Choosing which witnesses to believe

[Sally]

During the Falklands war, I had a good friend who worked for The Sun newspaper.

She told me that the journalists went to the secretaries and asked them to describe how they would be feeling if their husbands or boyfriends had just been wounded or killed -they then invented witnesses and put the secretaries' words into their mouths.

I have no doubt that they added a line such as 'all names have been changed to protect the privacy of the people concerned'

An interesting story which illustrates that the practice of witness fabrication is a reality in modern mainstream reporting. I see no reason to doubt that it also went on in 1888.

[Bridewell]

Evenin' All.

Rather than keep banging on about Cadosch on this thread, I've started another entitled 'Albert Cadosch. A Secret Life'.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Sally]

Hi Colin

We only have his word for it.

Yes, so it appears..

I suspect that his bride was Catholic. If he was prepared to lie about his age and his bachelor status, I can't see that concealing a Protestant background would pose much of a moral dilemma.

Well, he entered into the marriage under false pretences, so he may well have hidden a Protestant background.

I should probably start a new Cadosch thread for the benefit of those who don't subscribe.

I think that's a good idea

[Bridewell]

Cadosch

I also wondered about that. Did he in fact have an operation though?

We only have his word for it.

Speaking of Cadosch, I wonder how he managed to be bigamously married in a Catholic church when his first and legal marriage was in an Anglican church? He could have converted, of course - or...?

I suspect that his bride was Catholic. If he was prepared to lie about his age and his bachelor status, I can't see that concealing a Protestant background would pose much of a moral dilemma.

I should probably start a new Cadosch thread for the benefit of those who don't subscribe.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Errata]

Just as an idle speculation on the subject of witness reliability:

If Cadosch's operation caused him to have to go into the yard twice in quick succession in the morning, how often did he have to make the same trip during the night I wonder?

Regards, Bridewell.

Not to be disgusting or anything, but it is not an unusual morning phenomenon. An urgent need to urinate upon waking, and then a few minutes later the bowels start... asserting themselves. The body doesn't always organize itself for efficiency.

[Rubyretro]

I'm sure that's true, Curious. I was generalising, and didn't mean to imply that all journalists habitually resort to invention to sell papers - I'm sure that many maintain a high degree of integrity. It's like any other profession though, populated with many different attitudes and standards.

I agree, Sally...

Out of interest, here's a personal anecdote :

During the Falklands war, I had a good friend who worked for The Sun newspaper.

She told me that the journalists went to the secretaries and asked them to describe how they would be feeling if their husbands or boyfriends had just been wounded or killed -they then invented witnesses and put the secretaries' words into their mouths.

I have no doubt that they added a line such as 'all names have been changed to protect the privacy of the people concerned'

[Sally]

Just as an idle speculation on the subject of witness reliability:

If Cadosch's operation caused him to have to go into the yard twice in quick succession in the morning, how often did he have to make the same trip during the night I wonder?

Regards, Bridewell.

I also wondered about that. Did he in fact have an operation though?

Speaking of Cadosch, I wonder how he managed to be bigamously married in a Catholic church when his first and legal marriage was in an Anglican church? He could have converted, of course - or...?

[Bridewell]

Just as an idle speculation on the subject of witness reliability:

If Cadosch's operation caused him to have to go into the yard twice in quick succession in the morning, how often did he have to make the same trip during the night I wonder?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Sally]

In Swansons report on the Chapman murder he as good as rules out the evidence of Cadosch and the witness who apparently saw Chapman talking to a man. Swanson relies on the doctors evidence which suggests she was killed up to two hours before these witnesses came into the picture.

Hi Trevor

That would seem to be more a case of concluding the witness testimony to be irrelevant than of the witnesses being unreliable per se.

[The Good Michael]

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. Who remembers exact things that were said three days later and presents them to police like that. Why would he even take note of such innocuous details?

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

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, I am quite familiar with all of this, thanks Jon. And you are right in that one may obtain a 'fuller' picture from reading the press reports (which are not inquest records, by the way) as well as the inquiry transcript if both are available. Whether that's a better picture depends on your perspective. The difference is that we may be reasonably sure that the transcript is correct; the reported speech appearing in the papers may, or may not be.



