Choosing which witnesses to believe

[Ben]

and as I stupidly forgot my key

Bit clumsy of you, Richard!

Pity it doesn't compare in the slightest to Hutchinson's version of events. He didn't explain his failure to gain access to his lodgings on the grounds that he had "stupidly lost" the equivalent of a key, which in his case would have been a daily or weekly pass. The conclusion, therefore, is that Hutchinson embarked on a 13 mile small-hours trek in the full and clear realisation that he would not have access to the Victoria Home upon arrival. Of course, if you knew that you had no way of accessing your aunt's house and no money to pay for a bed anywhere else at the end of that long small-hours walk, you'd logically stay at your friend's house, surely?

As they passed I had a good look at this man,and realised that he was dressed in fancy evening wear,bow tie the lot, he was wearing a overcoat [ undone] and looked rather well dressed for standing around on a street corner

There's a perfectly plausible witness description, Richard. Now compare the extent of detail with Hutchinson's description, and you'll see that this doesn't quite compare either. It also makes sense for you not to connect what you "saw" with "recent fatal attacks in the area", unlike Hutchinson, whose friend was a prostitute like all the other victims, and whose unidentified man just happened to look like the bogeyman image of the "fatal attacker" that had already been conjured up by press and public.

I became aware of the death of this woman over the weekend, and felt I should come forward.

Three days late, just missing the public inquest, and only coming forward when you found out that someone had spotted you skulking around Reigate? Or were you a good boy?

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben!

I have reached my conclusion about who Hutchinson was, what he saw, when he was in Dorset street and so on. Therefore, I have no wish to enter what you call "a long-winded debate" on him.

But when you state this:

"Clearly nobody back then had any problem with the minor discrepancies between her police statement and inquest evidence. Clearly nobody back then had any problem with her impression that the wideawake man was monitoring the entrance to Miler's Court. Clearly nobody back then considered a black hat a “detailed description”, and so on."

... it makes me wonder.

I have never seen much of any contemporary assesment of the value of Lewis´evidence. I can´t recall one single contemporary word in defence for it, and there is very little contemporary criticism of it it. The only thing that I have ever seen that has a bearing in this context is the article in the Daily News of the 13:th of November, stating, on Lewis:
"One doleful-looking little body, with a negress-type of features, told how she and another had been frightened by a mysterious stranger who had tried to lure them by the offer of money into a retired spot; but they both took to their heels and ran away. Not much importance was to be attached to this testimony, probably..."
The paper is equally unimpressed by Prater, of whose testimony it was said that "the evidence must be taken with the reserve that should attach to all such testimony".

This is it, Ben. Nothing more had been dug up that expresses any form or shape of judgment about Lewis´testimony. And since we know that she changed it at the inquest, we have very good reason to surmise that the police did not know what she was going to say on the stand. Arguably, they would have expected her to say what she had said before, but she did not. And what the police, the press, the coroner, the jury and the public thought about this, we can´t tell - but for the Daily News piece, pointing to a tendency not to invest very much in the evidence given by Lewis and Prater.

And that brings us back to my interest in your wording about how nobody had any problems with Lewis´testimony. Are you simply choosing to believe that "no news is good news" in this case? That would be a reckless thing to do, if this is the case. What little we have, implies very clearly that Lewis did not go down well with the representatives of the press, and we know empirically that changing testimonies is not a plus for a witness - quite the contrary in fact.
What we do NOT know is what the police thought of Lewis after the inquest, since none of them said anything about it.

So, Ben, how do you conclude from all of this that "clearly" nobody had any sort of problems with Lewis and her testimony? Is it not true that you have nothing at all to show for this? Putting it otherwise, how can no information at all be "clear" information?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I think you'll find that this is also a discussion we've had several times. Firstly, the paper you are quoting from is the Daily News, which was among the most notorious press sources for misreporting on the Kelly murder. Their predictions as to how much importance "was to be" attached to her testimony are thus of very little value. Secondly, you seem to be under the impression that they were being critical of Lewis or somehow inferring dishonesty on her part. This is clearly not the case. She had every reason to be "doleful" under the circumstances, and she could do very little about how petite her frame may have been. One can attach "not much importance" to testimony without in any impugning the credibility of the witness who offered it. Do I consider the Bethnal Green encounter "important" insofar as it relates to the identity of the perpetrator? No. But that doesn't mean I have any doubt that the encounter happened as she described it.

The salient point is that Lewis' appearance at the inquest informs us that she had already passed muster as a credible witness where many others had failed. She may not have made a significant contribution in comparison to other witnesses in the minds of the police, but there is no evidence that her credibility was ever doubted. There is another detail that I've touched upon already, but didn't want to elaborate upon because we were both suspended last time we discussed it, but as you know, it is my view that the Birmingham suspect mentioned in the Echo on 19th November was of interest to the police because he compared well with Lewis' description of her man.

