Witnesses are no use in JtR case

[Ausgirl]

I commented on 'victim' recall, not 'witness' recall - in response to a post regarding victim recall, just to be clear.

Though I can see how shock might figure into say, a female neighbour's recall - if my own neighbour was found in such a horrific state, I would certainly feel some sort of shock, and - were there a well-publicised Ripper lurking about the city - more than a little afraid.

In my experience with studying another brutal and shocking crime which happened in extremely close proximity to neighbours who didn't hear a thing except perhaps for one 'muffled scream' - in this case, a triple, possibly quadruple homicide by hammer and knife - witnesses in the immediate area weren't much help at all, as most were asleep. Witnesses in the house itself were not very helpful, being children in shock and interrogated badly afterwards. Witnesses describing the movements of the victims and persons in the area earlier, however, were in some cases overly helpful - turns out some lied outright, and some inserted themselves into the case to feel important. Witnesses who told the truth provided detailed accounts of things which could have been but weren't relevant, and some reported town gossip that may or may not have been true. Some were clearly more interested in covering their own asses (as Sioban has described) than in helping the case. There were sketches made from eyewitness descriptions that did not fit the main suspects (one of whom later made a confession), but did fit in a loose way some of the people who -may - have been seen in the area at the time. It was a complete mess, and all of it presents a very confusing and obfuscating picture - and this crime was in a tiny town of a few hundred people, very far from the population of London's East End.

One thing I found peculiar was the number of people who would later claim to know who did the crime, or to have other vital information that they were not going to report to police for some reason or other - including the sole eye witness. That was 30 years ago and the crime remains officially 'unsolved' to this day.

I raise this case by sheer example of what police in Kelly's case might have faced as far as witnesses went, and to point out that small but important truths could easily have become lost in an overwhelming mass of red herrings. In this modern case, too, nobody saw a house light on yet it's very difficult to imagine all of it happening in total darkness.

Did Mary Kelly not have a kerosene or oil lamp in her room? It seems a very basic thing to own, in the days before electricity. I realise that's probably a very old question, but I'm wondering why it's not a consideration.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"With respect, Fish, I had entertained some hope that you might have embraced my suggestion to steer the thread back on course rather than engaging in unnecessary repetition."

Unnecessary? You claimed that I had made a mistake by using an example with an autist, so I provided people who are NOT autists - but who still succeeded to memorize much, much more than Hutchinson did.

I fail to see how that could be in any way unnecessary, unless you think ALL examples of such people are by definition "unnecessary"?

"By citing a few very extreme examples of people with unusual abilities, you're only highlighting the equally extreme improbability of Hutchinson being able to memorize all that he alleged, including many items that he couldn't even have noticed."

Ben, think a while - you claim that what Hutchinson did was extremely unusual. I think that if I am to exemplify others who can do the same and even more, then by the laws of nature these examples must ALSO be - as you claim - extremely unusual. I fail to see how I could exemplify using only everyday observations, not to any extent out of the ordinary.
Hutchinson´s testimony WAS out of the ordinary. But nowhere nearly as out of the ordinary as many people will have it!

Split his testimony in two parts, for example, by taking away every second item, and this is what you get:

"Description height 5ft6, dark eyes slight moustache curled up each end and hair dark, dress long dark coat, cuffs trimmed astracan. Light waistcoat, dark felt hat turned down in the middle. Gaiters with white buttons. White linen collar. Respectable appearance. Jewish appearance.

Hardly any magic stuff, is it?

The other way around:

"Description age about 34 or 35. Complexion pale, dark eye lashes, very surley looking, dress with collar. And a dark jacket under. Dark trousers . Button boots. Wore a very thick gold chain. Black tie with horse shoe pin. Walked very sharp."

Same thing. Observant, yes, but nothing much out of the ordinary. Consequently, joining the two bits together should not make for any consternation, I feel. It falls way, way short of the examples I have given, and some of them included completely ordinary people who had trained their abilities to remember, that´s all.

I don´t think that this discussion should involve what Hutch could see and what he could not see. We differ in our perception of the light available, and the issue here is not visibility but instead ability to memorize many objects.

"No, I don't think so.
Here's an interesting extract from the Encyclopedia of Applied Pshychology, Vol 3:
"A witness' attention may be impaired or distracted if he or she focuses on the psychological stress or fear accompanying a criminal or otherwise traumatic event". Even if a witness tries to be attentive, high fears of stress may hinder the accuracy of subsequent identifications".

I think we are talking about different things here. I agree that being scared may impair the ability to observe correctly. But what I pointed to was the second BEFORE the fright takes hold of you. And in Schwartz´case, that would be the exact time when he noticed BS man grabbing hold of Stride. At that stage, his focus arguably sharpened. After it, when he started to fear for himself, he would perhaps not have been a good witness, but at that stage, he would already have taken in many things.

So I think we may both be right - but on slightly different matters.

I´m off for some hours now. Will check in later, though, as usual!

The best,
Fisherman

[Heinrich]

....
So Hutchinson is cross with himself for not having 6d to give Kelly, .... 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.

It seems Mary Kelly was in the habit of asking everyone she saw for money. The last person who admits being in Mary Kelly's lodging, Joseph Barnett, also said he had nothing to give her and he was heartbroken about this, if we are to believe him.

[Ben]

With respect, Fish, I had entertained some hope that you might have embraced my suggestion to steer the thread back on course rather than engaging in unnecessary repetition. By citing a few very extreme examples of people with unusual abilities, you're only highlighting the equally extreme improbability of Hutchinson being able to memorize all that he alleged, including many items that he couldn't even have noticed. That simple lying is the better explanation by far is demonstrated by the utter futility and pointlessness of me compiling a list of people who have told lies. Astonishingly, this tends not to make the headlines, given its frequency of occurrence. As we've discussed in the past, I don't agree that Hutchinson spent any "considerable time" observing the Astrakhan man. The only window of opportunity in which to notice details of clothing and accessories was that fleeting moment as he passed in close proximity to a lamp on the corner of Fashion Street. That hardly compares with a 20-minute long excursion that was specifically intended as a memorization attempt.

And yes, it does "matter" that Wiltshire was autistic because it directly contributed to his extraordinary ability.

Perhaps - but apparently wrongly so.

No, I don't think so.

Here's an interesting extract from the Encyclopedia of Applied Pshychology, Vol 3:

"A witness' attention may be impaired or distracted if he or she focuses on the psychological stress or fear accompanying a criminal or otherwise traumatic event". Even if a witness tries to be attentive, high fears of stress may hinder the accuracy of subsequent identifications".

Meanwhile, back on topic...

[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

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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: