Choosing which witnesses to believe

[Errata]

To be scrupulously fair, the "stage direction" tenor of of a witness statement is not unusual, and it is not an indication of anything other than video recall. Some people remember images, some sounds, smells, whatever. But some people essentially have a playback in their head. They see the events unfold again, not with any more detail than the first time, it's just how their memory works. Anytime someone describes video, it sounds like stage directions.

I have a freakish memory. I remember everything I ever did, almost all of what I read, most of what I hear, and the rest is like a complete blank. I don't have video recall. My memory works more like a filofax. Individual snippets of information, but not long strings of it. SO while I'd eventually get all the information out, it sounds like I trying to retrace my steps when describing a memory, because in essence, I'm doing exactly that. Like telling a joke badly. Getting halfway through and then saying "oh yeah, I forgot to tell you, the cowboy was riding a blue horse" and blowing the punchline.

[Bridewell]

Sorry

Bride,

You didn't actually answer my question. I agree that there are at least some problems with Hutchinson's statement, but I also wonder if a man who was looking at a potential victim (Astrakhan Man) might know every detail down to a ring on the pinky finger. A thick gold chain could be actually brass, but the hope that what glitters is gold makes him see just that. Anyway, it doesn't matter to my question if you think Hutch was credible. My question was about what you've seen as a police officer that might rival the detail Hutch saw and that was if not accurate, an honest appraisal.

Thanks,

Mike

Hi Mike,

I think I've misunderstood your original point. Apologies for answering a question you didn't ask.

I can't recall, personally, ever taking a statement which included as much descriptive detail as we find in that taken from Hutchinson, so I perhaps can't address your point. I've come across witnesses who noted, accurately, something specific and unusual about a particular individual or group, but nothing in that much detail. I've also come across witnesses who apologised for not being able to recall more than they did, but I tried to get them to focus on the accuracy of their recall, not the amount. I'm not sure that I've answered your question even now, but I've tried. If you're talking about my own experience as a witness I don't think I ever remembered anything exceptional by virtue of being a police officer, except the time - because police officers are accustomed to making timed entries on official documents so that becomes second nature.

On the reliability of GH: I suspect that he didn't see the detail that he claimed to have seen, but he may well have been certain in his own mind that he did. If he wasn't a complete fraud, he will have felt under enormous pressure to remember as much as possible.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Wickerman]

If you're walking past a bank where there's an armed robbery in progress that you're unaware of, you might notice that there is a blue car parked outside.

If you're walking past the same bank and a man barges into you as he runs out, then gets into a car which drives off at speed, you'd probably notice that it was a blue Ford Mondeo hatchback.

If you walk past the same bank and a man runs out brandishing a sawn-off shotgun etc etc you'd probably try to get the registered number as well, because your adrenalin would be flowing and you'd have a good reason for noticing the extra detail.

It's not just the witness who has to be considered, but the nature of the events witnessed, and the circumstances.

Hi Bridewell.
If you don't mind me pointing out, the examples you provide include "attention getting drama" (gun in your face?). I readily agree with you, or anyone, that in such circumstances the drama (fright/shock?) of what is happening will distract you from peripheral details, this though is not the case with Hutchinson.

As an alternate example, if you had met a girl in a pub and within minutes another man introduced himself to her and off she went with him.
Wouldn't your perception of everything about this creep be heightened?

There's no drama, no robbery, no gun in your face, no dangerous activity to distract you, how much would you remember about the way he looked?
If he was dressed like you, perhaps not a lot, but if he was wealthy looking, perhaps part of your recollection is based on critique.


I wouldn't dismiss a degree of embellishment with Hutchinson, lets face it embellishment is not uncommon when you are telling a story of something that happened to you that you didn't like.

My interest is, if we accept a degree of embellishment what does that leave us with?
Hutchinson still met Kelly, at the time he said, she went off with someone, he followed them, and patiently waited for a while.

Is there an issue with this very basic outline?

Regards, Jon S.

