John Richardson

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I haven't seen any posters claim that the police thought the Ripper was a Jew.

I have.

The basis of most claims here that the murderer was, or is likely to have been, Jewish, is Anderson's autobiography.

Anderson claimed that the police were convinced that the murderer was a Jew.

[Paul Sutton]

I have.

The basis of most claims here that the murderer was, or is likely to have been, Jewish, is Anderson's autobiography.

Anderson claimed that the police were convinced that the murderer was a Jew.

But was Anderson being anti-Semitic? He was (rightly) recognising the closeness of the Jewish community and its sense of mutual-obligation. Quite understandable and applaudable qualities.

Of course, he - and others - may have been anti-Semitic. But given the huge Jewish population in the area, it isn't evidence of prejudice to suggest the killer may have been Jewish. It would have been wrong to assume they couldn't be - on what basis?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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?

I do not understand the above paragraph and I cannot see any question in your earlier post addressed to me that called for any reply, and therefore do not understand why you should express annoyance at my not answering it.

I have made it clear several times that I think Eddowes was killed at about 1.38 a.m.

[Wickerman]

Show me specifics on why those witnesess (THOSE THREE) WERE unreliable but others are OK.
Not just some bollocks about "Memory is unreliable"

This is precisely the point, witness statements are being broadly dismissed, whether the person doing the dismissal has 25 years experience or not is irrelevant. It is wrong.

The right way is to check the statement, first against other press versions to be sure it is correct and/or complete. Second against other witness testimony that may either confirm or contradict the first witness.
It involves work, but it seems there are those who choose the lazy route and just dismiss what they don't agree with without explanation.

[Paul Sutton]

This is precisely the point, witness statements are being broadly dismissed, whether the person doing the dismissal has 25 years experience or not is irrelevant. It is wrong.

The right way is to check the statement, first against other press versions to be sure it is correct and/or complete. Second against other witness testimony that may either confirm or contradict the first witness.
It involves work, but it seems there are those who choose the lazy route and just dismiss what they don't agree with without explanation.

Are they being 'dismissed' or simply held to be inherently prone to be unreliable? Too many examples show the latter - and someone with 25 years' experience is bound to have more expertise in spotting them than the rest of us.

Nor is it 'hypocrisy' for someone to sometimes believe them and sometimes not (I don't think you used this term). It may be selective - but then I guess selectivity is the key - and risk - of investigations.

I'd also guess it's that sort of intuition that years of experience hone.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is precisely the point, witness statements are being broadly dismissed, whether the person doing the dismissal has 25 years experience or not is irrelevant. It is wrong.

The right way is to check the statement, first against other press versions to be sure it is correct and/or complete. Second against other witness testimony that may either confirm or contradict the first witness.
It involves work, but it seems there are those who choose the lazy route and just dismiss what they don't agree with without explanation.

Exactly.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

But was Anderson being anti-Semitic?

Yes.

He concluded that the murderer must have been Jewish because only Jews would have protected him.

He did not consider the possibility that the murderer was being protected by a Gentile criminal fraternity.

Furthermore, he concluded that the murderer must be Jewish even in the absence of a suspect.

You cannot get more prejudiced than that.

Then he claimed that he was proven right, but when challenged declined to cite any evidence in support of his allegations.

Even worse, he claimed that Scotland Yard as a whole shared his prejudices.

The reaction to the publication of his claims and his silence when challenged prove that he lied.

[Paul Sutton]

Yes.

He concluded that the murderer must have been Jewish because only Jews would have protected him.

He did not consider the possibility that the murderer was being protected by a Gentile criminal fraternity.

Furthermore, he concluded that the murderer must be Jewish even in the absence of a suspect.

You cannot get more prejudiced than that.

Then he claimed that he was proven right, but when challenged declined to cite any evidence in support of his allegations.

Even worse, he claimed that Scotland Yard as a whole shared his prejudices.

The reaction to the publication of his claims and his silence when challenged prove that he lied.