The evidence is conclusive, in my opinion, that Lewis was considered credible both before and after the inquest.

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

I have never seen much of any contemporary assesment of the value of Lewis´evidence. I can´t recall one single contemporary word in defence for it, and there is very little contemporary criticism of it it.

Exactly so Fisherman. And what does that tell us? That it was unremarkable. Nobody at the time had reason to doubt Lewis because - well, because what is there to doubt? (I feel certain you will tell me)

You appear to place considerable importance on Lewis 'changing' her testimony, as if this makes her an unreliable witness. Well yes, I can see how that would suit.

In reality, though, you'd be hard pressed to find a witness who didn't expand on an initial police statement at the Kelly inquest - most, if not all of the inquest testimony contains detail not present in the initial police statement. Does this mean that all the witnesses giving police statements on 9th November can be deemed unreliable do you think?

Sarah Lewis was obviously unsure about what she'd seen when she gave her initial police statement - subsequently, further details emerged, and this is what we see in her inquest testimony. It is quite a common occurrence - unremarkable, in fact. I expect it is why policemen say when a statement has been taken 'if you remember anything else, let us know'

Tempting as it may be to tar Lewis with a Hutchinson-exonerating 'dodgy-witness' brush, I'm afraid I think you're overstating the case somewhat.

Sorry.

[Bridewell]

Sarah Lewis was obviously unsure about what she'd seen when she gave her initial police statement - subsequently, further details emerged, and this is what we see in her inquest testimony. It is quite a common occurrence - unremarkable, in fact. I expect it is why policemen say when a statement has been taken 'if you remember anything else, let us know'

Hi Sally,

Just so. Greatest credence has to be given to the 'initial disclosure', because that is the closest, in terms of time, to the events described. Additional detail remembered subsequently should probably have less weight placed upon it, but that in no way justifies discarding it altogether or taking a default position of 'unreliable'. This isn't a witness who is giving evidence many months after making her initial statement. The time interval is 3 days.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Rubyretro]

I enjoyed your story, Richard, but here is my opinion (I think that A Man was made up -but I'll go in your sense here..):

soon after meeting a woman I knew, who was slightly intoxicated, but she was known in the locals and I had known her about three years.
She said ''Nunners'' can you lend me a fiver, I am broke?
I replied sorry 'I am the same as you'
She walked away towards the man on the corner, I watched her encounter the guy, they talked for a moment, then laughed, and walked back towards me.

The couple are talking and laughing together so I presume that they feel at ease. If the couple aren't entirely at ease but forcing the talk and laughter somewhat, still they must be on the same wavelength and have a common intention binding them (there is no one behind them forcing them to do anything that they don't want to do).

As they passed I had a good look at this man,and realised that he was dressed in fancy evening wear,bow tie the lot, he was wearing a overcoat [ undone] and looked rather well dressed for standing around on a street corner, I was wearing a donkey jacket and jeans, and he was not the type of bloke that I would associate with Mary[the woman's name] .

They draw level with a bloke loitering at the corner. Nunners is a tough working class sort of man (or he'd like his clothes to make us think so), and he begins staring at the companion in a rather fixed and insistent manner -perhaps because the stranger is evidently far richer than him and stands out like a beacon round these parts.

Mary doesn't defuse the situation by engaging the man in friendly banter and telling him to desist, nor gently encourage him to go away (and maybe not so gently if she were pissed). It appears as if she doesn't know the 'starer' at all...at least, if she had felt so comfortable as to try and bum a fiver off him some minutes beforehand, now she seems not to know him..

I looked at the guy , who returned with a stern expression, although no words were spoken, and I decided to follow on behind , just being curious .

The well dressed stranger does his best to return Nunner's rude and rather aggressive staring in kind, but as he and Mary walk on, the weirdo starts tailing them. A stalker ! It's at best annoying, and rather unsettling, and an intrusion. Is he just a peeping tom, or does Nunners have a more sinister reason for creeping along behind ?

Nunners will later say that he knew Mary and was simply 'curious'. Yet Mary, ordinarily feisty, never turns around and tells Nunners to bog off. she must be aware of his dogging behaviour. Or else he is slipping along silently in and out of the shadows and she doesn't spot him...

About two hundred yards on they stopped, and spoke, they both kissed, and then walked into a block of flats , which I assumed was known to one of them.

Their intention then, is obvious to Nunners. Unless he is a moron. This is obviously to be a private and intimate moment between Mary and her 'friend', and Nunners is not invited to the party. He shouldn't ever have been there in the first place, spying -but if he were, now then is the moment for him to slink off...

