John Richardson

[Wickerman]

On witness testimony:

Why eyewitnesses fail - PMC (nih.gov)

Contrary to common intuition, however, courtroom statements of confidence are very poor predictors of accuracy (26–29). The cause of this confidence–accuracy disparity is well captured by Daniel Kahneman’s cognitive “illusion of validity” (30). Subjective confidence in a judgment is not a reasoned evaluation of the probability that this judgment is correct. Confidence is a feeling, which reflects the coherence of the information and the cognitive ease of processing it. Declarations of high confidence mainly tell you that an individual has constructed a coherent story in his mind, not necessarily that the story is true.

Broadly speaking, eyewitness misidentifications can be characterized as failures of visual perception or memory, the former being seeing things inaccurately, the latter being loss of accuracy or precision in the storage, maintenance, and recall of what was seen.

Declarative memories are conceptualized as involving three core processes—encoding, storage, and retrieval—which refer, respectively, to the placement of items in memory, maintenance therein, and subsequent access to the stored information (32). These are not passive, static processes that record, retain, and divulge their contents in an informational vacuum, unaffected by outside influences. The contents cannot be treated as a veridical permanent record, like photographs stored in a safe. On the contrary, the fidelity of our memories may be compromised by many factors at all stages of processing, from encoding through storage, to the final stages of retrieval (33–40).

Without awareness, we regularly encode information in a prejudiced manner and later forget, reconstruct, update, and distort the things we believe to be true.

This article is informed by 54 sources (see the footnotes).

Does the article offer any justification for using eye witnesses at all?

[A P Tomlinson]

I always get uneasy when someone addresses me as YOU.

OK?
Emphasis frightens you... does it also render you unable to reply to the mattter of the rest of the comment?

you require that people answer the specific points you want answering.

So.
Would you agree with me, that I am I closer to what you consider an accurate time of death for Eddowes than Brown (Probably died after 1.50 CERTAINLY died after 1.40) when I say she died between 1.30 and 1.43, with it just as likely it being between 1.32 and 1.43?

Being that she was discovered at (very precisely, apparently) 1.44 by an officer who estimated the time of his beat to be 12 to 14 minutes?

Edit to add... I'm obviously using 1.43 as a very unlikely outside chance, as the mutilations were perfomed post mortem...

[Fiver]

I have in the past pointed out that there is no recorded case of a Jewish serial killer in this country.

I have also pointed out that there is no recorded case of a Polish Jewish serial killer.

Neither of these statements prove anything about the Ripper.

[Fiver]

If you think the murderer did not write the message and it was just any old anti-Semite who did, and that no Jews living in the building would pay it any attention, then why did he take the trouble to write the message on a building inhabited almost entirely by Jewish people?

Or do you think that that is a coincidence too?

It is not a coincidence that anti-Semitic graffiti was written on building inhabited by Jews.

But it is not evidence that the Ripper wrote the graffito.

[Fiver]

Reid and Warren made it clear that they were convinced that the murderer was a Gentile; Abberline and Macnaghten each had a favourite suspect, each of whom was a Gentile; Smith made it clear that he believed the murderer was a Gentile.

Reid said "Whitechapel has an evil reputation, and one that it does not deserve. During the whole time that I had charge there I never saw a drunken Jew. I always found them industrious, and good fellows to live among." Reid also said that "I challenge anyone to produce a tittle of evidence of any kind against anyone. The earth has been raked over and the seas have been swept, to find this criminal 'Jack the Ripper,' always without success." Reid had a positive view of Jews, but he did not conclude that the Ripper must have been a Gentile.

Warren was worried the Goulston Street graffito could trigger anti-Jewish violence. He never said the Ripper must have been a Gentile.

Abberline's favored subject was a Gentile, but he also said "...Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago". So Abberline did not rule out the possibility that the Ripper was Jewish.

McNaughton had three favored suspects. One was Jewish.

Smith said that "Jack the Ripper beat me and every other police officer in London". He said that Anderson was wrong to say that a Jewish suspect had been proven to be the Ripper, which does not mean that Smith said the Ripper must have been a Gentile.

It is not true, as some commentators claim, that the police at the time thought that the murderer was a Jew.

I haven't seen any posters claim that the police thought the Ripper was a Jew. I have seen a poster claim that the police thought the Ripper was a Gentile. Neither view has any basis in fact.

[Paul Sutton]

If JtR wanted to add additional risk - and be on stage - why didn't he take a trumpet along and sound that, shortly after his killings? That would have been an extra thrill and livened up the grimy Victorian nights.

In all seriousness, the term risk is too broad. The inherent risk is so huge (as presumably was the reward) why would he add to that, increasing the chance of discovery and thus ending his thrills? I don't think the intrinsic and extrinsic risk can just be elided.

Wickerman is positing that he would. OK - there's as strong an argument that he wouldn't. Stronger, in fact, since he seems to have adapted as he went along.

[Trevor Marriott]

Which is one of the reason's the 'risk' factor could very well have been important to him.
Back in '72, or thereabouts, I was in Mitre Square as 1:30 in the morning. I've said before it looks like you are on a stage, if full view of anyone coming at you from three corners, and your back is to the wall. You have no escape.
I see the same risk in Hanbury Street, Dutfields Yards, and Bucks Row, and how could he know no-one would come knocking at Mary Kelly's door?

