Choosing which witnesses to believe

[Bridewell]

The Non-Criticism of Dan Norder

(2) "Cross' statement sounds very matter of fact and plausible, while Hutchinson's features some details that don't ring true."

"Matter of fact" and "plausible"? Not when you compare it to what Mizen had to say! "You are wanted in Buck´s Row - another policeman wants you there!"

This is what Pc Mizen claims was said to him. It's not what Cross said in his own evidence.

Lechmere in all probability shaped his testimony according to the paper interview given by Paul.

"In all probability"? No. "Possibly"? Yes.

Dan Norder wrote his piece four years ago, he apparently did not know about the name swop, he did not know about the find that Lechmere can potentially be tied to the Stride murder spot and time

,
His mother lived a couple of hundred yards away.

He did not know that Charles Allen Lechmere would be proven to have lied to the police in order to get past them on the murder night.

Proven?

His post is stone age by now, and should be regarded as such. Uninformed, not up to date, largely irrelevant.

In your modest opinion.

Christie was once a good guy and a stand-up citizen too.

No he wasn't. The police didn't vet him properly before appointing him as a wartime Special Constable - not the same thing.

History teaches us things. Cases move forward.

And babies get thrown out with the bathwater.

Please note that I am in no way criticizing Dan Norder for his post. He did not have the full picture as he wrote it, and his views were à la mode at that stage. My criticism is directed against using uninformed material to try and draw informed deductions. It doesn´t work.

"Uninformed, not up to date, largely irrelevant." reads a lot like criticism to me.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Fisherman]

Colin:

"This is what Pc Mizen claims was said to him. It's not what Cross said in his own evidence."

Check in what context it makes sense, and take your pick - both men can´t be correct.

"In all probability"? No. "Possibly"? Yes. "

To me, it´s in all probability, but it matters little. I´m fine with quite possibly too.

"His mother lived a couple of hundred yards away."

On a street to which Berner Street would potentially take him. I would not expect a living room strike. Plus we have the information that these very streets were Lechmere´s old home ground.

"Proven?"

If we accept that Mizen was correct, yes. And since it makes sense in no other context, the evidence tells us that Lechmere lied.

"In your modest opinion."

No, Colin. We KNOW that Norder was uninformed about the scam and the location of Lechmere´s mother/daughter, plus we have good reason to believe that he knew not of the alias. That makes it uninformed in not only my view but in anybody elses too. And it could be nothing else, given the four years that have passed.

"No he wasn't. The police didn't vet him properly before appointing him as a wartime Special Constable - not the same thing."

I am speaking of the SURFACE of things. I don´t for a moment believe that Lechmere was a good guy, other than on the surface!

"And babies get thrown out with the bathwater."

Absolutely. But I didn´t think that belonged to the point I was making ...

""Uninformed, not up to date, largely irrelevant." reads a lot like criticism to me."

Then I am criticising myself just as severely, Colin. For I held the same view at the time, uniformed as I was of the alias and the rest. My knowledge from back then is not up to date today and the picture I had at that stage is largely irrelevant in June 2012, considering all the water that has flowed under the bridge. I am not saying that Dan Norder is or was uninformed, not up to date or largely irrelevant. He certainly was not when he wrote on Casebook, all that time ago. Quite on the contrary, actually; he was many times groundbreaking and I salute him for it. But the text Ben chose to use for a comparison leaves out all of the important additions that have been made to the Lechmere case since then, and thus the text is today uninformed, not up to date and therefore largely irrelevant, no matter how brilliant (or not) it was back in 2008.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Sally:

"Repetiton is not corroboration."

And this you repeat in every post you make ...?

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman.

Don't litter the thread with inanity please. And please take note - this is not a thread to discuss Cross as a suspect, or to compare him with Hutchinson either; except with regard to whether either was a reliable witness or not.

In short, don't hijack the thread with another topic. It's bad form.

[Bridewell]

"Proven?"

If we accept that Mizen was correct, yes.

And if we don't accept that Mizen was correct? Although neither Cross nor Mizen could have been aware of it, there was, by now, a policeman who needed his help in Bucks Row.
If Cross said exactly what Mizen claims that he said, then Cross lied, but if Mizen (after finding that there was a policeman in Bucks Row who needed his help) thought that was what Cross had meant, and misremembered his actual words, what then?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

According to official inquest testimony, at 3.45 am we have—

Robert Paul walking up Buck’s Row on his way to work; Charles Cross standing by Polly’s body; PC Neil discovering Polly’s body; PC Thain being signalled by PC Neil; and PC Mizen encountering Cross and Paul 300 yards away at the junction of Bakers Row and Old Montague Street.

Somebody wasn't telling the truth.

Regards,

Simon

[Lechmere]

Simon - someone's watch wasn't working - or many people's watches weren't working.
Incidentally as Paul seemingly knew he was late for work should we take his timing as reliable? Otherwise how did he know?

As for nthis line from Dan Norder:
"5) Hutchinson only came forward after another witness testified to seeing a mysterious man hanging around the scene of the crime."

