Choosing which witnesses to believe

[Sally]

As a footnote in keeping with the spirit of the thread, when we "choose which witness to believe" we must be sure, a) their statements have been accurately recorded, and b) that their statements may have been edited.
Alas, all Inquest testimony has been edited, even the Official version.

Hi Jon

Can you explain how we can be sure of either of the above?

Unless you think that the police officer taking the statements of witnesses might be considered unreliable, surely such witness statements can be considered accurate - in terms of recording, that is? Certainly contemporary witness statements given to the police/at an inquest are the most accurate source of information available to us in this context - far more so than any press report, I would think.

Of course, an accurately recorded police statement or transcribed inquest statement doesn't tell us whether the witness was accurate in their account, but that's another matter.

Incidentally, how do you know that 'all inquesst testimony has been edited'? And edited by whom?

There is a distinction to be drawn between the reported inquest testimony found in the press (even the Times) and the official inquiry proceedings - is this what you mean by the 'official' version?

Fascinating as contemporary press reports are, I think it must be borne in mind that the prime motivator for the press was not accuracy or truth-telling - it was profit. Yes, press reports are a contemporary source of information, and useful up to a point; but obviously less so than the documentary evidence arising from the mechanisms of the state.

Incidentally, a witness who only appears in the press should be given the least credibility of all - particularly mysterious anonymous witnesses. What's to say that such a witness isn't simply an invention of the press?

[Ben]

Hutchinson was discredited because of doubts surrounding his credibility, as is made clear in the Echo and the Star, and we know for a certainty that the former obtained their information from police sources. Here is what the Echo said as early as the 13th:

"From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder. Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?"

These questions, asked by "the authorities" are inextricably, linked to the question of honesty and motivation for coming forward. This is further underscored the next day, when the same paper reported that the statement had been:

“considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest in a more official manner"

No sane person cites failure to attend the public inquest as a reason for discounting a statement whilst still upholding the witness who made it as a purveyor of truth. If anyone should still protest that the Echo were just peddling lies of their own (for what possible reason?), consider the following extract, also from the 14th:

“Unfortunately for the theories of our morning contemporaries, we learned on inquiry at the Commercial-street Police-station to-day that the elaborate description given above is virtually the same as that previously published. It is a little fuller, that is all. But it proceeds from the same source”.

This was in reference to the fact that Hutchinson’s 14th November account, as supplied to a reporter, was obviously a more detailed and elaborate version of the account that appeared the previous morning without Hutchinson’s name attached. Some newspapers thought that they were two independent, mutually supportive accounts, but the Echo approached the police directly in order to ascertain what we now know to be the truth of the matter.

In other words, the Echo clearly did visit the police and did extract the truth from them.

For some reason Jon missed out on all of this when quoting from the Echo and Star, deliberately omitted anything that might cast a less than favourable impression of Hutchinson and his account. Of course, the fact that the statement was suspected then of being bogus does not abrogate the necessity to make it the subject of "careful inquiry" just in case there was some truth in it. They could only forgo the "careful inquiry" if they were in a position to prove Hutchinson a liar, which was obviously never the case.

The Star would have its readers believe that the police have dropped Hutchinson's suspect altogether, and yet only 4 (four) days later they cover the infamous "Birmingham" suspect by reporting:

"The suspected man was of gentlemanly appearance and manners, and somewhat resembled the description of the person declared by witnesses at the inquest to have been seen in company with Kelly early on the morning that she was murdered."
The Star, 19 Nov. 1888.

This was NOT in reference to Hutchinson. You can see it isn't. Did Hutchinson attend the inquest? No. Did the Star know full well that he hadn't? Yes. So how can this possibly be a reference to Hutchinson's account? The only witness it could possibly apply to is Sarah Lewis, who did attend the inquest, and was the only witness in attendance who described her suspect as a "gentleman". So no, there is no contradiction whatsoever between the Star's correct declaration that Hutchinson's account was "now discredited" and this later report on a Birmingham suspect, which so obviously related to the witness description provided by LEWIS, not Hutchinson.

