with offender profiling.

And you have not provided anything like 'proof'.

Yes, I have.

More times than you are capable of saying that I haven't: yes, I have.

You care because it enables me to expose the fact that you do not have the broad support you claim to have.

Yeah, Jon.

A real "Exposé" job you've done there...

Look, you can't expect people to be at your beck and call, and to join a thread at your aggressive insistence after insulting them. That just isn't going to fly. Now cultivate a less childish debating strategy please, or don't post.

[Wickerman]

..... and that it is "nonsense" to claim that an honest man can always be told apart from a liar on the basis of such judgments, .....

I emphasized the "always" in order to enquire exactly who made such a statement?
Another straw-man argument from you, I suspect?

David Canter is a psychologist who specialises in true crime, where he is highly respected for his contributions to that field. However, his observation regarding interviewing techniques and relying on body language to gauge a witness' truthfulness and/or a suspect's guilt had absolutely nothing to do with offender profiling.

You deny then that the tendency for an offender to inject himself into a case, in this example as a witness, can be an acknowledged part of an offenders makeup?
And here is me thinking you had claimed it was.

Yes, I have.

More times than you are capable of saying that I haven't: yes, I have.

You are still on the hook to show this proof, claiming you already have does not get you out of the corner.
And, no-one seems to want to help you out.

Look, you can't expect people to be at your beck and call, and to join a thread at your aggressive insistence after insulting them. That just isn't going to fly. Now cultivate a less childish debating strategy please, or don't post.

Lets just circumvent this tittle-tattle and have you come clean and admit, no proof exists for your 'discrediting' claims. That is why no-one chooses to paint themselves into a corner along with yourself.

It's not like we don't all know the real situation.

[Ben]

I emphasized the "always" in order to enquire exactly who made such a statement?

I'm thinking of those who refer continually to the fact that Abberline "looked him in the eye" in order to defend the position that he must have been correct in his assessment.

You deny then that the tendency for an offender to inject himself into a case, in this example as a witness, can be an acknowledged part of an offenders makeup?

No, I don't deny that.

But the above is a documented and factual reality. If Hutchinson was the killer, then he was an example of a serial offender injecting himself into the investigation as a witness. That's not profiling. That's simply a suggested explanation for Hutchinson's behaviour based on known facts about known serial killers. If I said that Jack the Ripper may have had an alcoholic mother and set fire to rats a child, that would be profiling.

You are still on the hook to show this proof, claiming you already have does not get you out of the corner.
And, no-one seems to want to help you out.

You fail miserably in your attempts to intimidate me, Jon.

I'm not in a "corner" and nor am I on a "hook". You're trying to empower yourself with the fantasy notion that I'm under some sort of pressure from you, but the reality simply doesn't bear this out. I've told you before, you cannot expect the people you've insulted to do what you want them to do. You refer to people who know more about the case than me, and who have written about Hutchinson long before I have heard of him, as my "followers" and a "flock", and then insist that they must join a petty squabble at your behest. They don't value your opinion of them, Jon, although they are far more sensible than me in refusing spend any time on your nonsense.

[Wickerman]

I'm thinking of those who refer continually to the fact that Abberline "looked him in the eye" in order to defend the position that he must have been correct in his assessment.

An interviewer can always understand more from a face-to-face interview, than we can from words on a paper.

No, I don't deny that.

But the above is a documented and factual reality. If Hutchinson was the killer, then he was an example of a serial offender injecting himself into the investigation as a witness. That's not profiling. That's simply a suggested explanation for Hutchinson's behaviour based on known facts about known serial killers. If I said that Jack the Ripper may have had an alcoholic mother and set fire to rats a child, that would be profiling.

What does Canter say about a detective being able to determine the truthfulness of a witness from his written statement, as opposed to a face-to-face interrogation?

What we have here are a handful of people choosing to find fault with what was written in a voluntary statement, in preference to the conclusions of an experienced detective conducting a personal interview.

The only question of any value here is to what degree of absurdity is this.

You fail miserably in your attempts to intimidate me, Jon.