This is true so far as it goes - but not a single newspaper man or policeman at the time connected Lewis's wide-awake man with Hutchinson so I say there is zero chance that they were one and the same.
The press poured over every detail by this stage in the Ripper case and Hutchinson was very much a person of interest for a while.
I also say that it is virtually inconceivable that Hutchinson could have learnt the nature of Lewis's testimony prior to his visit to Commercial Street police station.
We know that Abberline interrogated Hutchinson - we can be fairly sure that Cross wasn't interrogated by anyone. I know what this implies.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Lechmere,

"Someone's watch wasn't working—or many people's watches weren't working."

Okay.

How, then, did they all happen to agree that these incidents took place at precisely 3.45 am?

Regards,

Simon

[Errata]

The simple truth is, witnesses are terrible for gaining information on any case. Barring alibi witnesses, and even then there's rules.

Is Hutchinson lying? Who knows. It is a fact that an extremely detailed story is a common sign of deception, and it is a fact that going to the police three days later is not consistent with a concerned citizen. Does that prove he's lying? No. Unless we can prove he was not where he said he was, or did not see what he said he saw, we will never know. And since we can never prove any of those things, we will never know. So does this mean we should accept what he says he saw? No. There is no eyewitness statement in the history of ever that we are supposed to simply accept. And even if what he said was the god's own truth, that still doesn't mean he saw her with her killer, nor even the last man who saw her alive.

We are supposed to use witnesses as supplement to fact. There are things we know. We know that Mary Kelly's murder was gruesome and bloody. And We know that her murder was anticipated by the killer. It's possible it was not precisely premeditated, but we know he planned for the eventuality. He brought a knife or two after all. Does it make sense that a man who knows that he may commit a murder/mutilation would dress in such a fashion as Hutch described? It does not. Even if her killer was a toff, he might not wear slum worthy clothing, but he wouldn't wear white. Does it make sense for any man alone in Whitechapel to wear extremely valuable jewelry in plain sight? Well, it's not that it doesn't happen, but that's typically a mistake a person only makes once. He may be a killer, but that doesn't mean he is going to be able to fend off a full grown man, much less a set of them. And we are presuming that this man not only spent some time in the area, but killed other women as well.

It does make sense that such a man would try to hide his face. He is soliciting a prostitute after all, and while it might be socially overlooked, it is not socially acceptable. That is not an indication of murderous intent. What continues to surprise me is how many people who were in a place they visited habitually and came forward. The first two murders sure... but after that people had to realize that they were dealing with a monster. And it had to occur to people that if they saw the killer, then the killer saw them. And I don't think they had any guarantee that if a description showed up in the paper that they weren't going to disappear. And so many of these witnesses could easily have disappeared, especially Hutch who essentially butted noses with the man. And it is certainly possible that the killer had no interest in eliminating witnesses. It's also possible that no description was given that was specific enough to alarm the killer.

Based on the facts, and Hutch's statement, it would seem that there is no reason to pursue the man he described as the killer. It might be worth it to find the guy to see when he left, to try an nail down time of death, but I don't think there would be a lot of motivation to track down and interrogate a wealthy man when there is nothing to indicate that he was involved in the crime. In the end, it doesn't matter whether or not Hutch was lying or not. His statement was not useful. The man he described did not kill Mary Kelly.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Don't litter the thread with inanity please."

I just thought it a strange thing to have as a signature, Sally. It´s rather like saying that all generalizations are dangerous.

"And please take note - this is not a thread to discuss Cross as a suspect, or to compare him with Hutchinson either; except with regard to whether either was a reliable witness or not."

Then Ben really should not have posted that Norder quote, should he? Go tell him, Sally!

"In short, don't hijack the thread with another topic. It's bad form."

I know bad form when I see it, Sally. Thanks just the same.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Colin:

"if Mizen (after finding that there was a policeman in Bucks Row who needed his help) thought that was what Cross had meant, and misremembered his actual words, what then? "

Then a seagull would appear brilliant by Mizen´s side, that´s what.

To me, Colin - and yes, that´s just me - it sounds a very strange thing to mishear. Also, I fail to see that he would also have misheard that Lechmere told the story in a passive manner, as if he had only been a bystander. Furthermore, Mizen was sure enough about this to tell his superiors, who hauled Neil over the coals for it, and to go to the inquest and testify about it, with no hesitation at all.

The picture is a very clear one. If you had gotten the task to form a lie to take you past a PC when being in Lechmere´s situation, would you be able to think up something more cunning and useful? It is absolutely tailormade to suit the situation in every little bit.

Also, if we start reinterpreting what the witnesses said - especially weathered, experienced witnesses like PC:s - then we may as well put an end to the search here and now.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fisherman,

I'm rapidly losing the will to live.

Adjö.

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

Simon.

"I'm rapidly losing the will to live."

Good argument. I will find it hard to address that one! Unless you´d care to expand?

Oh, I see now what you mean: I put trust in the police, is that it?

The best,
Fisherman

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fisherman,

Best contact me from now on via Madam Arcati.

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

I´ll make sure to do it that way, should your assistance be required Simon!

The best,
Fisherman

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fisherman,

I'm always happy to be of help.

Regards,

Simon