Jon, you condemn the Star on the basis of your own confusion. They had NOT forgotten than Hutchinson hadn't attended the inquest. They were talking about Sarah Lewis, who had attended it.

The Daily News erroneously reported that Lewis had seen a couple pass up the court. It is provably false, since the detail contradicted all other accounts of her testimony, including her original police statement.

Sarah Lewis DID NOT see anyone "pass up the court" on the morning of 9th November.

Regards,
Ben

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ben,

Thank you. A very informative post.

The Echo's confirmation that the enhanced GH description was from the same source as the original has dispelled a few nagging feelings I was having.

Regards,

Simon

[Bridewell]

Let me just sort this Bond-related nonsense yet again. The evidence is that the police DID NOT ultimately support the time of death offered by Bond. It therefore had nothing whatsoever to do with Hutchinson's discrediting. The Star reported the police opinion that the murder occurred later than the TOD offered by Bond, and accurately at that. They didn't just make it up for some bizarre, illogical reason, and the police were far from compelled to accept Bond's opinion. The police, then and now, use all evidence at their disposal, and if compelling eyewitness evidence points to a conclusion other than that suggested by medical opinion, it would be reckless and irresponsible to champion the latter purely as a courteous "salute" to a fellow professional. There is absolutely no evidence that the police supported the 1.00am-2.00am time of death, and compelling indications to the contrary.

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.

[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:

Bridewell, you would do better to compare Baxter with Macdonald, not Robert Anderson. Because Anderson himself had to get involved we can be sure the outcome would be significant and he carries considerably more clout than Wynne Baxter.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Incidentally, how do you know that 'all inquesst testimony has been edited'? And edited by whom?

We have compared them with press accounts, and we already know the questions were edited out, or just never written in, even in the Official versions.

There is a distinction to be drawn between the reported inquest testimony found in the press (even the Times) and the official inquiry proceedings - is this what you mean by the 'official' version?

Quite so.

Fascinating as contemporary press reports are, I think it must be borne in mind that the prime motivator for the press was not accuracy or truth-telling - it was profit.

Absolutely, which is why we should not put so much reliance on them, especially The Star, as some are prone to do.

Incidentally, a witness who only appears in the press should be given the least credibility of all - particularly mysterious anonymous witnesses. What's to say that such a witness isn't simply an invention of the press?

The press watched each other. To be caught out by your competition "inventing" a witness in a murder case is not so frivolous an issue as you appear to think. The Star narrowly avoided a major slander suit brought by Pizer because they printed a bunch of untruth's about him.

The police would come down hard on a publisher who invented a witness as the police did use press reports as a guide in their investigations, for the simple reason there were more reporters in London than Detectives.
The Star promoted such a negative campaign against the Police that they suffered by being refused interviews with police officials.
A handful of other media who held their tongue were treated better.

All that said, I take it "we" all agree that a witness who was found by the press should be treated with more caution than one who has been sworn in a court.
On the other hand, we know from one report that over 50 witnesses were interviewed by police in the Kelly enquiry, yet only a dozen or so were called at the Inquest.
How sure do you feel that Paumier, Ronay, and other 'press' witnesses were never interviewed by police? Seeing as all the police files are long gone, how sure can you be?
I think it is more than likely, because the police used press reports.

Absolutely we tread with caution with all witnesses, but I would always refrain from calling any witness a liar unless we come up with directly contrary evidence. I don't know that such a situation has transpired in this Kelly case.

So on what basis should anyone here brand any witness a liar?

Regards, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

Just to address a point Errata was making.....for context, I think the area and the immediate history made people on the street much more cautious and curious than we allow for. Also, in a nest of thieves for example...as much of the East end was at that time and most certainly Dorset Street, cufflinks might be noticed just under the jacket sleeve, or a pin or trinket that looks to have some value might be noticed. A chain or necklace...things most people wouldnt notice in a pass-by situation. It might be what happened in Annie's case re: her rings. Perceived value...in that case it would have been inaccurate, but I feel people definitely "checked out" others they passed at night.