I'm not in a "corner" and nor am I on a "hook". You're trying to empower yourself with the fantasy notion that I'm under some sort of pressure from you, but the reality simply doesn't bear this out. I've told you before, you cannot expect the people you've insulted to do what you want them to do. You refer to people who know more about the case than me, and who have written about Hutchinson long before I have heard of him, as my "followers" and a "flock", and then insist that they must join a petty squabble at your behest. They don't value your opinion of them, Jon, although they are far more sensible than me in refusing spend any time on your nonsense.

Duck and weave all you like, the hook remains firmly embedded.
You are, and always will be on the hook, as anyone is who makes unsubstantiated claims.
So long as you continue to maintain proof exists for an issue which everyone else knows does not, then it is and always will be incumbent on you, and only you, to provide such proof.

It's your fantasy Ben, as has been pointed out to you on another thread.
The fantasy, should it need to be pointed out, is not your overall theory, concerning the culpability of Hutchinson. Your fantasy is the methods you adopt in order to try 'prove' his culpability.

In short, it is not that Hutchinson could not have been guilty of something, of course he could. It is the false arguments you create in order to make him appear guilty, that's where the fantasizing comes in, your firm belief in your own guesswork.

[Ben]

An interviewer can always understand more from a face-to-face interview, than we can from words on a paper.

According to who?

Just you? Again?

I had an inkling, but unfortunately, your claim is flatly contradicted by those with actual experience who argue the precise opposite; that it is essential to pay heed only to the content of the statement, rather than allowing your judgment to be tainted by impressions based on body language. Many psychopaths will often have a very sincere and engaging demeanour, and the tendency to be overly impressed by this can have the detrimental effect of obscuring the suspicious nature of what they're actually saying.

Another trap that interviewers can fall into is an over-reliance on outward and visible signs of "lying", and the false deduction that if these signs are absent in the subject, he or she must be telling the truth. Could Abberline have fallen into this trap? Well, one key piece of evidence suggests he might have done. In 1885 he interviewed a man suspected of being involved in the Tower of London Bombing, and discovered his guilt from the "hesitation in his replies and his general manner". Could Abberline's successful outing of a bad and possibly guilt-ridden liar have led to an over-reliance on his own ability to weed out all liars, even good ones who don't give the game away with hesitation and nervousness? The answer is yes, of course it could.

I shall be extremely annoyed if I receive any other response than "thanks for the information" to the forgoing.

So long as you continue to maintain proof exists for an issue which everyone else knows does not

Again, this is hilarious in its delusion value. "Everyone else" does not participate in Hutchinson discussions. "Everyone else" probably doesn't read them, let alone familiarise themselves with the latest developments and observations therein. The notion that there is a huge army of people challenging me and demanding proof of me is a joke, to be laughed and laughed at. Yes, I have provided the proof that Hutchinson was discredited (not proven to have lied, just discredited) over and over again. When you've asked me to repeat the proof, I have repeated it, and where you've challenged it, I have responded to that challenge in great detail and depth.

I'm not insisting that you must be satisfied that I've provided this proof if your bizarre theories dictate that you must forever be hell-bent against it, but you're not going to win a war of attrition and repetition. I will maintain that I have provided the demanded the proof, and demonstrate accordingly, for far longer than you are capable of fruitlessly naysaying to the contrary.

Your fantasy is the methods you adopt in order to try 'prove' his culpability.

Again with the insufferable misrepresentation of my views.

I have never once sought to "prove" Hutchinson's culpability in the ripper crimes.

[Wickerman]

According to who?

Just you? Again?

I had an inkling, but unfortunately, your claim is flatly contradicted by those with actual experience who argue the precise opposite; ...

Quote me who says an incomplete written statement is of superior value to a face-to-face meeting with the witness.
I think if you had a quotable source you would have used it.

Another trap that interviewers can fall into is an over-reliance on outward and visible signs of "lying", and the false deduction that if these signs are absent in the subject, he or she must be telling the truth.

That is likely your 'false deduction', not that of an experienced officer. It is not easy to deduce a nervous witness from a lying witness. Abberline needs to investigate what the witness is nervous about.
The benefit being, a nervous demeanor does not come across in the dictated statement.

