Was Stride Really a JtR Victim?

[Bridewell]

Hi Lynn

How would he know that number one squealed a bit and couldn`t finish straight off?

He wouldn't, but who could contradict him if he made the claim?

[Bridewell]

I try to limit "testimony" to people who gave evidence at the inquest (testimony = a sworn statement), otherwise what ever they said is only a statement to either the press or police.

Fair enough, but a witness statement made to the police includes a signed declaration of truth, otherwise known as a perjury declaration, along the lines of:

"This statement (consisting of pages) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that I may be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true"

[Wickerman]

Fair enough, but a witness statement made to the police includes a signed declaration of truth, otherwise known as a perjury declaration, along the lines of:

"This statement (consisting of pages) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that I may be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true"

Thankyou Colin.
Two questions:
First, are you saying this is how it is done today, or even in the 19th century?
Second, does this "perjury declaration" also apply equally to voluntary statements?
I don't recall it being mentioned with Hutchinson's statement.

Thanks.

[Bridewell]

What if?

Could we see some link between Eddowes' release and her meeting "Jack" (I'm assuming here that she WAS a Ripper victim) - even her being "stalked"? Could she have arranged previously to meet her killer (I'm thinking here of her remark that she might know "Jack") which is less plausible/possible if we have a "double event"?

Phil

N.B. The following is pure speculation.

This raises another possibility:- that Eddowes had arranged to meet her killer but was arrested just before she was due to do so.

Just supposing.......

Eddowes did know the identity of the killer and had agreed to meet him at the Aldgate Pump at 8.30pm "and if you don't turn up, my lovely, I'll go straight to the police!". 'Jack' arrives a couple of minutes late and finds that Eddowes has gone to Bishopsgate St Police Station with two police officers. Thinks "This may be my last chance to kill"? followed by, "Supposing she hasn't said anything? If she leaves the police station alone, I'll know she's kept her mouth shut and can silence her before she changes her mind. They were going to kick her out around one o'clock. Bloody hell, it's ten to!"

As I said, pure speculation, but interruption isn't the only possible reason for a sudden cessation of activity on Berner Street.

Insert howl of outrage here:.................

[Bridewell]

Thankyou Colin.
Two questions:
First, are you saying this is how it is done today, or even in the 19th century?
Second, does this "perjury declaration" also apply equally to voluntary statements?
I don't recall it being mentioned with Hutchinson's statement.

Thanks.

Hi Jon,

Both good questions.

First, that's how it was done in my time, possibly not so in the 19th century if I'm honest, as it's known as a CJ (Criminal Justice) Act declaration. The Act was (I think) 1972, but I'm not sure if that was simply an update of earlier legislation making the same requirement.

A Voluntary Statement, as understood by the police, is one made by a suspect wishing (or perhaps not!) to make a written admission of guilt. They were always attacked in court as having been made under duress (as some probably were). There were no paragraphs and no spaces allowed (to prevent insertions by the unscrupulous) and any errors or crossings out had to be initialled. They were more trouble than they were worth for all concerned and I can't recall the last time I heard of anyone making one.

The only documentation I've seen concerning Hutchinson's account is the General Report submitted by Sgt Badham which doesn't have such a declaration but, in that format, I wouldn't expect it to.

In short, my comments may have been anachronistic, so apologies for that.

[Errata]

Hello Errata. Thanks.

OK. But are these "noises" usually loud? Seems that Israel needed to qualify the screams with respect to loudness. Naturally, as screams are usually loud.

Cheers.
LC

No they aren't loud. Just above conversational level, loud-wise. Above normal speech, below arguing. But the "gasp of outrage" is the only thing I can think of that is scream-like, but not loud.

[lynn cates]

redundant

Hello Errata. Thanks.

I'm wondering, then, if they are not loud, why bother describing them as such?

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Hello Errata. Thanks.

I'm wondering, then, if they are not loud, why bother describing them as such?

Cheers.
LC

I have to find a recording of this somewhere. but it is short and sharp like a scream, but lower in volume. He said she screamed, but not loudly, which doesn't make sense since a scream is by definition loud. I'm going to see if I can find this on Youtube or something.

[Wickerman]

Do we need a definition of 'scream'?

[The Good Michael]

I try to limit "testimony" to people who gave evidence at the inquest (testimony = a sworn statement), otherwise what ever they said is only a statement to either the press or police.

Jon, they mean the same thing. Enough quibbling over such nonsense.

Mike

[Errata]

Do we need a definition of 'scream'?

That depends. But regardless, every dictionary has one.

[DRoy]

Mike,

Come on, really? Testimony vs statement are two entirely different things. Bridewell gives us all a great breakdown of each and it couldn't have been said any better than that. Although we may use them the same doesn't mean they are the same.

A good example would be me calling you a donkey or an ass (not that I ever would of course). Those have the same meaning yet are they really the same meaning?

Didn't think so and neither is statement and testimony. So please stop quibbling over such nonsense and lets get back to topic.

Cheers
DRoy

[The Good Michael]

Come on, really? Testimony vs statement are two entirely different things. Bridewell gives us all a great breakdown of each and it couldn't have been said any better than that. Although we may use them the same doesn't mean they are the same.

A good example would be me calling you a donkey or an ass (not that I ever would of course). Those have the same meaning yet are they really the same meaning?

Donkey and ass are the same thing. Just check you family pedigree.

Mike

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Simply...

Who killed Stride and why? What is the most reasonable explanation? We are already assuming. Which is the most reasonable assumption?

[Phil H]

A "statement" (meaning something formal and official) is surely a sub-sort of testimony (which can also have technical meanings - i.e. testimony in a court of law) but which can be used loosely to mean bearing witness in any way - written or oral.

The word "statement" can also be used loosely and often is.

It is up to the person using the word to ensure that his meaning (and definition) is clear.

Who killed Stride and why? What is the most reasonable explanation?

In my view we do not have sufficient evidence to make a judgement. But that applies equally that Liz was a Ripper victim.

We are already assuming. Which is the most reasonable assumption?

I'd use a different formulation, I think. As I said in my earlier (longer) post in this thread, setting Stride aside (for argument's sake) - which is NOT an "assumption" - allows us to look at Eddowes killing in a different light and context. That in itself can be useful.

Assumptions, reasonable or not, as dangerous, because they almost always have some bias or prejudice involved (explicit or hidden). The person proposing the assumption, in my experience, often has an axe to grind or a conclusion already reached.

I am not arguing that we accept or reject any view - but "assuming" that Stride was a Ripper victim (when she MAY not have been) would distort our reading of the other events of that night. Eddowes is much more soundly based as a Ripper victim (I say that despite being aware of ther interpretations) and to give "Jack" free rein to focus on her - without having to rush from a distance away - might well throw up new food for thought.

Phil