Yes, I see that you insist that the press would not, could not have invented witnesses to sell papers, but I'm afraid I don't see why not. Of course they could. And what special reason would they need? You think the Paumier story trivial, and so don't think it can have been invented? It feeds the public imagination, hints at all sorts of dark secrets, and leaves the readership wanting more. Sorry, but if you think a story like that wouldn't intrigue the reading public, you underestimate the human taste for gossip. At the same time, the story is just vague enough to provide a way out if the press were required to verify it later on.



Only because I know that Sarah Lewis had Kennedy neighbours at one point in her life - it could of course be pure coincidence, but it may at least be an indication that this witness, at least, had a basis in reality.



Splendid. But what happens if said witness was allegedly disinclined to provide such details? What's this detective going to do about that? Nothing? Right. It would be easy to get out of it if you were a reporter who had made up a witness. The detective might think you were a time-waster perhaps, or perhaps he'd accept that the 'witness' simply hadn't given those details that allowed them to be followed up.

Curious is right in suggesting that some of these press witnesses may have been real people who gave an alias - I accept that. But we cannot know that - so they have to be taken with a pinch of salt in my view.



Don't be silly Jon - of course my reasoning doesn't eliminate 99% of 'the characters across the entire Whitechapel murders'. Very many of them can be independently verified in the record. As I say, most people leave a trace, if you know where to look. I am quite aware of all the issues, pitfalls, and problems in tracing individuals in the historic record. It can be difficult - and I still say that if there is not a single scrap of a trace at all, then there's a problem.

And speakiing of unreliable witnesses...



Ok, so Hutchinson might have 'embellished' Astroman. That makes his account unreliable. Straight off. And that is one of the reasons why people doubt the rest of his statement.

You are correct in that his embellishment of his 'Jewish appearance' man does not automatically make everything he said a lie. Quite right. But it does make people suspect that to be the case.

And it isn't just that. It's the apparent inconsistency between what he says and what he does that causes the problem. Those things are a matter of record, not opinion. As we have no official explanation for his behaviour, of course we must theorise.



And what would those answers be? In your opinion you may be able to explain away his curious behaviour; but it doesn't mean that you are correct. You say that there is not evidence for accusing him - of what? If you mean murder, then of course not. There is no hard evidence for accusing anybody of murder in this case, that's why it remains unsolved. If you mean for being untruthful, I'm afraid I must disagree. No, it doesn't make him a killer. It does make him a suspicious character whose motives are unknown to us. As such, of course he is going to be of interest to people who study the case.



Ah, but that's not true, is it? We know that he called himself George Hutchinson, claimed to be a single, former groom who walked from Romford to Whitechapel, and was staying at the Victoria Home at the time of Kelly's Murder. Some people of course think that we do know who he was. But if you don't, ask yourself why he hasn't been identified? Maybe he had an alias? Maybe he never existed to begin with?

I think we've come full circle - so to return to the purpose of the thread, I think the reliable witnesses are the ones we have no obvious reason to doubt at our current state of knowledge

I say that because I didn't have reason to doubt Cadosche until recently - now I confess, I do wonder...

In Swansons report on the Chapman murder he as good as rules out the evidence of Cadosch and the witness who apparently saw Chapman talking to a man. Swanson relies on the doctors evidence which suggests she was killed up to two hours before these witnesses came into the picture.

[Sally]

I was explaining to you that all the transcripts are edited, or incomplete, even the official documents.
The best way to make yourself aware of every detail is to compare the Coroner's version with every reporters version. Whether it be the complete publications published in the Times, or Daily Telegraph, and even the extracted version in any number of the smaller papers who might only print the highlites from a selection of witnesses. They are all important.

Yes, I am quite familiar with all of this, thanks Jon. And you are right in that one may obtain a 'fuller' picture from reading the press reports (which are not inquest records, by the way) as well as the inquiry transcript if both are available. Whether that's a better picture depends on your perspective. The difference is that we may be reasonably sure that the transcript is correct; the reported speech appearing in the papers may, or may not be.

Reporters certainly dress-up stories (thankyou Curious, for those examples), but Sally, surely if a reporter is going to invent a witness in a murder investigation there must be a substantial reason for doing so.

Yes, I see that you insist that the press would not, could not have invented witnesses to sell papers, but I'm afraid I don't see why not. Of course they could. And what special reason would they need? You think the Paumier story trivial, and so don't think it can have been invented? It feeds the public imagination, hints at all sorts of dark secrets, and leaves the readership wanting more. Sorry, but if you think a story like that wouldn't intrigue the reading public, you underestimate the human taste for gossip. At the same time, the story is just vague enough to provide a way out if the press were required to verify it later on.