I agree that unusual circumstances might trigger a need for a more in depth look, but in those Fall evenings almost everyone on the street was either a potential target or victim, both would be cautious and perhaps viewing things with a keener eye.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Wickerman]

Here is the extract from the Star, 13th November:

"As to the time of the murder, it is now generally admitted that Kelly could not, as some have stated, have been alive on Friday morning. The police have come to the conclusion that the woman who made the most positive statement to this effect must have been mistaken as to the day. Dr. Phillips's evidence, together with that of Mary Ann Cox, Elizabeth Prater, and others, proves that the murder was committed SHORTLY AFTER THREE O'CLOCK- a fact which brings into startling relief the murderer's coolness, caution, and tenacity of purpose."

You have used this quote before, at the time I had to demonstrate to you why this is nothing but press opinion and not taken from an official source.

First of all, if you look further up the page you will read this:

"The inquest on Mary Janet Kelly has closed, like its predecessors, without throwing any useful light on the crime. Light of a certain sort there is, but it is so confused and shifting as to be almost worse than useless."

Nothing usefull came out of the inquest, certainly no estimate as to her time of death.

Now to your quote. It begins by excluding Maxwell's testimony, in which police opinion is only expressed on Maxwell.

"As to the time of the murder, it is now generally admitted that Kelly could not, as some have stated, have been alive on Friday morning. The police have come to the conclusion that the woman who made the most positive statement to this effect must have been mistaken as to the day.

And concludes with media speculation (Echo & Star ran the same paragraph).

Dr. Phillips's evidence, together with that of Mary Ann Cox, Elizabeth Prater, and others, proves that the murder was committed SHORTLY AFTER THREE O'CLOCK- a fact which brings into startling relief the murderer's coolness, caution, and tenacity of purpose."

We know it is speculation because Dr. Phillips was not permitted to offer an opinion due to MacDonald terminating the Inquest.

So, no evidence from Dr. Phillips.
Nothing to contest Dr. Bond's estimate.


Mary Ann Cox:
Her testimony suggests MJK was still alive at 1:00 when Cox left the court. At 3:00 am when she returned the lights were out.
Therefore MJK, at 3:00 am, could have been asleep, out, or dead.

Nothing in Cox's testimony to contest Dr. Bond's estimate.


Mrs Prater:
Lets see her testimony verbatim.
"...I slept soundly till a kitten disturbed me about 3:30 to 4. I noticed the lodging house light was out, so it was after 4 probably - I heard a cry of oh! Murder! ..."

Prater then admits to returning to sleep. So her estimate on the time of the cry is based soley on the light across the road at Crossinghams? or McCarthy's?

After 4:00? what happened to SHORTLY AFTER THREE O'CLOCK ?

What proof did we see here Ben?

Nothing!

Press opinion creating news where none exists, why?, to create interest.

Don't just believe press opinions, do a little research yourself.


Incidently, Bonds report, apparently, was not only Bond's opinion.

“..Dr. Phillips has only vaguely indicated to the local police the result of his investigations, but a report on the question has, it has been asserted, been jointly made by him and Dr. Bond, and submitted to Sir Charles Warren."The Echo, 10 Nov. 1888.

Jointly made by Dr. Phillips and Dr. Bond.

We might choose to ridicule Dr. Bond yet professional etiquette requires consent from Dr. Phillips as the case was under his purview.
If both Dr.'s Bond & Phillips contributed to the report the estimated time of death may also have been agreed on by both. That we may never know.

As a footnote, both the Echo & Star carry another detail in the same paragraph.
".... it is now known that the light was not extinguished until about two o'clock."
Presumably, this is the light in her room?

If the room was dark at 2:00 and also dark at 3:00 am when Cox returned, how would this killer function in the dark?, unless she was dead by 2:00, thats why the light was out.
I don't see this statement appear anywhere else, it may be another accurate statement by the press.

Regards, Jon S.

[Sally]

We have compared them with press accounts, and we already know the questions were edited out, or just never written in, even in the Official versions.