[The Good Michael]

Bride,

You didn't actually answer my question. I agree that there are at least some problems with Hutchinson's statement, but I also wonder if a man who was looking at a potential victim (Astrakhan Man) might know every detail down to a ring on the pinky finger. A thick gold chain could be actually brass, but the hope that what glitters is gold makes him see just that. Anyway, it doesn't matter to my question if you think Hutch was credible. My question was about what you've seen as a police officer that might rival the detail Hutch saw and that was if not accurate, an honest appraisal.

Thanks,

Mike

[Bridewell]

Accuracy

Bride,

That reminds me, have you ever had someone give a detailed statement that turned out to be accurate? I mean with Topping Hutchinson's statement we have an alleged long look at the suspect. Have you had such detailed accounts before? My guess is... Duh, of course.

Mike

Hi Mike,

In a sense you've answered your own question because, yes, the greater the detail provided, the greater the opportunity for error. A witness is unlikely to remember minute detail unless they have a specific reason for doing so. Hutchinson claims that he did, but I'm not sure that I believe him:

If you're walking past a bank where there's an armed robbery in progress that you're unaware of, you might notice that there is a blue car parked outside.

If you're walking past the same bank and a man barges into you as he runs out, then gets into a car which drives off at speed, you'd probably notice that it was a blue Ford Mondeo hatchback.

If you walk past the same bank and a man runs out brandishing a sawn-off shotgun etc etc you'd probably try to get the registered number as well, because your adrenalin would be flowing and you'd have a good reason for noticing the extra detail.

It's not just the witness who has to be considered, but the nature of the events witnessed, and the circumstances.

Just to set the record straight, I'm highly dubious about the Hutchinson account. My post was made in answer to a claim that the use of direct speech and so-called stage directions 'suggested fabrication'. I don't see any basis for that specific assertion. The account will have been given by Hutchinson, whereas the exact wording will have been, I think, determined by the statement-taker (Badham?). Perhaps 19th century officers recorded witness statements verbatim using exclusively the witness's own words - but I doubt it. Does Badham use the same style in any other statements?

Regards, Bridewell.

[The Good Michael]

Having spent 37 years of my life both taking and reading witness statements, I'd be interested to learn why the process outlined above 'indicates a fabrication'.

Bride,

That reminds me, have you ever had someone give a detailed statement that turned out to be accurate? I mean with Topping Hutchinson's statement we have an alleged long look at the suspect. Have you had such detailed accounts before? My guess is... Duh, of course.

Mike

[Wickerman]

No Jon. It wasn't 'completely unrelated' was it, because it was an illustrative example of the way in which journalists might invent witnesses in order to sell papers.

The Falklands War occured in a time (today) when it is common to have person's "act" roles in order to get a point across. That is what advertising is, put a script together and have someone read it, or ask a legitimate question and provide a false name for the responder.

I accept it may be asking too much but a correct (IMO) response would have been for you to offer a near contemporary (1860-1900) criminal case where it is known that the press invented witnesses.
Such a response would at least legitimise your proposal. However, all that means is that any one of the Whitechapel murder cases could have included witnesses which never really existed. You would still be left to rationalize, why Paumier?

I readily admit to not looking for a "Paumier" when I last went through the 1891 census for the area, so I couldn't say whether the name exists or not.
If she was invented, the purpose for her "appearance" lacks justification, her story is not headline grabbing.

Let me just remind you, this line from The Echo:
"As many as fifty-three persons have, in all, made statements as to "suspicious men," each of whom was thought to be Mary Janet Kelly's assassin."

No doubt the handfull who appeared at the Inquest are among the 53 person's. So who else did this 53 include, Kennedy, Paumier, Ronay?, they all told stories about a "suspicious man". For all we/you know the best of the bunch, or at least the only ones the press were able to locate, were these three, Kennedy, Paumier & Ronay.

In all fairness the article does admit that none of the descriptions given in these fifty-three witness stories tally with that given by Hutchinson, but thats a whole other subject.

So, there were 53 witnesses who describe a "suspicious man", why invent more?