I was not concerned for her safety, I was not remotely associating this with recent fatal attacks in the area

,

But Nunners decides to lurk about for 3/4 of an hour watching the flat, in the rain.

This is serious stalking and very very worrying. Unless Nunners is gay, then he has a rather sick interest in Mary and/or her love life.

If I had to give some advice to Mary, then it would be to 'phone the Police pronto and describe Nunner's behaviour in light of the recent attacks on women in the area; He might not be the culprit but he is not 'normal', a possible danger, and should be investigated. This is obsessional and sex fixiated ?/Mary fixiated ? behaviour..

I became aware of the death of this woman over the weekend, and felt I should come forward.

Not very quickly. Everyone was gossiping about nothing else. Nunners could hardly have forgotten or minimised his behaviour outside Mary's flat. He knew that he was there and why he was there..he knew that it was weird behaviour for normal people. Trouble was, an acquaintance had passed him and had seen him there ...what to do ?

(cliffhanger.....)

[Sally]

Hi Sally,

Just so. Greatest credence has to be given to the 'initial disclosure', because that is the closest, in terms of time, to the events described. Additional detail remembered subsequently should probably have less weight placed upon it, but that in no way justifies discarding it altogether or taking a default position of 'unreliable'. This isn't a witness who is giving evidence many months after making her initial statement. The time interval is 3 days.

Regards, Bridewell.

Hi Bridewell - yes, I concur. I think we should also bear in mind when comparing initial witness statements taken on 9th November with subsequent witness testimony that those concerned had in the main been detained at Millers Court on the 9th; and were by virtue of their witness status involved with the horrific murder of a young woman at the hands (to the best of their knowledge) of a local terror whom no doubt many had by then believed had ceased his crimes. To suggest that many of those witnesses were in a state of shock when their initial statements were taken would not be unrealistic, I think.

Many people struggle to recall details under emotional stress. It's very common.

[Hunter]

Calling a witness before a coroner's inquest does not imply that witness is credible or otherwise. Mrs. Maxwell is a prime example and Macdonald even went so far as to warn her in that regard.

There are many reason's why a coroner calls certain witnesses and sometimes they are called again at a subsequent session if an inquest extends over a period of time. Since this inquest was concluded after one day, there is much we'll never know about the witnesses. And that is just the nature of the beast when it comes to this particular inquest.

The police got to hold their cards close to their chest in this instance and until some further reports emerge we will always be left with many loose ends about the Kelly murder.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
At the very least my modern day interpretation has raised a few brows..
In my adaptation I have used my Aunts house[ which did exist..I was born there] to substitute for the Victoria home, and explained why access was not convenient, I also expressed that my intention was to seek to waste time , or find refuge, and it was en- route with this in mind that the whole encounter happened.
I attempted to dress the stranger in similar attire , and spoke of my encounter with the woman called Mary, and her request for money, also following the couple out of plain curiousness , and the events,which led them into nearby flats.
I failed to mention in my fictitious account [ how silly] that I waited opposite the flats for approx 40 minutes to see what materialized, as this type of man was not Mary's type, although [as I stated ]I was in no way fearful for her safety.
I became aware of the murder late Friday , or early Saturday, and informed my Aunt what I had seen, and she encouraged me to come forward, but having had dealings with the police myself, I was not in any hurry, but succumbed on the Monday evening, despite reservations..
I appreciate that nit picking is unavoidable , but my intention was to place the whole Hutchinson affair into some kind of rational behaviour , which I believe was likely.
Regards Richard.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello,

I believe that credible witnesses can be found in all these murders. If their stories are corroborated by others, if they have nothing to gain personally by concocting or tailoring a statement, and if they attest to the fact that their view of the suspect/victim was indeed a good view, thats a decent start. If they incriminate themselves in some lesser crime as a result of their statement is also something to look for.

I think of someone like James Brown or Fanny Mortimer or Richardson in the first case, Diemshitz and likely Hutchinson in the second, Mrs Long in the third and Mary Ann Cox in the last case. Witnesses like Lawende may have been frightened which could make the statement "modified", (he was after all found by door to door searches), Schwartz and Eagle may have been members helping out their club, Packer likely saw pound notes floating by....

Of all the witnesses in the Ripper cases the one whom I believe can shed the greatest light on other key witnesses statements may have been Fanny Mortimer, because if she is to be believed other witnesses blatantly perjured themselves.

Perhaps saving their club from ruin might have been their "personal gain".

Best regards,
Mike R

[Cogidubnus]

I think of someone like James Brown or Fanny Mortimer or Richardson in the first case, Diemshitz and likely Hutchinson in the second, Mrs Long in the third and Mary Ann Cox in the last case.