I shall be extremely annoyed if I receive any other response than "thanks for the information" to the forgoing.

Sorry to spoil your day.

Yes, I have provided the proof that Hutchinson was discredited (not proven to have lied, just discredited) over and over again.

Discrediting can only come from the police, no such report or memo concerning a change of heart by the police towards Hutchinson exists.

When the Echo report that Hutchinson's statement appears of lesser value, and the Star then exaggerates this to a discrediting, these reports are in no way considered factual by any serious student of the case.
Newspaper reports are not proof of anything, and given the known animosity between Scotland Yard/The Met. and the press in general, and the Star in particular, no-one who expects to be taken seriously will promote an unverified story in the Star as 'the truth'.
Their credibility will suffer.

You have no proof, so we can be quite certain you have never provided proof.
This is what you have been told by others in past years, and this is what you are being told today.
Nothing has changed.

[Paddy]

Inquests

It is not the role of the Coroner to decide any question of criminal or civil liability, or to apportion guilt or attribute blame.
The coroner decides who to call as a witness. As part of his investigation, the coroner will request a statement from you and may call you as a witness at the inquest. If you are called as a witness, the coroner may ask you to read through your statement, or may take you through the statement in court. You may be asked to produce a report and may not be called as a witness if your evidence is unlikely to be controversial.

An inquest is an inquisitorial proceeding, to find out:
Who the deceased was
When and where the deceased died
How and in what circumstances

The Police did their job and submitted statements. It is not the role of the Coroner to decide any question of criminal or civil liability, or to apportion guilt or attribute blame.
Most of this info is from a current website "Inquests- England fact sheets" but I would think that the information was the same then?

Nothing appears to discredit Hutchinson in my view...Or other witnesses.

Pat..................................

[Ben]

No prizes for guessing that Jon wouldn't graciously receive information that he was completely ignorant of beforehand, but it was ever thus.

Quote me who says an incomplete written statement is of superior value to a face-to-face meeting with the witness.
I think if you had a quotable source you would have used it.

I never used the word "superior", and I'll thank you not to misrepresent my views. Your assertion that an "interviewer can always understand more from a face-to-face interview" can only be based on the false premise, utterly contradicted by actual experts, that it is easy to tell apart a liar from a non-liar on the basis on demeanour.

It is not easy to deduce a nervous witness from a lying witness. Abberline needs to investigate what the witness is nervous about.

Yes.

Well done.

But what if the witness is not nervous at all but still lying?

What use are amateur psychological evaluations based on body language then? If you're not an expert on such matters, and rely - in your amateurish ignorance - on body language in order to separate liars from honest witnesses in your interviews, what happens when you come across a witness who evinces none of the behavioural clues that you've decided must point to a liar? Do you give him a clean bill of health on the amusingly wrong basis that liars are always nervous and hesitant, and never confident, forthright and confident as this one seems to be? Or do you examine his actual words, i.e what s/he is actually saying, and form your judgment accordingly?

Because, if you pick the latter option, as indeed you should, you'll quickly spot that we're at no disadvantage compared to Abberline.

Discrediting can only come from the police, no such report or memo concerning a change of heart by the police towards Hutchinson exists.

It doesn't need to.

And such an expectation is utterly preposterous.

The police were deluged with time-wasters and publicity-seekers during the course of the Whitechapel investigation. If they made an official newsflash out of the discovery that each one of them was bogus, they would never get any real work done. It was also heavily in their interests to play down the fact that yet another false witness had led them astray, especially in Hutchinson's case, where such enthusiasm was invested in his statement for an extremely short-lived period. Remember also that in the absence of proof that Hutchinson was lying, an official police declaration that Hutchinson was discredited due to suspicions of fabrication would have sent any potential future witness to any potential future crime running from the hills, utterly deterred from coming forward as witnesses for fear of being disbelieved and publicly shamed.

