Choosing which witnesses to believe

[Damaso Marte]

We all seem to have our own opinions of which witnesses are credible and which are "BS men" (or BS women!). I'm curious as to what methods we all use to make this determination.

I exclude witnesses whose stories seem too fantastical. Hutchinson is probably the best example, and seems universally considered a fraud around these parts. I also consider Schwartz too fantastical - but his account also seems to contradict the physical evidence, unless you adopt a workaround (Stride going back into the yard with another man) that itself seems too fantastical to me.

Of course I admit that my choices also conveniently work in favor of my preconceived notion of a working class Ripper who killed Stride.

[Fisherman]

Damaso Marte: " Hutchinson is probably the best example, and seems universally considered a fraud around these parts."

Watch your step, chum! A lot of water has run under the bridge since that was "common knowledge".

"Of course I admit that my choices also conveniently work in favor of my preconceived notion of a working class Ripper who killed Stride."

Now you´re talking!

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

testimony

Hello Damaso. I think all witnesses should be taken at face value--unless and until a problem with the testimony comes up. I think this is what you are doing.

Notice that, it's perfectly acceptable to regard Schwartz's testimony at face value. Of course, in doing so, one must disregard/alter Brown's testimony.

Cheers.
LC

[Ben]

" Hutchinson is probably the best example, and seems universally considered a fraud around these parts."

Indeed, Damaso. Perhaps more so now than ever before, and for good reason.

Welcome to Casebook!

[Wickerman]

I'm curious as to what methods we all use to make this determination.

Pretty basic really, as with the police at the time we should accept all witness statements as given in good faith until evidence surfaces to the contrary.

I exclude witnesses whose stories seem too fantastical.

According to who's estimation?
If it was accepted by the police at the time then by what justification do you choose to now judge it as "too fantastical"?

Hutchinson is probably the best example, and seems universally considered a fraud around these parts.

What is "too fantastical" about his statement?
Apparently one witness (Lewis) did place him at the spot he claimed to be at, at the time he claimed to be there.

Other witnesses also saw a "well-dressed man" at the Commercial St. end of Dorset St. around the same time as Hutchinson claimed to have seen such a man. The circumstances of the meeting differ in both versions but the timing was not precise, however a man dressed "upscale" for Dorset St. did apparently exist.

Hutchinson's description does seem very detailed but as he is described as "of military appearance", his eye for detail could have been gained through experience.
Though much research has been done on George Hutchinson nothing else, for sure, is known about him.

Modern accusations levelled at Hutchinson are always based on what we do not know. Those who endeavour on that score apparently think it justifiable to accuse Hutchinson of making up stories, by make up their own stories about him.

I also consider Schwartz too fantastical - but his account also seems to contradict the physical evidence,

Ah, a more interesting problem. Yes, I suspect we still have more to learn about this Schwartz in order to answer some significant questions.

Of course I admit that my choices also conveniently work in favor of my preconceived notion of a working class Ripper who killed Stride.

To a greater or lesser degree, many would admit to the same.
Having a 'suspect' can be a detriment to objective reasoning.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

fantastical

Hello Jon. I used to think the description of A-Man was fantastical. Then I read the "official" description of Millen and it was the same--point by point. To cap it, Red Jim was blotchy faced and carroty moustachioed.

Cheers.
LC

[Rubyretro]

what do you have to do to delete, nowadays ?

[Rubyretro]

Ha!

Lynn thinks that all of the witnesses should be taken at face value ....?

I think that none of the witnesses should be taken at face value ( just think about how difficult it actually is to remember a person that you crossed in the street, who had no presignificant importance attached).

I think that Hutchinson's witness statement is one of the least credible
of them all.

...and yet there is the ( possible ) tantalising proposition that at least one of the witness statements was correct to a degree..

trouble is, which one ????

[Bridewell]

Integrity

Hello Damaso. I think all witnesses should be taken at face value--unless and until a problem with the testimony comes up.
Cheers.
LC

Or until he or she is shown to have lied, cynically and repeatedly, at other stages in his or her life.

Regards, Bridewell

[Ben]

If it was accepted by the police at the time then by what justification do you choose to now judge it as "too fantastical"?

Ah, but if, like Hutchinson's account, it wasn't ultimately "accepted by the police at the time", there is justification enough for a modern commentator to dismiss it too.

Apparently one witness (Lewis) did place him at the spot he claimed to be at, at the time he claimed to be there.

Which establishes his location at that moment in time - nothing else. It certainly doesn't validate the reason he provided for being there.

Other witnesses also saw a "well-dressed man" at the Commercial St. end of Dorset St. around the same time as Hutchinson claimed to have seen such a man.

No. Other equally bogus non-witnesses blabbed to the press about seeing men with shiny black bags and top hats, but fortunately, they too were discredited before the inquest took place. The inquest witnesses - the one's worth taking seriously - did not describe anyone remotely "upscale" for Dorset Street. There is no credible non-discredited evidence for the presence of any well-dressed man in Dorset Street. I realise this is probably a bit boring for those who wan't their ripper to be the "Gentleman Jack" of long since discarded mythology, but it's what we're stuck with.

His account is not just "very" detailed. It is impossibly so, given the known circumstances. As for the inference that being of military appearance means he had an unusual capacity to take in detail, I'm afraid that strikes me as very tenuous indeed.

Hey, who's for a long-winded Hutchinson debate?

Regards,
Ben

[lynn cates]

problem

Hello Colin. Thanks.

"Or until he or she is shown to have lied, cynically and repeatedly, at other stages in his or her life."

Yes. And that would definitely constitute a problem.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Hey, who's for a long-winded Hutchinson debate?"

You are, Ben! Always

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi All,

Hutch would definitely not be the best example of a 'bad witness', since he may not have been lying. Two definite bad witnesses would be Eduardo Violenia in the Chapman case and Matthew Packer in the Stride case. Both proved liars.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

What about “Pearly Poll“?

[Cogidubnus]

Frankly I believe most of our witnesses were economical of the truth in some regard or another, as I understand most witnesses to most crimes are, to a greater or lesser extent...they all, at the very least, bring their own inherent biases and prejudices to the table, leaving the police to sift through the red-herring soup looking for the essential truth...

This makes it all the more difficult for us, 124 years later, to sift through the same soup, because we don't have the benefit of having met the witnesses and often, therefore, lack the ability to form a proper judgement on their relative strengths and weaknesses.

All the best

Dave