Witnesses are no use in JtR case

[Wickerman]

But police today use sketch artists who can draw....

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

But police today use sketch artists who can draw....

Have you seen the photofits done by "sketch artists" of JtR looking like Freddy Mercury (lead singer with Queen, RIP) and the one the Portuguese police issued of Madeline McCann's abductor / killer (posted earlier on this thread)?
Sketch artists can be useful sometimes but not always even if you only take the above two examples as "photofits".
I insist that my little drawing (earlier on this thread) IS the most accurate image available of the real JtR. If police had it at the time of the murders...the case would (possibly, maybe) have been solved.

[Wickerman]

...I insist that my little drawing (earlier on this thread) IS the most accurate image available of the real JtR. If police had it at the time of the murders...the case would (possibly, maybe) have been solved.

Are you talking about your post #16?

If you recall, the police reacted in a less than positive way to the publication of drawings in the Daily Telegraph? after the Stride murder, said to be of the man Packer saw.
They perhaps should have embraced the initiative rather than rejecting it.

Regards, Jon S.

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

Are you talking about your post #16?

If you recall, the police reacted in a less than positive way to the publication of drawings in the Daily Telegraph? after the Stride murder, said to be of the man Packer saw.
They perhaps should have embraced the initiative rather than rejecting it.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Jon,
I agree with you absolutely they could have embraced the initiative rather than rejecting it. I guess the idea was too progressive for the times that were in it.
All in all, the various strands within the police service made a bit of a pig's ear of the entire investigation even though there were many very sincere and well-intentioned individuals working on the case. Who knows, if they had worked more as a team and less as individuals they might have made more progress?
Ah, but then we wouldn't be having so much fun with it!

[Ausgirl]

Here's a relevant articlefrom the Stanford Journal of Legal Studies, which describes experiments akin to one in which I participated in college, demonstrating how the perceptions of eye witnesses can be quite unreliable.

As to victims being able to identify attackers - from first hand experience, I can say that this can be just as unreliable. Many years ago I was smacked in the face by a car thief with a walkie talkie or something like it, having presumably interrupted a theft by walking past a car yard at the wrong time - it was very late, but the street was lit well. I went straight to the police station, which was in walking distance (they were obviously bold car thieves), still bleeding profusely, and was asked for a description. I was really embarrassed, because I knew for sure I'd gotten a good look at the man, being no more than three feet from him before he hit me front-on, but all I could say for sure was that he had blond hair and wasn't short. I could imagine the policeman inwardly going:

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

Here's a relevant articlefrom the Stanford Journal of Legal Studies, which describes experiments akin to one in which I participated in college, demonstrating how the perceptions of eye witnesses can be quite unreliable.

Hi Ausgirl,
Very intertesting article on witnesses and the pitfalls of using their statements, thanks. I bet all the best defence lawyers have read it so they can get their clients off scott free.

[Ausgirl]

Probably, Sioban. I think the poster who pointed out that there's different types of witnesses was right, personally. Somebody with reason to pay close attention for more than a moment would likely retain better memory than a fleeting glance offers.

I think shock can affect victim recall, was my other point.

[Wickerman]

Probably, Sioban. I think the poster who pointed out that there's different types of witnesses was right, personally. Somebody with reason to pay close attention for more than a moment would likely retain better memory than a fleeting glance offers.

I think shock can affect victim recall, was my other point.

I came across a medical opinion some time ago, the suggestion was made that stress & emotion can make a significant difference in the abilities of a witness to observe details.

If a person points a gun in your face threatening to kill you, you may be so focused on the weapon that you cannot remember the description of the man. Yet, if he only takes your purse or watch as in a robbery you may remember every detail about him because you are more mad than frightened, but, everybody's different.
With a heightened sense of fear the mind can go blank, but with a heightened sense of emotion you may recall every detail.
I explained this before as one reason why Hutchinson gave a very detailed description. He may have felt his nose pushed out by this 'well-dressed' man, and all for the sake of 6d Hutchinson lost out, he was mad (possibly), so he noticed everything about this man.

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

Hi Jon,

ok, but would this apply to Hutch ?

That Hutch could have observed such details...well, let's say it's possible...but how could he remember them 3 days later ?

Amitiés
David

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

ok, but would this apply to Hutch ?

That Hutch could have observed such details...well, let's say it's possible...but how could he remember them 3 days later ?

Amitiés
David

Hi Dave.

Why would he forget?

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

I really don't get this.

So Hutchinson is cross with himself for not having 6d to give Kelly, and cross with the Astrakhan man for being well-dressed, so his ability to memorize a whole load of clothing and accessories increases dramatically, along with his ability to notice very small and indistinguishable items in poor conditions? The reverse is surely nearer the mark: that a witness in any heightened emotional state at the time of the incident will suffer a decreased ability or inclination to memorize details.

.but how could he remember them 3 days later ?

Exactly, David. I will have to dig up the thread where this was discussed in greater depth (as it included some interesting links to other sites), but even tests for "photographic memory" don't involve nearly the number of details allegedly recorded by Hutchinson.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben, take a look at this article about the autistic artist Stephen Wiltshire:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223790/Autistic-artist-draws-18ft-picture-New-York-skyline-memory.html

An excerpt from Wikipedia about Wiltshire:

"In May 2005 Stephen produced his longest ever panoramic memory drawing of Tokyo on a 10-foot-long (3.0*m) canvas within seven days following a short helicopter ride over the city. Since then he has drawn Rome, Hong Kong, Frankfurt, Madrid, Dubai, Jerusalem and London on giant canvasses. When Wiltshire took the helicopter ride over Rome, he drew it in such great detail that he drew the exact number of columns in the Pantheon."