It would be anti-Semitism if he believed the killer was Jewish because being so predisposed someone to be evil/blood lust etc. And there were certainly those who thought that (in general - the 'blood libel').

But his characterisation of the propensity to shelter a suspect might well have been used for other minorities. It's likely to be the norm, for any immigrant community. You could label that prejudice - my mother came from such a community, and I know how tight-nit that was. But I'd recognise it, without having a malicious intent, since it's 50% of my DNA.

And surely he did have a Jewish suspect in mind?

[Fiver]

Yes - I'm amazed at your tolerance for the denigration you get! I'm the last person to worship 'experts' for the sake of it, but your experience is unarguable. In fact, your service too - and it irks me to see someone who's worked for the public get such snotty dismissal.

His experience is very arguable.

[Wickerman]

On witness testimony:

Myth: Eyewitness Testimony is the Best Kind of Evidence – Association for Psychological Science – APS

Eyewitness testimony is more fallible than many people assume.

Eyewitness testimony — it’s often thought of as solid evidence in criminal cases, but researchers including Iowa State University’s Gary Wells have found that our memories aren’t as reliable as we think. Sometimes, we can even build false recollections about people we only think we saw.

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.

There were a series of documentaries on the fallibility of the eyewitness. It was fascinating when video evidence was compared with eye witness accounts, mostly divergent on the way the perpetrator was dressed. Other sequences had reenactments where people were sat in a room and some rehearsed sequence of events suddenly happen. The program compared what each witness think they saw. Strange how conflicting their descriptions were.
So what is the answer?
CCTV is not going to be installed everywhere, so do we throw out witness testimony - and replace it with what?
Or, do we gather all the statements and work through them to see what fits, what contradicts, and what is still debatable?
Dismiss it, or work with it?

[Wickerman]

On witness testimony:

The Certainty of Memory Has Its Day in Court - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Why is a witness’s account so often unreliable? Partly because the brain does not have a knack for retaining many specifics and is highly susceptible to suggestion. “Memory is weak in eyewitness situations because it’s overloaded,” said Barbara Tversky, a psychology professor at Columbia University’s Teachers College in New York. “An event happens so fast, and when the police question you, you probably weren’t concentrating on the details they’re asking about.”

Hundreds of studies have cataloged a long list of circumstances that can affect how memories are recorded and replayed, including the emotion at the time of the event, the social pressures that taint its reconstruction, even flourishes unknowingly added after the fact.

I think there's sufficient in these three posts, that apply to Albert Cadosche's situation, in order to conclude that Albert's statement on his recollection of events that morning, is far from cast-iron.

Often, it isn't what we have to work with that matters, - it's what we choose to do about it.
That's what matters.

[Paul Sutton]

There were a series of documentaries on the fallibility of the eyewitness. It was fascinating when video evidence was compared with eye witness accounts, mostly divergent on the way the perpetrator was dressed. Other sequences had reenactments where people were sat in a room and some rehearsed sequence of events suddenly happen. The program compared what each witness think they saw. Strange how conflicting their descriptions were.
So what is the answer?
CCTV is not going to be installed everywhere, so do we throw out witness testimony - and replace it with what?
Or, do we gather all the statements and work through them to see what fits, what contradicts, and what is still debatable?
Dismiss it, or work with it?

Why is it a binary decision?

[Wickerman]

I always get uneasy when someone addresses me as YOU.

There's worse....

Like at home, when you get your full name, you know you're in trouble!

[Wickerman]

It’s simply a device to try and prove something that can’t be proven Wick. Some people have an aversion to using the phrase “we have no way of knowing.”

Right, there's nothing to be ashamed of by admitting "we don't know", but there is when someone tries to manipulate a meaning for self serving interests.

[Fiver]

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).

The article is about "The identification of a criminal suspect by an eyewitness to the crime".

There was no "eyewitness identification" by Richardson or Cadosch. The article gives no reason to dismiss their testimony.

Long did identify the victim and provided some description of the man Chapman was talking to. The article give reasons that Long's identification could have been wrong. It does not prove that Long's identification was wrong.