What we have instead is a report that his statement had suffered a "very reduced importance" owing to reasons that were inextricably linked to the question of his credibility, or rather lack thereof. The report in question was obtained directly from Commercial Street Police Station after obtaining other information from the police that we know for a fact to be true, and which we know for a fact could be obtained only via police sources.

no-one who expects to be taken seriously will promote an unverified story in the Star as 'the truth'.

Nobody who still thinks it's cool to bash the Star will be taken seriously either, it being an old-hat, out-of-fashion, unimaginative and eccentrically silly viewpoint. That Star simply "echoed" the Echo in publishing a story entitled "worthless stories lead police on false scents", which also included a piece on Packer. Do you doubt the accuracy of the Star's discrediting of Matthew Packer, who was hurled into precisely the same category as Hutchinson? No, but that's because you don't have crazy, unsupported theories that rely on Packer being a squeakly-clean, honest-to-goodness witness, whereas you do with Hutchinson.

You have no proof, so we can be quite certain you have never provided proof.

I have provided the proof, "we" may be quite certain that I have provided the proof, and I will maintain and demonstrate as much for as long as Jon wants to dance along with me, which I hope will be forever, considering the fun I'm having at the moment.

[Sam Flynn]

What we have instead is a report that his statement had suffered a "very reduced importance" owing to reasons that were inextricably linked to the question of his credibility, or rather lack thereof.

It may pay to read the Echo'sreport in its full context. My underlinings:

"From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder. Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before? As many as fifty-three persons have, in all, made statements as to 'suspicious men', each of whom was thought to be Mary Janet Kelly's assassin. The most remarkable thing in regard to the latest statement is, that no one else can be found to say that a man of that description given was seen with the deceased, while, of course, there is the direct testimony of the witnesses at the inquest, that the person seen with the deceased at midnight was of quite a different appearance."

It would seem that the police were inundated with "witnesses", of which Hutchinson was but one in fifty-three. It also appears that, because Hutchinson's description was so at odds with all the others, that it was not made on oath, and because he came forward so late, his account came to be regarded with "reduced importance". A conclusion which, "in light of further investigation", seems to have been confirmed.

I should point out that this would not discredit Hutchinson per se, only his statement. If he was caught out in a lie, or made a genuine mistake, that does not make Hutchinson himself an incorrigible rogue... any more than the other 52 "witnesses" were.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

I understand your point, but the fact that the Echo specifically alluded to his failure to come forward before and present his evidence "on oath" is an obvious indication that the "very reduced importance" related to doubts about his credibility. It was reported in the same paper the following day that the statement was:

"considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest in a more official manner"

Not because the poor, hapless purveyor of truthful virtue made a genuine mistake (and I hope I'm still preaching to the choir on this one ). Significantly, the Star observed on the 15th that the statement was "now discredited", and somewhat significantly, this observation appeared under the heading "Worthless stories lead the police on false scents", which dealt mostly with Packer.

I don't, for moment, suggest that the police dismissed Hutchinson as an "incorrigible rogue", bur rather one of the many untrustworthy witnesses who burden a police investigation.

All the best,
Ben

[Hunter]

Another trap that interviewers can fall into is an over-reliance on outward and visible signs of "lying", and the false deduction that if these signs are absent in the subject, he or she must be telling the truth. Could Abberline have fallen into this trap? Well, one key piece of evidence suggests he might have done. In 1885 he interviewed a man suspected of being involved in the Tower of London Bombing, and discovered his guilt from the "hesitation in his replies and his general manner". Could Abberline's successful outing of a bad and possibly guilt-ridden liar have led to an over-reliance on his own ability to weed out all liars, even good ones who don't give the game away with hesitation and nervousness? The answer is yes, of course it could.

The man's accent aroused Abberline's suspicions as much as anything else in this instance and would have determined the line of questions that followed. This was also a situation (because a diligent PC had kept anyone from leaving) where Abberline realized that the culprit could still be on the premises. It would be unfair to judge this detective's investigative skills or his perceptions of those he interviewed from this one instance. Abberline interrogated hundreds of people during his career - each with its own unique circumstances for him to weigh and consider.

He was used to criminals "lying with conviction" so to speak, even if he was not familiar with the psychological nature of psychopaths.