We mostly overlook these factors because most of us don't see the crime from the killer's point of view. There were lots of places in the East End to kill someone and get away, dark alley's where you can just stab & run, but he did much more than that. For various psychological reason's he chose open spaces, or risky locations, he chose to spend time with them, both before the murder and after. He had a need to mutilate, which takes time, although it wasn't necessary - at least not to our way of thinking.
When we add all these points together we can see, or at least I can see, he was not overly concerned about being caught, so there had to be a reason for him to take his time like he did.

He's probably the kind of person who could stand in front of a train, right until the last second before jumping aside, as it blows by, he gets a rush out of it. It's the adrenaline factor.
And of course, if he did ever get caught, he had a mean weapon in his hand that very likely no-one else would have, to enable his escape.

The question is did he meet the victims and take them to the crime scenes or did the victims take him to the crime scenes.

The balance of probability is that the victims took the killer to the crime scenes, they were picked up in areas they were all familiar with and had probably used these locations many times before.

and having arrived at the crime scenes how long would it to have taken for him to simply murder and mutilate-a matter of several minutes so he would not have needed to stay at the crime scenes any longer other than to murder and mutilate so the risk factor would not be that great

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Dickere]

A polite request…..just for once, could certain posters try discussing the aspects of the case relevant to this thread….if you can recall it. I just checked the title and it doesn’t say “Let’s all have a few childish digs at Herlock…..again” Hope this pointer helps.

Maybe that needs its own thread ? Want to start it ?

[Fleetwood Mac]

We've had several policemen on this forum over the years, I've yet to see one of them agree with Trevor's view of witnesses.

Trevor's opinion on this is aligned with a wealth of studies analysing actual witness testimony. I'd say that while you claim Trevor is in the minority view of policemen who have posted on Casebook, this is one area where that minority view is correct.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Cadosch was a very few feet from a fence. He was absolutely certain that he heard something making a noise by striking that fence.

Then you're not reading the articles referencing empirical evidence. I'll remind you.

Contrary to common intuition, however, courtroom statements of confidence are very poor predictors of accuracy (26–29). The cause of this confidence–accuracy disparity is well captured by Daniel Kahneman’s cognitive “illusion of validity” (30). Subjective confidence in a judgment is not a reasoned evaluation of the probability that this judgment is correct. Confidence is a feeling, which reflects the coherence of the information and the cognitive ease of processing it. Declarations of high confidence mainly tell you that an individual has constructed a coherent story in his mind, not necessarily that the story is true.

Without awareness, we regularly encode information in a prejudiced manner and later forget, reconstruct, update, and distort the things we believe to be true.

Psychological scientist Elizabeth Loftus studies memories. More precisely, she studies false memories, when people either remember things that didn’t happen or remember them differently from the way they really were. It’s more common than you might think, and Loftus shares some startling stories and statistics, and raises some important ethical questions we should all remember to consider.

Albert's proximity and confidence are not pertinent to the fallibility of memory. The reason why memory is often erroneously recollected is due the process of storing and recollecting information, no matter where somebody is standing or how confident they are.

[Paul Sutton]

In the archives you might find posts by Grey Hunter, that was Stewart Evans, the author and ex policeman who took many witness statements, who disagreed with Trevor on the same points as you see here.
We've had several policemen on this forum over the years, I've yet to see one of them agree with Trevor's view of witnesses.

But I'm not saying he's right, merely that his view isn't to be ridiculed, at the very least.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A polite request…..just for once, could certain posters try discussing the aspects of the case relevant to this thread….if you can recall it. I just checked the title and it doesn’t say “Let’s all have a few childish digs at Herlock…..again” Hope this pointer helps.

[Wickerman]

Someone recommended I watched Trevor's documentary on the German sailor - I did, then realised I'd seen it before. I also had his book, which I must have read, but couldn't recall - not a criticism at all, as I can see it's good.

My view - for what it's worth - is that (like Christer) it's great to have the opening out it gives. The theory seems wild, but so what?

But the bigger point - and I'm sure he doesn't need my praise - is that this bloke will have dealt with many many witness statements, so to dismiss him is just crass. He may well be wrong, but (correct me) he's the only poster who's done murder investigations, as a job?

He'll have an intuitive sense of all this, which only working in the field can give. No amount of pedantry and point-scoring can gainsay that.

In the archives you might find posts by Grey Hunter, that was Stewart Evans, the author and ex policeman who took many witness statements, who disagreed with Trevor on the same points as you see here.
We've had several policemen on this forum over the years, I've yet to see one of them agree with Trevor's view of witnesses.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Comedy gold! In my short time here, you've launched more attacks than JtR/Zodiac/Fred West combined. Are you targetting Harold 'Fred' Shipman's numbers?

Not one single attack. I say to you what I said to PI. Stick to the case…..stop the snowflake bleating……forget individuals. It’s boring.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This makes no sense.

You've accepted that witnesses can be mistaken in their recollections, and the posts I put up from three articles claim they are often mistaken.

But yet, you believe Albert could not have been mistaken.

Do you see the contradiction?

By the way, I think you've misunderstood the posts I put up from articles talking of witness testimony.

They're talking of memory, how human beings process, store and recollect information; and the pitfalls associated with that.

They're not talking of people lying.

I assess witnesses on an individual basis. Cadosch was a very few feet from a fence. He was absolutely certain that he heard something making a noise by striking that fence. Can you really think that he heard a noise coming from a distance away but mistook it for a noise from a fence next to him? This is unreasonable. It’s clutching at straws. So it should be accepted that the most likely is that he was right. This is the reasonable way of looking at it.