Witnesses are no use in JtR case

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
When weighing up witnesses in this case, I try to look for plausibility in their statements either to the press or police.
Remarks like' you will say anything but your prayers'
Elizabeth Prater...she [ kelly] was wearing her jacket and bonnet, I do not own any.
Hutchinson... She [ Kelly[ said' Oh I have lost my hankerchief.'
Maxwell... she [ Kelly] said 'I have the horrors of drink , as I have been drinking some days past.'
Maurice Lewis...I was playing pitch in the court, when someone shouted 'Copper'.
Why do I place significance on those for instance?
The 'prayers' incident may be a reference to stride being a regular at the Swedish church.
The Prater remark I find fascinating, according to her, she encountered Mary at the end of the passage at 9pm on the 8th, they had a brief conversation before departing, but noticed her clothing of a jacket and bonnet.[ which she remarked she did not own].
My point being if Prater was being honest, then Blotchy face may have been made up by Cox, simply because Kelly arrived home without the bonnet and jacket on.
The Hutchinson remark...Very intresting ... was GH incorperating that into his statement as he believed the hanky would still be in the room, and if so Why?
but lets assume Mary required the use of a hanky to wipe/blow her nose, then it would fit in veyr nicely with Maxwell stating'Her eyes looked queer , as if suffering from a heavy cold',
That is part of Maxwells statement which has gone missing, but I read that quote in the early 70s, and McCormack uses the term' All muffled up with cold'
Infact that observation would suggest that both Hutchinson , and Maxwell were being truthful , as if medical reports are correct, how would her account be possible.? Did Mjk, have a cold.?

[packers stem]

Oh I don't know,if his left leg's 7" shorter than his right we've got a chance

[FrankO]

Grand work this last job, Siobhán!

But will it help solve the case?

Hmm... ... probably not.

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

Latest photofit of JtR

At least this one painstakingly using eyewitness accounts doesn't look like Freddy Mercury.
But will it help solve the case?

Best,
Siobhán

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

Witness reliability

But you have to weigh them up for reliability.

Hi Fleetwood Mac,
Absolutely agree that witness statements are unreliable (or useless as I put in original thread). There are myriad descriptions of the Ripper. No wonder he was never caught...You also have to remember that some of the witnesses may have been trying to curry favour with the police because of their own misdeeds. We see it in almost every murder drama on tv. It is true in real life too when you hear police statements such as "persons known to the police are helping them with their enquiries..." They are not actual suspects usually, but people trying to avoid prosecution for other crimes. Also, known as "doing a deal to get off"... If it is true today, it was proably true then too...People will help the police no problem if they think it means avoiding a possible jail sentence! Thereby making their witness accounts unreliable to say the least.

Best,
Siobhan

[Fleetwood Mac]

I'd have to disagree that witnesses are no use.

But you have to weigh them up for reliability.

For example - there are holes in Maxwell's story such as certain claims about Kelly's habits (e.g. going around alone most of time) being untrue. So she didn't know her that well and this lends weight to doubting Maxwell's statement. And even the possibility that she had the wrong woman - not the wrong day.

Whereas Cox says nothing that should lead to doubting her statement.

[claire]

Sorry, I mustn't have been clear...my point was that the police treated his statement differently because he stated that he knew the victim. If he didn't, and hadn't already done away with her by the time he said he saw her, he was on dicey old ground.
My point was simply to distinguish the different types of witness statement, rather than to dig up a Hutch line again Sorry for the lack of clarity; was typing in a hurry

[Rubyretro]

For example (I'll pick your fave, rubyretro ), if George Hutchinson had *not* stated that he had known MJK, we would have more reason to distrust his account, because he'd have had no good reason to pay any mind to a strange woman and her companion.

But we have no way of knowing whether or not Hutch knew the victim, and he could simply have lied about that...we certainly can`t trust his witness statement on that account.

For the record, my personal belief is that he DID know her, because of my belief that plausible liers mix fact with their fiction -but that is pure speculation.

Another eg., had Lawende et al not felt threatened by the man they saw, they would have had little or no reason to commit to memory any detail about him.