[Ben]

I'm not suggesting that the Tower of London episode reflects in any way poorly on Abberline as a detective. Plenty of detectives with more experience than Abberline have been fooled by plausible rogues over the decades since 1888, without it reflecting poorly on them either. I'm simply highlighting the pitfalls of investing unwarranted significance in the fact that Abberline "looked him the eye", as some are wont to to. Unless Abberline's insights into criminal psychology were commensurate with those of David Canter, there was the real and obvious risk of being "taken in" by a liar whose demeanour didn't strike any obvious bum note.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

I don't, for moment, suggest that the police dismissed Hutchinson as an "incorrigible rogue", bur rather one of the many untrustworthy witnesses who burden a police investigation.

Good-oh, Ben. That was broadly the point I wanted to make.

[Wickerman]

It may pay to read the Echo'sreport in its full context. My underlinings:

"From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder. Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before? As many as fifty-three persons have, in all, made statements as to 'suspicious men', each of whom was thought to be Mary Janet Kelly's assassin. The most remarkable thing in regard to the latest statement is, that no one else can be found to say that a man of that description given was seen with the deceased, while, of course, there is the direct testimony of the witnesses at the inquest, that the person seen with the deceased at midnight was of quite a different appearance."

It would seem that the police were inundated with "witnesses", of which Hutchinson was but one in fifty-three. It also appears that, because Hutchinson's description was so at odds with all the others, that it was not made on oath, and because he came forward so late, his account came to be regarded with "reduced importance". A conclusion which, "in light of further investigation", seems to have been confirmed.

I should point out that this would not discredit Hutchinson per se, only his statement. If he was caught out in a lie, or made a genuine mistake, that does not make Hutchinson himself an incorrigible rogue... any more than the other 52 "witnesses" were.

The suggestion that Hutchinson's statement, perhaps within 24 hrs of him making it, suffered a 'very reduced' importance, is agreed to I think by both parties.
The question then becomes, "as a result of what?"

The press speculate that it is because he did not appear at the inquest.
This is incorrect, the police investigation does not rely exclusively on what evidence is produced at the Coroners Inquest. So we know this is false speculation.

The Coroners Inquest is not a murder investigation, the Coroner merely needs to establish "the who, the where, the when & by what means" of the death of the victim.
The police investigation of the murder is running on ahead of the Coroners Inquiry and does not rely on sworn testimony given to the Coroner.

This is where Ben's argument has gone off the rails, being misled by erroneous media speculation.

Given then, that the police are not limited by Inquest testimony, if Hutchinson's story has suffered in importance we must look for a more relevant cause.

What no-one outside official circles knew, so obviously not the press, was that Dr. Bond, apparently with the cooperation of Dr Phillips, had compiled a report on the wounds to Mary Kelly's body.

Within that report Dr Bond gave an estimated time of death stated to be between 1:00-2:00 am. This report was sent to the Home Office on the Saturday, but by the time the importance of this report had been discussed & digested perhaps over the weekend, Hutchinson had come forward Monday night and Abberline had accepted his story.

The change of heart, if such is true, occurred within the next 24 hrs. So we have here a bona fide reason to explain why Scotland Yard (in the form of Abberline) at first appeared to present Hutchinson as a primary witness, replacing Cox, only to learn within the next few hours that his story may not be as sound as first appears.
The police were now in the possession of a medical report which pointed directly at the Cox suspect as far as timing is concerned.

However, the police know from previous experience that medical opinion, valuable as it is, is not always 100% reliable. Hence, they cannot dismiss Hutchinson entirely, and they do not, as is demonstrated by the many newspaper reports in the next week or two which show the police still interested in the Hutchinson suspect.

Therefore, the very notion that Hutchinson was dismissed out of hand is demonstrably false. The cause of this false interpretation is the choice by a few to be unduly influenced by erroneous media speculation.

If we stick with what we know, the picture becomes a little easier to explain.
There never was any 'discrediting' by anyone, and certainly not by the police.
Much to their chagrin the police had two primary suspects to investigate, not just one.