No, the questions weren't 'edited out' - just not transcribed. There is often an indication of dialogue in the inquest transcript, nonetheless. The reason for the difference between the inquest transcript and the press reports of the inquest is one of prioritisation: the inquest transcript prioritises the testimony of the witness; the press report recounts the conversation; more or less. Unless the press could transcribe verbatim every word as it was spoken - as the clerk at the inquest would have done - discrepancies between the two sources are inevitable. The inquiry transcript where available is the primary source, not the press account.

The press watched each other. To be caught out by your competition "inventing" a witness in a murder case is not so frivolous an issue as you appear to think. The Star narrowly avoided a major slander suit brought by Pizer because they printed a bunch of untruth's about him.

I don't think it a 'frivolous' issue at all - but I still think it happened, I'm afraid. The Star may well have 'narrowly avoided a major slander suit' over Pizer, but in this context that is irrelevant. It's impossible to slander a person who doesn't exist in the first place.

The police would come down hard on a publisher who invented a witness as the police did use press reports as a guide in their investigations, for the simple reason there were more reporters in London than Detectives.
The Star promoted such a negative campaign against the Police that they suffered by being refused interviews with police officials.
A handful of other media who held their tongue were treated better.

Right. And how exactly would the police be able to demonstrate that the press had invented a witness? All the press would have to say is that the witness was interviewed in the pub (e.g.); gave their name but no address - and the press could not be held accountable. There would be little if any, accountability for the invention of a witness. Once again, the press did not (and does not) exist to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - they exist to make a profit. The press is not and has never been a paragon of virtue - surely you know this?

All that said, I take it "we" all agree that a witness who was found by the press should be treated with more caution than one who has been sworn in a court.

Well yes - since a witness found by the press may not actually exist.

On the other hand, we know from one report that over 50 witnesses were interviewed by police in the Kelly enquiry, yet only a dozen or so were called at the Inquest.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that the witnesses not called to the inquest were unreliable - more likely that their evidence was not considered to be as materially relevant to the inquiry as the evidence of witnesses who were.

How sure do you feel that Paumier, Ronay, and other 'press' witnesses were never interviewed by police? Seeing as all the police files are long gone, how sure can you be?
I think it is more than likely, because the police used press reports.

Obviously nobody can know for certain - it's impossible in the circumstances. As you point out, the police files no longer exist - as we cannot know if files pertaining to Paumier, Ronay, and of course, Kennedy ever existed to begin with, it seems a little redundant to speculate. I think the balance of probability suggests that these witnesses were probably press inventions. If in fact they did exist, and were interviewed by the police, one has to wonder why there is no report in the press of such an occurrence.

Absolutely we tread with caution with all witnesses, but I would always refrain from calling any witness a liar unless we come up with directly contrary evidence. I don't know that such a situation has transpired in this Kelly case.

If you are alluding to Hutchinson, then I'm sure you know as well as anybody the arguments forwarded for his alleged dishonesty. Of course, if Kelly was dead by 2.00am then it goes without saying that Hutchinson was at the very least, 'mistaken'.






Regards, Jon S.[/QUOTE]

[Errata]

Hi all,

Just to address a point Errata was making.....for context, I think the area and the immediate history made people on the street much more cautious and curious than we allow for. Also, in a nest of thieves for example...as much of the East end was at that time and most certainly Dorset Street, cufflinks might be noticed just under the jacket sleeve, or a pin or trinket that looks to have some value might be noticed. A chain or necklace...things most people wouldnt notice in a pass-by situation. It might be what happened in Annie's case re: her rings. Perceived value...in that case it would have been inaccurate, but I feel people definitely "checked out" others they passed at night.

I agree that unusual circumstances might trigger a need for a more in depth look, but in those Fall evenings almost everyone on the street was either a potential target or victim, both would be cautious and perhaps viewing things with a keener eye.

Best regards,

Mike R

Ironically, it doesn't matter how cautious or curious people were. It seems absolutely insane that it doesn't, but it really doesn't.

