Witnesses are no use in JtR case

[Adam Went]

Some witness descriptions are more valuable than others. For example, the one from a police officer, PC Smith, should be taken more seriously, along with witness descriptions that occurred just moments before the murder happened, as they are the most likely to have seen the killer. There will always be argument over the value of statements such as that of George Hutchinson, but at the end of the day, those descriptions are all we have to try and pluck some of the common traits out of and piece together an image of the killer.

Those who would denounce the witness statements as useless would probably be the first to use them as "evidence" to suit their own theory or suspect. That's just how it goes!

Anyway, welcome to the forums, Siobhan.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

Witnesses

Thanks for the welcome Hunter.
I was thinking when I wrote the start of the thread of the tragic Madeline McCann abduction case a few years back (ongoing) where the best evidence the police came up with after gathering "eyewitness statements" was an oval shape of a man's head with no eyes, ears, mouth etc. which they actually issued to the media.
It just seems after so much investigation by police and other experts in the JtR case they have just as little concrete visual evidence as in the above case - in spite of the fact that various "photofits of him" have been produced, most recently, the tv programme claiming to know exactly how he looked.
I have not examined the forensic evidence at all but thanks for the heads up.
A bit squeamish! But might give it a try when feeling a bit braver...
Best to you.

[Hunter]

Hello, Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy and welcome to the forums.

Even today witness testimonies can cause consternation for the police... for the same reasons they did in 1888. Unfortunately, with very little else in the way of hard evidence, witnesses are much of what we have to go by. Calculating which ones were mistaken, which ones embellished their stories, which ones outright lied and who may have been correct has always been at the core of the Ripperologists debates. Each student of this case weighs the avalable evidence in light of their own predications as well; thus the many theories that have been promulgated over the years... and yet, all of this may be a large reason why this particular case is still the classic 'whodunnit'.

I personally give the crime scene evidence, as gleaned from the investigators and medicos, priority over witnesses; realizing that too, can be contradictory. The recent debates on the Stride threads are a good example.

Some of the tabloids were very critical of the police, but these were mainly left wing or so-called progressive papers. The conservative papers were more reserved in their assesment of the police. There were those - such as the Star that sensationalized the murders in order to sell good copy. Ironically,we understand that it was the contemporary press - such as it was - that gave birth to the legend of Jack the Ripper, and I doubt if that had not been so we would not be here today discussing it.

Hope you enjoy the forums.

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

The eye-witness accounts are pretty worthless in my opinion and don’t help in attempting to solve the case. This effectively means that none of the suspects can be ruled in or out with any certainty because of their appearance.
To explain better, this is how a right-wing TABLOID might describe “witness statements” gathered by police if the serial killings happened today:

Witnesses

At least two eyewitnesses claim the killer wore a “black felt hat” but another claims it was “definitely a deerstalker”. And yet a third is certain the Whitechapel murderer wore a “sailor’s hat”.
Little wonder the police have admitted they are “baffled by the conflicting accounts” and cannot explain why “no cohesive picture” of the killer has emerged.
To add to their confusion, the man now known as “Jack the Ripper” has been described variously as “5ft” in height or “5ft 6in” or 5ft 7in”, depending on what day of the week it is, with a “shabby genteel” or “Jewish” or “well-to-do” appearance.
In other words, the police have no idea what the killer looks like, or do they?
They claim to be certain about one important fact – that the killer wears a moustache. Surely this is progress. So what colour is the moustache then?
“There is no conclusive answer,” says one helpful police source “because the facial hair is also a riddle.”
Eyewitnesses have described the whiskers variously as “fawn” on two occasions, “black” at least once, and also “grey” at least once.
And this is why we pay our taxes so the police can make fools of us all.

In fact, the London Evening Standard led the way in 1888 (and after) in castigating the police for their incompetence/ mishandling the case etc, etc. They claimed it would be either a miracle or an accident if the police ever caught JtR.
The police also allowed journalists and “researchers” to pinch vital evidence over the years – another scandal - so that modern forensic scientists have been left with little or nothing to go on. Terrible but true.