Clearly, you don't want Paumier and Ronay to have been press inventions - but it is at least as likely as not that they were, I'm afraid.

I'm afraid that all you have established is that it is remotely possible, but not specifically so (with respect to these two).

I don't see what the issue is really, its quite straightforward.

The issue is that, because a suggestion is not impossible does not make likely. It just cannot be ruled out, but neither can it be used to rule something else out.
In other words, just because anyone "thinks" Paumier may have been invented, this "thought" cannot be used to rule out her statement. For the simple reason this is "assumption based on assumption".
It is necessary to first establish the solidity of your immediate "stepping-stone", before you move to the next one.

Is it because you favour a 'well-dressed' man as the Ripper that you prefer to think of some of these 'witnesses' as real?

These "well-dressed men" have been sidelined for decades. Some of them we have known about since the late 90's but have been flippantly overlooked.
Are they different men, or the same man? - I don't claim to know one way or the other. What I do think though is, that if anyone in this series of murders is to be considered a "Person of Interest", it is him/them.

I'm not accusing you of anything, I just wonder why you seem to willing to give these dubious witnesses such credence in the absence of any evidence that they even existed to begin with?

Why "dubious"?

I don't regard dismissing witnesses as good scholarship without some acknowledged reason to do so.
I mean a reason, not an idea. The suggestion on Casebook is an "idea" nothing more. There is no reason behind it, except that some find it a convenient argument to try to dismiss the statement of this witness.

Regards, Jon S.

[Sally]

Yes, it appears to be an all too frequent habit that people on Casebook will offer a 'general' incident completely unrelated to the subject at hand, in order to justify a 'specific' in the Whitechapel murders of 124 years ago.

We still have no practical benefit to "invent" Paumier & Ronay.

Regards, Jon S.

No Jon. It wasn't 'completely unrelated' was it, because it was an illustrative example of the way in which journalists might invent witnesses in order to sell papers.

Clearly, you don't want Paumier and Ronay to have been press inventions - but it is at least as likely as not that they were, I'm afraid.

You see no practical benefit. If you are a reporter, paid for your story, then immediately you have a practical benefit for invention - it pays. There is no more practical benefit than money for most people.

You can't see that these stories were important enough to be invented - but they were important enough to make it to press, weren't they? That means that they were considered important enough, interesting enough, to sell the papers. If it wouldn't sell, it wouldn't be in there in the first place.

I don't see what the issue is really, its quite straightforward. Is it because you favour a 'well-dressed' man as the Ripper that you prefer to think of some of these 'witnesses' as real? I'm not accusing you of anything, I just wonder why you seem to willing to give these dubious witnesses such credence in the absence of any evidence that they even existed to begin with?

[Wickerman]

And your view that officialdom didn't simply endorse the opinion of the police surgeon as to TOD, where other evidence is in conflict, is confirmed by Wynne Baxter's closing remarks at the Chapman inquest:
"It was true that Dr Phillips thought that when he saw the body at 6.30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admitted that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood might affect his opinion, and if the evidence of the other witnesses was correct, Dr Phillips had miscalculated the effect of those forces. But many minutes after Mrs Long passed them could not have elapsed before the deceased became a mutilated corpse in the yard of No.29 Hanbury-street close by where she was last seen by any witness."

Regards, Bridewell.

Hi Bridewell.
When you offered the above as a consideration against "officialdom endorsing the medically suggested ToD", I did recall Swanson not entirely agreeing with Baxter.

It is Anderson/Swanson, the heads at Scotland Yard, that we are concerned with in the importance of Dr. Bond's analysis, not a Coroner.

Baxter provided his summary on 26th Sept. Almost a month later, 19th Oct. Chief Insp. Swanson laid out his summary from the police perspective of the Chapman murder. I'm sure you have read this a dozen times.

In the first paragraph Swanson informs us that Dr. Phillips estimated ToD was roughly 2 hours previous to the discovery. In his summary Swanson places great reliance on the opinion of Dr. Phillips with respect to the suggested skill & ability of the murderer and, the physical characteristics of weapon used.