I'm glad you are inclined to allow that Mrs Kennedy may have existed

Only because I know that Sarah Lewis had Kennedy neighbours at one point in her life - it could of course be pure coincidence, but it may at least be an indication that this witness, at least, had a basis in reality.

However, inventing an important witness will also have its complications. No detective will be satisfied with a feeble excuse like "I met him in a pub, know nothing about him". Any reporter worth their salt will get name, address, place of work, even follow the witness to find where he goes. A detective will know this.

Splendid. But what happens if said witness was allegedly disinclined to provide such details? What's this detective going to do about that? Nothing? Right. It would be easy to get out of it if you were a reporter who had made up a witness. The detective might think you were a time-waster perhaps, or perhaps he'd accept that the 'witness' simply hadn't given those details that allowed them to be followed up.

Curious is right in suggesting that some of these press witnesses may have been real people who gave an alias - I accept that. But we cannot know that - so they have to be taken with a pinch of salt in my view.

If thats the extent of your reasoning then you've just eliminted 99% of the characters across the entire Whitechapel murders - congratulations!
Do you seriously think there are no other reason's for these witnesses (anyone alive at the time actually) being untraceable in subsequent years?
I tend to think you know very well, which raises the question, why did you ask this....

Don't be silly Jon - of course my reasoning doesn't eliminate 99% of 'the characters across the entire Whitechapel murders'. Very many of them can be independently verified in the record. As I say, most people leave a trace, if you know where to look. I am quite aware of all the issues, pitfalls, and problems in tracing individuals in the historic record. It can be difficult - and I still say that if there is not a single scrap of a trace at all, then there's a problem.

And speakiing of unreliable witnesses...

I can accept he might have embellished this man to make him appear more Jewish. That consideration does not allow me to then go out and brand him a liar about everything he claimed in his statement.

Ok, so Hutchinson might have 'embellished' Astroman. That makes his account unreliable. Straight off. And that is one of the reasons why people doubt the rest of his statement.

You are correct in that his embellishment of his 'Jewish appearance' man does not automatically make everything he said a lie. Quite right. But it does make people suspect that to be the case.

And it isn't just that. It's the apparent inconsistency between what he says and what he does that causes the problem. Those things are a matter of record, not opinion. As we have no official explanation for his behaviour, of course we must theorise.

There may well have been reasonable answers for everything. He is being accused without the slightest shread of evidence. Thats what I find disconcerting to the point of ludicrous.

And what would those answers be? In your opinion you may be able to explain away his curious behaviour; but it doesn't mean that you are correct. You say that there is not evidence for accusing him - of what? If you mean murder, then of course not. There is no hard evidence for accusing anybody of murder in this case, that's why it remains unsolved. If you mean for being untruthful, I'm afraid I must disagree. No, it doesn't make him a killer. It does make him a suspicious character whose motives are unknown to us. As such, of course he is going to be of interest to people who study the case.

Especially when we know nothing about him.

Ah, but that's not true, is it? We know that he called himself George Hutchinson, claimed to be a single, former groom who walked from Romford to Whitechapel, and was staying at the Victoria Home at the time of Kelly's Murder. Some people of course think that we do know who he was. But if you don't, ask yourself why he hasn't been identified? Maybe he had an alias? Maybe he never existed to begin with?

I think we've come full circle - so to return to the purpose of the thread, I think the reliable witnesses are the ones we have no obvious reason to doubt at our current state of knowledge

I say that because I didn't have reason to doubt Cadosche until recently - now I confess, I do wonder...

[Ben]

“Fringe thinking is extremist. Something which is extremist includes that which has no supporting evidence.”

In which case, and with respect, your views on what has and does not have “supporting evidence” seem distinctly fringey to me.

“If you care to look this up, with respect to the Wednesday sighting Lewis actually said, "a Gentleman passed us..". Interestingly Lewis does not describe "Widewake" as a Gentleman, just a man.”

That’s because Lewis did not have any conversation with the wideawake man and was not, therefore, in a position to know whether or not he was “gentlemanly” in speech or manner. Not that Bethnal Green man needed to be, of course. I recall doing jury service several years ago and listening to a policeman giving evidence on the arrest of the suspect – “I arrested the gentleman”. Naturally, the defendant was anything but. Lewis said nothing about the suspect that particularly announced the “gentleman”, which isn’t to say he wasn’t one, but he certainly wasn’t the Astrakhan man, and it is fairly obvious that he had nothing to do with the murders.