Of the three men, (et al) only Lawende felt ready to advance a description.
Since he felt threatened, one wonders if he was really staring at `Jack`, and
memorizing details, or rather glancing and then glancing away for a few seconds, and trying to slink away.

I still believe that his memory of his general emotional response to the man, is more important to us than his physical description.

[claire]

Ah. So Freddie Mercury was JTR

Seriously, it's worth distinguishing different types of witness statement. It's no use just using the term 'witness statement' as a generic phrase; clearly, there are several kinds of witnesses, who provide different types of account of various events. A victim statement is a witness statement, and must be treated differently to one made by a passer-by, who would have no reason at the time to commit to memory any detail at all. If someone actually sees a criminal act occur, that makes them a different sort of witness to a person who sees someone at a scene that is later identified as a crime scene.
For example (I'll pick your fave, rubyretro ), if George Hutchinson had *not* stated that he had known MJK, we would have more reason to distrust his account, because he'd have had no good reason to pay any mind to a strange woman and her companion. As it was, he said he knew her, had just had a brief conversation with her, and hence police would have been more willing to accept his witness statement.
Another eg., had Lawende et al not felt threatened by the man they saw, they would have had little or no reason to commit to memory any detail about him. He would have just been another Joe (oh, please no one read Barnetts or Flemings into that!!!).
Now, of course, people can be mistaken; memories can superimpose themselves on one another, particularly if they pertain to events in similar locales/circumstances. But it is not good enough to say, 'witness statements are useless.' We rely on them: on common or garden witnesses (Lawende); on witnesses who knew one or more parties (Hutchinson); victims (Emma Smith); special/professional witnesses (George Bagster Phillips [love typing that name!]; Walter Dew etc). In building up an investigative picture, surely, you look at witness statements in the knowledge that some will be useful, and some less so, and the useful ones are those that you can state tally with what else is emerging about a case.
But, sorry; stating that 'witnesses are no use' is an untenable blanket statement.

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

The value of eyewitnesses

In short, although baring in mind that Witness Statements are crap...they are worth studying.

Hi Ruby, I haven't heard of the more important witness you mention but will check it out. Thanks.
As to the value of eyewitnesses in some criminal cases...

This is a "photofit" image released by Portuguese police to the worldwide media a few years back. It related to the abduction of toddler Madeleine McCann who still has not been found (mentioned earlier in this thread). The police issued it after spending time interviewing "eyewitnesses" who claimed they were near the scene at the time of the abduction. And you wonder why the culprit or culprits in this case have yet to be found...

Best,

[Rubyretro]

cntd: There are also points to be taken into consideration , such as very bad lighting, British Reserve (minding your own business and not staring -averting your eyes to a prostitute and her client)..

All in all, these Witness Statements are useless......

....and yet...

SOME details just MIGHT be true !

I think that one of the fascinations of the JtR case is that there ARE so many witnesses ; he`s like the Scarlett Pimpernel -lurking under those descriptions, a `master of many ( witness-imagined) disguises`, and yet, tantalisingly, just out of our reach.

What`s more, we get the feeling that he was a person who read his own publicity in the papers, knew that the descriptions were shite, and it led him on to take risks..

Which neatly leads me to MY theory:

There are there`Witness Statements` which `meduse` me ( I live in France, and can`t find a better word) :

the first is Lawende`s (which is generally accepted as the best): It is the one generally accepted as the best. I don`t give alot of credence to the details of the `dress` description (for all the reasons that I`ve already given)...but I think that the emotional response to `Jack` ,of Lawende, Harris and Wotsit are very, very much to be taken seriously ; I do NOT believe that the feelings of threat and aggression which they felt, were things that they were mistaken about. Given the the timescale between the sighting and the murder, I think they saw `Jack` and he projected a personal `hate` at them.
Given that he had been spotted before, and it was to his advantage to not denote himself as anything other than a regular ` john`(benefiting from `British Reserve` of course) doesn`t any one think that it`s important...or could be linked.. to the cry of `Lipski` at a very similar murder scene on the same night, a short distance away..? given that the witnesses were also Jewish, and also in the proximity to a Jewish Socialist club ?)