So we're not treating Polly as a JtR crime then? Fair enough if that's your theory...but what's Fanny Mortimer got to do with the Chapman murder?

And if Diemschutz and Hutch are witnesses in the SECOND murder (?) how come Mrs Long is a witness in the third (which in your reckoning is presumably Eddowes)?

Don't know what you're on tonight Michael, but could you please let me have some?

Perhaps saving their club from ruin might have been their "personal gain".

At last...something I can equate with!

All the best

Dave

[Ben]

Hi Hunter,

Mrs. Maxwell was called to the inquest because she was considered credible in spite of the fact that her evidence differed from that provided by other witnesses. The fact that she was called to the inquest despite this major question mark over timing and identity is a reasonable indicator that she conveyed a particularly favourable impression on those who interviewed her. Remember that the contention here is that Sarah Lewis was lying. Had there been any contemporary inkling that this was the case, she would not have been called to the inquest. As we know, a number of press informants gave "evidence" to the press around the 10th November, but tellingly, they sank without trace pre-inquest.

All the best,
Ben

[Michael W Richards]

Sorry Dave, I guess I wasnt clear so I believe you misunderstood me. What I intended by naming some examples is that they fit roughly into the qualifiers I mentioned, not the murders themselves;

eg;

If their stories are corroberated.....Fanny sees Goldstein, he confirms being there, Brown-young couple, same situation...(added Richardson in error there)

If they have nothing to gain.....perhaps Diemshutz-Club Steward, Hutchinson-seen by Sarah Lewis had personal gain motives

Good view.....Mrs Long swore it was Annie she saw

Incriminate themselves in lesser crimes.... Mary Ann Cox, admitted prostituting herself.

I was just suggesting that there can be filters applied to the statements to help determine the viability of the particular witness.

Even then....I personally believe Mrs Long didnt see Annie, so nothing is certain.

All the best Dave,

Mike R

[Wickerman]

Hello,

Sorry, must have missed something. What was the PROOF that Packer was lying?

C4

Quite right C4, Packer changed some details in his story himself, no-one proved anything.
As a result Packer is an unreliable witness from the police perspective, it doesn't mean the man he saw didn't exist.

Tom struggles with understanding what actual "proof" is.


Regards, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

Ben!

Thanks for your answer. I´m afraid, though, that it does nothing to alter my suspicion that you had nothing at all to go on when you stated that it was clear that nobody at the time had any problems with Lewis testimony.

You say, Ben, that the fact that Lewis was called to the inquest tells us that the police invested faith in her.

Would the same apply to Caroline Maxwell? Was she too called to the inquest because the police could vouch for her being on the money? When the coroner said to her " You must be very careful about your evidence, because it is different to other people's", would you say that was something that tells us that she "clearly" was not questioned? Or is it the other way around?

Caroline Maxwell is a very useful example of how we cannot say that being called to an inquest means that you are relied upon to deliver trustworthy evidence. And Lewis, as well as all the other witnesses, represented the exact same thing as Maxwell: She was connected to the case by having been in place on the murder night, and the police accepted that this was so. Their investigations had not revealed any reason to distrust that particular detail.
And people who have physically been in place at or close to the murder scene at the stage of the murder, are all potentially useful sources of information.
That, and that only, is what gets you called to an inquest.

The notion that you are called to it because the police have made their mind up that you provide CORRECT information is simply totally uncorrect - as is emphatically shown by Maxwells presence at the same inquest. The police were more or less certain that Maxwell provided INCORRECT information, and STILL she was called! And that owed to the fact that the police were not able to decisively prove that she was intentionally misleading or lying. If they had known such a thing, there would have been no Maxwell at the inquest.
She was there because it could not be PROVEN that she was wrong, and because she DID have the geographical and timewise connection to the case.
In other words, she was called to the inquest IN SPITE of a disbelief in her on behalf of the police!

Therefore, Ben, we may safely deduct that it is NOT any belief on the police´s side that gets you summoned to an inquest. It is a connection to the case as such that does the trick. And therefore, we also know that you cannot use the summoning of Lewis as evidence for a belief in her on behalf of the police. It is all very simple once you get the hang of it.

Furthermore, if we know that a witness like Lewis, summoned to an inquest by a police force about which we have no idea how much faith they invested in her, actually CHANGED her testimony when she spoke at that inquest, then we may realize that even IF she had been summoned courtesy of a belief in her from the police - although we now know that this was NOT the case - then we may not use that initial pre-inquest incorrectly perceived belief to bolster any post-inquest belief. For at that stage, the evidence was altered and thus not the same evidence that made you incorrectly deduct that it made her a person the police believed.

All the best,
Fisherman