“Nothing of the sort (and you know it).
Your own Star actually tells you what I have been telling you for months, Mrs Kennedy was an original source.”

Don’t tell me what I know and don’t know please, Jon. Mrs. Kennedy was one of the “half a dozen” women discovered by the Star newspaper to have parroted Lewis’ account. It doesn’t matter if there was confusion on 10th November as to who was the originator of the story. It quickly emerged that it was Sarah Lewis, thanks to the inquest. That’s a given, and so anyone whose “eyewitness account” was both suspiciously similar in content to Lewis’ AND discarded before the inquest MUST have been one of the plagiarizing woman referred to in the Star. There is absolutely no other explanation. Any doubt as to who was the parroter and who was the parrotee was quickly dispelled by Lewis’ appearance at the inquest and Kennedy’s non-appearance.

Kennedy sank blissfully without trace, and has largely remained that way in the mainstream. Philip Sugden’s explanation for the Kennedy/Lewis “similarity” ought to put the matter beyond dispute, and it can be found (for any interested parties) in the first few pages of his book.

“They were either the same woman, or they were together when they witnessed events.”

No. Most emphatically no.

If they were the same woman, her 10th November press disclosures, false claims, alias and contradictions would have injured her credibility to the extent that she could not have been called to the inquest as a credible witness, and the idea that they were two separate people with identical experiences is so unutterably improbable that it isn’t worth going into.

Mrs. Kennedy was a false witness who copied Lewis’ genuine account – there is no realistic alternative. Sorry.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Another good example there, Bridewell. Thanks for that.

Hi Jon,

Your approach to press sources is decidedly inconsistent. You’re bezzie mates with them whenever they feature an article implicating your favourite “well-dressed” man, despite the articles in question being bogus and almost universally rejected as such, and you’re quite happy to champion as accurate an erroneous detail that everyone else in the world knows was misreported in the Daily News. But then when it suits your case, the pressman all seem to wear the black hats again, and they're suddenly the bad guys in the equation.

I see you’re still trying unsuccessfully – always so terribly unsuccessfully – to suggest that Bond’s time of death was the reason behind Hutchinson’s discrediting, which it provably wasn’t. There is nothing remotely wrong with the Star’s reporting. They didn’t lie for the sheer, deeply illogical thrill of it. They obtained their information from the police, who clearly believed – as the vast majority of modern commentators believe (including you, ironically!) – that Kelly was murdered later than Bond’s estimate. It’s been drummed into you enough times now that the police are not duty-bound to accept and endorse a doctor’s opinion purely as a goodwill gesture to a fellow professional. The evidence of Prater and Lewis is mutually supportive of a later time of death, if the cry of murder is anything to go on, and realistically speaking, it is.

Do you believe the murder was committed at 1.00am? My guess is that you don’t. My guess is that you’ve reasoned out that the best evidence supports a later time of death. What, then, is so unusual about the contemporary police arriving at precisely the same conclusion that the vast majority of “ripperologists” have arrived at since, and the Star simply finding out about this and commenting on it at the time? Unless you can provide satisfactory answer to that question, I very much fear that you are once again out of luck with this particular topic.

The fact that the Star specified "shortly after 3.00 o'clock" is irrelevant. It demonstrates at the very least that they did NOT support the 1.00am-2.00am suggested by Bond. Anyway, "shortly after 3.00 o'clock" isn't remotely inconsistent with Cox's evidence. She passed the house at 3.00am before returning home, at which point she was in no position to determine whether or not a murder was being committed "shortly" thereafter. The fact that she didn't hear a cry is only evidence that it wasn't loud enough to travel further than her nearest neighbours above (Prater) and Lewis (opposite). Cox lived at the opposite end of the court.

“If both Dr.'s Bond & Phillips contributed to the report the estimated time of death may also have been agreed on by both.”

But we know they didn’t agree on the time of death, so…

Ben

[Abby Normal]

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. Who remembers exact things that were said three days later and presents them to police like that. Why would he even take note of such innocuous details?

I guess with his omnipotent perception, see in the dark vision, and photographic memory, we need to add tape recorder memory.


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