We determine threat based on body language, or sometimes skin color. And we still have enough rogue animal DNA that we react to potential threat in a very predictable way. We don't look it in the eye. It is predator/prey instinct. When we sense a predator, which we typically do by assessing body language and it's perceived interest in us, we tuck out chins. We don't look in their face, we don't catch their eye. We above all avoid trying to draw any additional interest to ourselves. We hunch over, we keep walking, we keep our ears peeled to hear if we are being followed. And after we are safe, we can't describe the person we thought was threat. We can say what they were doing, their general build, we can describe what scared us. But we can't describe their face. Because we never focused on it. There was a study a while ago in which the subjects walked past a group of men, and one of the men separated from the rest and followed to subject halfway across the campus. They discovered that 40% of test subjects described the person they thought was following them as black. The guy was white. He was wearing a black jacket. But these 40% of people found black people threatening, and they felt threatened. Ergo the man was black. Which is a hell of a detail to get wrong.

And thief or not, it is perfectly normal to focus on an odd detail. But when we focus on something, we get tunnel vision. There was a perfect example a while ago, where there was an ad campaign called "Test Your Awareness" was put out by the UK to tell people to watch out for cyclists. It's on YouTube if you're interested. We focus on one thing, we miss just about everything else. Which is fine for a thief. He focuses on what he wants to steal. He doesn't care what his victim looks like, or what he is wearing, or even what he is carrying. That doesn't affect the outcome of his goal. And while someone who focused on a man's cufflinks would be able to describe the cufflinks in detail, he wouldn't be able to describe the man's face unless he knew the guy.

[Rubyretro]

I totally agree with this post.

We determine threat based on body language

,
Yep. That's why Sarah Lewis walking down a dark Dorset Street would notice the Lone Lurker, from a distance, ad be able to assess intuitively what he appeared to be up to.
[QUOTE

And we still have enough rogue animal DNA that we react to potential threat in a very predictable way. We don't look it in the eye. It is predator/prey instinct. When we sense a predator, which we typically do by assessing body language and it's perceived interest in us, we tuck out chins. We don't look in their face, we don't catch their eye. We above all avoid trying to draw any additional interest to ourselves. We hunch over, we keep walking, we keep our ears peeled to hear if we are being followed. And after we are safe, we can't describe the person we thought was threat. We can say what they were doing, their general build, we can describe what scared us. But we can't describe their face. Because we never focused on it

.

And this is what I've always said about why it is logical that Lewis would notice the height, build and hat of The Lurker but not his face, nor any detail. She avoided looking at him as she drew closer, and scurried past. It is totally logical.

[Wickerman]

The inquiry transcript where available is the primary source, not the press account.

I would assume everybody knows this, so why go down that road?

I don't think it a 'frivolous' issue at all - but I still think it happened, I'm afraid.

Most of these accounts, again using Paumier, Ronay & Kennedy as examples, tend to be duplicated across different papers, suggesting the stories were bought from an agency.
In some cases a paper has claimed to have interviewed the witness themselves yet the story provided is a duplicate.

Therefore, you appear to be suggesting a reporter at an agency has invented "witnesses", why would you think this, is it something you would do if you were in a similar position?

Let me ask you this, how many witnesses across the ripper case do you think were press inventions?

The way I look at it is this. When a particular witness is suggested to be an invention, it is always always because this particular witness has said or witnessed something that the accusor does not like.

The "accusor" being someone here on Casebook who is desperate to defend their hypothesis and any witness that is an embarrassment to their case needs to be removed with claims of "invented" without any justification, indication or evidence whatsoever.

There are people here who intend to re-write history by "cleansing" the case of certain witnesses just so they can have their way.

If you are alluding to Hutchinson, then I'm sure you know as well as anybody the arguments forwarded for his alleged dishonesty.

I'm well aware of the variety of arguments, I'm amused that there is no consensus. No-one can agree on whether to accuse him of lying about Romford, about walking around all night, about the detailed description of a real man, or about inventing the man altogether.
Because no-one really knows, it is just conjecture, then they are all just treading water in an aimless slander campaign.

If Hutchinson had lied about something it does not necessarily mean he would be dropped from the enquiry, it would all depend on what that was.