So here´s a guy who can draw all of Manhattan and adjoining areas after having taken a look at it during a shortish helicopter ride. He manages to memorize thousands of buildings during that time (he had a 20 minute ride in that helicopter over Manhattan).
So people can remember a lot more than Hutchinson did! It is perhaps not a usual thing to "do a Wiltshire", but I fail to see how 40-odd observations is in any way impossible or extremely odd. Wiltshire - Now THAT´S the extreme!

On your passage:
"So Hutchinson is cross with himself for not having 6d to give Kelly, and cross with the Astrakhan man for being well-dressed, so his ability to memorize a whole load of clothing and accessories increases dramatically, along with his ability to notice very small and indistinguishable items in poor conditions? The reverse is surely nearer the mark: that a witness in any heightened emotional state at the time of the incident will suffer a decreased ability or inclination to memorize details."

... I will only add that persons who are suddenly agitated or frightened by something, normally sharpen their senses. Witness psychology teaches us that the very moment when a person realizes that he or she is in danger, is also the period of time in which they take in most details.
How this applies to Hutch is of course not easy to say - if he was in no way agitated by the man he saw, then he would have no reason to sharpen HIS senses. Then again, we know that the man evoke interest on Hutchinson´s behalf, and there is a chance that the Ripper scare had warning bells ringing from the outset, albeit Hutch later stated that he did not think the man was a potential killer.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

This is very interesting, Fisherman, but not particularly applicable to Hutchinson, who as far as we know, was not autistic, nor did he survey his scene for 20 minutes for the express purpose of trying to memorize as much as he could. While undoubtedly impressive, this is an exceptionally rare phenomenon and shouldn’t really be considered as supportive evidence that Hutchinson had any great memorization abilities. I think you'll agree that liars are rather more common than those with abilities comparable to Stephen Wiltshire. Buildings can at least be noticed in the first place, unlike many of Astrakhan man's accessories along with his eyelashes. Moreover, Wiltshire’s abilities are directly linked to his autism, insofar as it led to an over-development of categorization skills.

As for the sharpening of the sense being occasioned by fear, it is often observed that Schwartz (for instance) would have taken in less information pertaining to the appearance of Broad-shoulders and Pipeman on account of his “fear” and preoccupation with departing the scene as quickly as possible. As you note, there is no reason to suppose that Hutchinson harboured any anxiety about the man, who he claimed not to consider a murderer.

But this business about “photographic memory” in relation to Hutchinson had been discussed a great many times, and with Hutchinson largely dominating the suspect and witness boards, it’s probably best if we revert to the premise of the thread, which is the usefulness of witnesses in general.

All the best,
Ben

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

Wickerman I came across a medical opinion some time ago, the suggestion was made that stress & emotion can make a significant difference in the abilities of a witness to observe details. & Ausgirl "I think shock can affect victim recall, was my other point."

Thanks for the above comments.
Poor street lighting, or perhaps making stuff up to tell the police to curry favour (and get off the hook for loitering, prostitution, pan handling/ begging) might be other reasons. The latter happens all the time in present day crime investigations. People come forward because they have their own hidden agendas - usually to get off more lightly for some other offence they themselves have committed. I think it's called "witnesses striking a deal" in the USA.
As many of the witnesses were at a distance from the actual slayings OR they claim to have seen JtR just before or just after a murder, I'm not sure being "in shock" or being "under stress" would figure that much in distorting the myriad witness accounts...though I am learning an amazing amount about crime from perusing the posts here. Thanks.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"This is very interesting, Fisherman, but not particularly applicable to Hutchinson, who as far as we know, was not autistic, nor did he survey his scene for 20 minutes for the express purpose of trying to memorize as much as he could."

What does it matter if Hutchinson was autistic or not? What we are looking at here is people who can memorize things, right? And they ARE around, autistic or non autistic. Here´s a small compilation of people who are not nearly as "exceptional" - but still they trumph Hutch easily. And, once again - I am not saying that it is not unusual to do these things - but I am saying that we can never conclude that what Hutch did was in any way impossible.

This clip:

http://clearhai.com/a-chinese-college-student-was-able-to-memorize-67890-digits-of-pi-o/

tells us about a Chinese student who was able to memorize 67890 digits of pi.

This one:

http://johnplaceonline.com/study-smarter/how-to-memorize-anything/

tells us about a guy who memorized seven full chapters (23 000 words) from a psychology book.

This:

http://www.photographic-memory.org/people-with-photographic-memory/

speaks about (amongst others) Kim Peek, who is able to read a book in an hour and recall 98% of what is in it, and who can recall more than 10,000 books from memory.
There are other sites on the net too, telling us about, for example, people who have memorized the entire Quoran. There ARE people out there who can remember a lot, obviously.

And autists sometimes kill too, actually! This clip:

http://www.trentonian.com/articles/2010/08/06/news/doc4c5b7c0d812c8895260235.txt

tells us about an autistic killer who was involved in an affair with prostitutes (!)

We also know that Hutchinson DID spend some considerable time observing Astrakhan. But let´s - for theories sake - suppose that he only used a minute. 40 things per minute, that adds up to 800 per minute, and Wiltshire exceeds that by miles, right?

"it is often observed that Schwartz (for instance) would have taken in less information pertaining to the appearance of Broad-shoulders and Pipeman on account of his “fear”"

Perhaps - but apparently wrongly so. The outset of the brawl would have been the moment when his senses were heightened, at any rate. A sudden rush of adrenaline starts the observation engine and kicks it in gear. Or so they tell me on witness psychology sites, at least

The best,
Fisherman