John Richardson

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It appears Anderson developed his incarcerated Jew theory after he retired, yet he telescopes it back as if it was applicable to the force in general during the murders.

That is exactly the point I have been making.

There is not so much as a hint in any of his spoken or written comments on the case over the years that he suspected a Jewish person or a Polish person of having committed the murders.

And during all that time, he never so much as hinted that anyone had ever been positively and formally identified as the murderer.

Instead, during that time he stated that the police had failed to identify the murderer.

What does that tell you about his definitely ascertained fact?

[Wickerman]

Are they being 'dismissed' or simply held to be inherently prone to be unreliable?

Refusing to listen to them, refusing to consider what they say, preferring to invent your own scenario to replace the testimony/statement of a witness.
What would you call it?

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.

Correct, I have not used "hypocrisy" in a post.

As for "intuition", we are only dealing with words on paper written over a century ago.
You might apply intuition when questioning the witness yourself, but that is not going to happen.

Intuition might suggest to you the witness may have been exaggerating, or even lying, but you can't decide this to be the case as a fact.
And because you cannot, then surely you have to make allowances for the alternatives.
You cannot dismiss the statement, regardless of any intuition.

[Abby Normal]

[QUOTE=Fiver;n823310]

His experience is very arguable.



[/QUOTE

not to mention trevors only claim to fame was breaking up a dastardly ring of shoplifters lol.
and he thinks that eddowes bloody rag was the result of her using it as a sanitary napkin.
and he thinks that the ripper didnt remove the victims internal organs..they were stolen at the mortuary.
and he thinks the torso victims were victims of botched abortions, eventhough only one was pregnant.
and he thinks there was no serial killer, unless its feiganbaum, a german sailor who wasnt even in england at the time of the murders.

[Wickerman]

Why is it a binary decision?

Because you choose to use it, or you don't.
You can use any of it, or all of it, or you use none of it.

[Paul Sutton]

Because you choose to use it, or you don't.
You can use any of it, or all of it, or you use none of it.

I know what binary means, not why - per force - it applies.

There's no obligation to either use witness statements, or not to. Clearly not all witness statements are valid, which doesn't mean none are.

Nor do you get the ultimate say - no one does - over that distinction.

In fact, by saying ' You can use any of it' you're making my point. That's not binary. Binary would be 'either use all the statement or none of it'.

So we're in agreement, it's not a binary thing. Maybe you don't understand the word?

[Lewis C]

She had no money, which makes it unlikely that she could have obtained any more food.

As for the person who, it has been suggested, kindly gave her some food for free, why did he not come forward?

How can we be sure that she was seen by people, when we don't even know how much longer she was alive?

In addition to what Wickerman said, I'll add that we don't know whether she had food with her when she left at 1:50.

Witnesses don't always come forward. It could be that he didn't want to bother, and it could be that he thought that he might be suspected. It's also possible that he didn't know who she was, and so didn't make the connection when Chapman's death hit the papers.

I'll concede your 3rd point, provided that she was killed very soon after she went out. If she was killed at 3:30 or later, she was probably seen. Unless she decided soon after she went out to go to sleep somewhere, maybe somewhere like 29 Hanbury Street. Note that i said "like", by which I mean it could have been a different location, but with a similar backyard.

[Lewis C]

The term "All hours" is ambiguous, she states she often turned them out, but if in the case of Chapman taking someone to this location at 3.30am would all hours apply after all would she know what went on during the early hours of the morning, especially in the case of Chapman and the suggested early time of death, she would be asleep and unaware of what was happening.

She does not say that she ever got up in the middle of the night to check after hearing any noises or movements

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Your comment addresses the question of whether prostitution sometimes happened when it was still dark. No one's denying that it did, the point is that it sometimes also occurred after dawn. I don't think "all hours" is especially ambiguous. It could be that what she really meant was "almost all hours", but I doubt that anyone would say "all hours" if what they meant was "all hours except when there's daylight".

[Paul Sutton]

Your comment addresses the question of whether prostitution sometimes happened when it was still dark. No one's denying that it did, the point is that it sometimes also occurred after dawn. I don't think "all hours" is especially ambiguous. It could be that what she really meant was "almost all hours", but I doubt that anyone would say "all hours" if what they meant was "all hours except when there's daylight".