Then there is the witness statement of the woman who saw Hutch in front of Miller`s court -there is no doubt that that she described Hutch ; indeed, he corroborated it by stepping forward and identifying himself as the person that she saw ( unless we want to invent a hypothetical `other` lurker, not seen by Hutch in this tiny courtyard)> I think that THIS witness got the best
description -so good, that Hutch came forward, because he saw that she`d seen enough to identify him>

And my third favourite `Witness Description` is Hutch`s of Astrakhan Man
-which is so beautifully precise. I`ve already said -I don`t believe that it`s possible to be that truthfully precise; I`m sure that he made it up.

I`ve already shown that it`s possible to innocently `imagine` Witness Statements..but if you take other facts...such as Hutch being (factually)
placed at the Crime Scene of a JtR murder at the`right` time then surely he is a very valid suspect.

If you suspend your disbelief as to his guilt for a minute and consider his statement -~(imagining` that he was JtR.). his `subconscious inventions have to be of the utmost interest to our understanding of his mindset, Past and motivations).

In short, although baring in mind that Witness Statements are crap...they are worth studying.

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

Photofit

Hi Ruby,
I totally agree with you. See "photofit" image of JtR I posted earlier. Thanks.

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

The face of Jack the Ripper revealed

Thanks Adam...Had a look at PC Smith evidence.. have you seen this? I had a search on Casebook and couldn't find it. It's a photofit image created by Scotland Yard for television - a programme stating that the face of JtR would be revealed using all of the witness statements - Channel 5, November 2006. (The image was widely distributed to the media at the time so is not subject to copyright).
What I would like to know is how the clever folk at Scotland Yard could know that JtR had a full head of hair when every witness said he was wearing some kind of hat. (Slouch or black felt or deerstalker or sailor...) The mind boggles. JtR could have been bald as a coot under the hat! For further information on the programme, here's a newspaper article about it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-417474/Revealed-The-face-Jack-Ripper.html

[Bob Hinton]

Very interesting but,

I’m sorry but you are way off the mark here, regardless of what the papers may say it’s what the police think that is important. For example in your news piece you keep talking about “the killer”, which is of course nonsense. You have no idea whether the person described was in fact a killer or just a passerby. The police would have enough experience to realise this and not assume that they had a killer who kept changing his appearance or that the witnesses were necessarily in error. What the police would be looking for, just as today, would be common factors.

Does a certain type of person keep cropping up? If so who is he and what is he doing and so on. I think the Evening Standard was quite correct in stating that it would be by accident if the killer was ever caught – just like today when even though we have all the amazing technology at our disposal the majority of serial killers in Britain have been caught by accident.

No experienced investigator would accept anyone’s statement as completely accurate, but the hope is that by checking them carefully certain constants might emerge. It is in the winnowing of the chaff to get to the wheat where the skill lies.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

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.

Hi, Siobhan,

I totally agree with you.

I did try to demonstrate this point in an oblique fashion, by starting a thread
in Pub Talk asking for people`s own witness experiences (not many replies !);
certainly my own experiences prove to me that, unless you have a particular reason to try and fix a detailed description of someone in your mind as you`re looking at them, you won`t get it right.

Infact the children`s party game, of remembering objects on a tray and then listing them back, proves that even when someone consciously tries to remember a list of details, they still get it wrong - the degree depends on the capacity of observation of the person and their age ( children seem to be
much better at `memory` card games than adults )!

Then you have adults who have very imaginative, `visual` brains -try doing `creative meditation`-you can `see` a `memory` in your mind -as real as
any true memory, yet totally fabricated by your subconscious> ( No wonder that `reincarnation` fantasies and `recovered memory` under hypnosis are so dangerous). This type of person will `write in details to their description and be as firm as.. as Johnny Depp..(lets not go there...but there are advantages in having this type of imagination). Still, you could `write in`
details such as a `deerstalker hat`, and really `see them` in your mind`s eye,
and yet still be wrong...(to continue)