Hutchinson would certainly have been made aware of the police suspicions against him because if they found something significant he would be brought back in and re-interviewed to explain himself. This apparently never happened or the press would have been all over this turn of events.

And, Hutchinson would have the details explained to him across the table and the dire significance of the situation explained (misleading a murder investigation).

At the conclusion of this re-interview the police will explain to him in detail why they no longer can entertain his story.
This means Hutchinson will know exactly why they are dropping him.
Once dropped, the press will be all over him to find out why. Hutchinson, assuming he is the suggested "seeker of the limelight" will quite possibly cry foul to the press.
This also never happened.

Most likely reason being, none of it ever happened.

Regards, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

Ironically, it doesn't matter how cautious or curious people were. It seems absolutely insane that it doesn't, but it really doesn't.

We determine threat based on body language, or sometimes skin color. And we still have enough rogue animal DNA that we react to potential threat in a very predictable way. We don't look it in the eye. It is predator/prey instinct. When we sense a predator, which we typically do by assessing body language and it's perceived interest in us, we tuck out chins. We don't look in their face, we don't catch their eye. We above all avoid trying to draw any additional interest to ourselves. We hunch over, we keep walking, we keep our ears peeled to hear if we are being followed. And after we are safe, we can't describe the person we thought was threat. We can say what they were doing, their general build, we can describe what scared us. But we can't describe their face. Because we never focused on it. There was a study a while ago in which the subjects walked past a group of men, and one of the men separated from the rest and followed to subject halfway across the campus. They discovered that 40% of test subjects described the person they thought was following them as black. The guy was white. He was wearing a black jacket. But these 40% of people found black people threatening, and they felt threatened. Ergo the man was black. Which is a hell of a detail to get wrong.

And thief or not, it is perfectly normal to focus on an odd detail. But when we focus on something, we get tunnel vision. There was a perfect example a while ago, where there was an ad campaign called "Test Your Awareness" was put out by the UK to tell people to watch out for cyclists. It's on YouTube if you're interested. We focus on one thing, we miss just about everything else. Which is fine for a thief. He focuses on what he wants to steal. He doesn't care what his victim looks like, or what he is wearing, or even what he is carrying. That doesn't affect the outcome of his goal. And while someone who focused on a man's cufflinks would be able to describe the cufflinks in detail, he wouldn't be able to describe the man's face unless he knew the guy.

Hi Errata,

Based on the above post, then how do you reconcile these remarks;

"They both then came past me and the man hid down his head with his hat over his eyes. I stooped down and looked him in the face. He looked at me stern........"Description age about 34 or 35. height 5ft6 complexion pale, dark eyes and eye lashes slight moustache, curled up each end, and hair dark, very surley looking dress long dark coat, collar and cuffs trimmed astracan. And a dark jacket under. Light waistcoat dark trousers dark felt hat turned down in the middle. Button boots and gaiters with white buttons. Wore a very thick gold chain white linen collar. Black tie with horse shoe pin. Respectable appearance walked very sharp. Jewish appearance."

It would seem that Mr Hutchinson claimed to have looked into the mans face closely based on his detail, and he obviously noticed the "bling" in some detail as well.

Since the above was based on views that were brief and after 2am on a poorly lit street, and of a man that seemingly intended to not be seen clearly as he passed George, does he fall into the 40% that make mistakes or the 60% that apparently do not. Maybe George was afraid of Jews.

My best regards,

Mike R

[Hunter]

Maybe ol' George was sizing this man up to roll him and he couldn't enter that up into the equation when he approached the police.

There are many possibilities and no definite probabilities when it comes to the elusive George Hutchinson.

And... unfortunately for clarity, but fortunately for filling up bandwith... it will probably remain as such.

[Bridewell]

Bridewell, you would do better to compare Baxter with Macdonald, not Robert Anderson. Because Anderson himself had to get involved we can be sure the outcome would be significant and he carries considerably more clout than Wynne Baxter.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Jon,

When did I compare Baxter with Robert Anderson?

Regards, Bridewell.