Hi Lewis,

When someone says 'all hours' they're drawing attention to it happening outside of waking hours. So, if I complain that my daughter is on her phone at 'all hours' I'm especially complaining about it being the middle of the night, when she should be asleep. Yes, the adjective literally means 24 hours. But the expression is used to draw attention to the unusual ones, in that period.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In addition to what Wickerman said, I'll add that we don't know whether she had food with her when she left at 1:50.

The evidence is that she ate potatoes at the lodging house and then went out to find a customer - not that she went out to eat potatoes.

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.

The article, and the others I posted, and the others that can be posted; are about eye witness testimony and memory recollection. This particular one you mention is about that first and foremost, secondary to that is identification of a suspect.

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.

They are saying that the human mind doesn't work like most people assume, in terms of storing, processing, and recollecting events/information; and is subject to subconscious and conscious bias.

The meat of the matter is how the human mind works in recalling events, whatever those events, and people's recollection is often not a reflection of that which actually happened. Whether that's identifying a person or recalling an event.

[Wickerman]

The 'distinctions in bold' include:

So you invented a point which categorically isn’t true.

So your point that she ate nothing more than a potato is an invention.

Would you like to take the opportunity to make clear that you do not agree with the accusations of invention being made against me?

I can't say where these quotes came from to go back and check, but are you claiming you did not write what is quoted below?

“Chapman has to have been wandering about for about 3 3/4 hours without being seen by anyone, to choose to go into the back yard of a house, the habits of whose occupants she was presumably familiar with,”

“….at about the time people started to get up, and still to have food in her stomach 3 3/4 hours after eating nothing more than potato.“


"Chapman has to have been wandering about for about 3 3/4 hours" - and "the habits of whose occupants she was presumably familiar with".

To be fair, I don't recall reading those statements anywhere else.
Also, "nothing more than a potato" would be debatable.
If you Google for 'Digestion times of common foods' you will find Dairy digests in a shorter time than a potato, so do other carbs. The inquest established "the stomach contained a meal of food" Daily Telegraph.

That's not quite what you wrote, right?

[jmenges]

I have been reading that Jews are to blame for the fact that about a thousand of their civilians were butchered two weeks ago by Islamic terrorists, and that Jews are to blame for an explosion at a hospital in Gaza which was actually caused by Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Please keep comments and analogies about current events in the Middle East out of 'Jack the Ripper' related discussion threads.

Thanks

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi Lewis,

When someone says 'all hours' they're drawing attention to it happening outside of waking hours. So, if I complain that my daughter is on her phone at 'all hours' I'm especially complaining about it being the middle of the night, when she should be asleep. Yes, the adjective literally means 24 hours. But the expression is used to draw attention to the unusual ones, in that period.

[Coroner] You have been there at all hours of the night? - Yes.
[Coroner] Have you ever seen any strangers there? - Yes, plenty, at all hours - both men and women. I have often turned them out. We have had them on our first floor as well, on the landing.
[Coroner] Do you mean to say that they go there for an immoral purpose? - Yes, they do.


Are we really to infer that men and women were caught having intercourse in communal areas inside the house in broad daylight?

[Wickerman]

No, experience in actual crime detection cannot be equated with the work of armchair detectives.

Trevor is not here detecting crime, he's assessing the viability of a written witness statement, like we all are.

Which isn't to decry the work done by the latter. But experience covers so much - gut feeling, intuition, all that.

I don't doubt many armchair jockeys are cleverer then policemen. But intelligence isn't the only factor.

Yes, he has experience in police work, no-one said he isn't intelligent.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I can't say where these quotes came from to go back and check, but are you claiming you did not write what is quoted below?

“Chapman has to have been wandering about for about 3 3/4 hours without being seen by anyone, to choose to go into the back yard of a house, the habits of whose occupants she was presumably familiar with,”

“….at about the time people started to get up, and still to have food in her stomach 3 3/4 hours after eating nothing more than potato.“


"Chapman has to have been wandering about for about 3 3/4 hours" - and "the habits of whose occupants she was presumably familiar with".

To be fair, I don't recall reading those statements anywhere else.
Also, "nothing more than a potato" would be debatable.
If you Google for 'Digestion times of common foods' you will find Dairy digests in a shorter time than a potato, so do other carbs. The inquest established "the stomach contained a meal of food" Daily Telegraph.

That's not quite what you wrote, right?

I really do not know what you are getting at, especially by your last sentence, as there is no conflict between what I wrote and what you cited from the inquest record.


I asked you two straightforward questions about whether you agree with the two statements that I invented something.