Swanson continues:
"If the evidence of Dr. Phillips is correct as to time of death, it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body when he went into the yard at 4.45 a.m. but as his clothes were examined, the house searched and his statement taken in which there was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him, although police specially directed attention to him."

Which demonstrates that the police preferred the medical evidence to that of the witness, they made especially searching efforts in order to find fault with the witness.

Swanson then raises the evidence of Mrs Long, that if her evidence "..is correct then the evidence of Dr. Phillips as to probable time of death is incorrect".

(Dr. Phillips) "....saw the body at 6.20 a.m. and he then gives it as his opinion that death occured about two hours earlier, viz: 4.20 a.m. hence the evidence of Mrs. Long which appeared to be so important to the Coroner, must be looked upon with some amount of doubt, which is to be regretted".

Swanson has acknowledged that the Coroner (Baxter) put great faith in the witness Mrs. Long, yet Swanson makes it also clear that Long's testimony, "....must be looked upon with some amount of doubt, which is to be regretted".

Swanson is not guided by either of two witness statements, be it Richardson or Long, who it must be admitted could contain errors.

To use your word, "officialdom" in the figure of C. I. Swanson (not Baxter) looks to the professional opinion of Dr. Phillips. Which is the correct position to take.

Likewise, we have the same decision being made 3 weeks later on 13th November. On that date Anderson informs his superior's of the important report provided by Dr. Bond. Very likley then also on this date Anderson would sit with Swanson to appraise the Chief Inspector of the new direction for Scotland Yard.
Coincidently, on this very date, 13th Nov, is the date The Echo got wind of a change in the investigation.

Certainly it would have been a cut & dried case if Anderson's communication to Swanson had been in writing, and had survived. Had that been the case we wouldn't be discussing this issue at all, the change of direction would have been an acknowledged part of history.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

I see no reason to doubt that it also went on in 1888.

Yes, it appears to be an all too frequent habit that people on Casebook will offer a 'general' incident completely unrelated to the subject at hand, in order to justify a 'specific' in the Whitechapel murders of 124 years ago.

We still have no practical benefit to "invent" Paumier & Ronay.

Regards, Jon S.

[Bridewell]

Bemused

The mere fact that hutch presented his descriptions of the interactions between himself,mary and A-man in "script" form,i.e. as direct quotes, complete with stage direction- indicates a fabrication.

Hi Abby,

Having spent 37 years of my life both taking and reading witness statements, I'd be interested to learn why the process outlined above 'indicates a fabrication'.
I'd have thought it more likely to be an indication of the idiosyncratic style of the statement-taker, than a clear sign of mendacity on the part of the witness.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Wickerman]

Hutch had an extrordinary memory accordng to his lies then.

Just humour me Abby, name one of his lies.

Regards, Jon S.

[Abby Normal]

So now Hutchinson is a script writer and stage director, thankyou, at last we are putting skin on the bones.



It is a well known fact that only liars need good memories, the truth will always just roll off the tongue.



He told you why...



Says who?

Regards, Jon S.

It is a well known fact that only liars need good memories

Hutch had an extrordinary memory accordng to his lies then. His truth-not so much.

[Abby Normal]

We see the same exact thing in inquest testimony several days after the event as well where people give a lot of details as if they've memorized what they've seen or believed they've seen. They too are under stage direction as they've obviously given identical statements prior to being pulled into the inquests. Does this make them all liars?

Mike

No because theirs is not to the extent of Hutch-not even close.

[Wickerman]

The mere fact that hutch presented his descriptions of the interactions between himself,mary and A-man in "script" form,i.e. as direct quotes, complete with stage direction- indicates a fabrication.

So now Hutchinson is a script writer and stage director, thankyou, at last we are putting skin on the bones.

Who remembers exact things that were said three days later and presents them to police like that.

It is a well known fact that only liars need good memories, the truth will always just roll off the tongue.

Why would he even take note of such innocuous details?

He told you why...

And yet this paragon of perception is not aware of Mary's death until 3 days later.

Says who?

Regards, Jon S.