Did you see "Eyewitness" on BBC2?

[Mycroft]

I watched this programme by chance and found it interesting how witnesses can get things very wrong and even make up things that they then believe to be true. It got me pondering about the various witnesses involved with JtR. It's well worth a watch. Here's an iplayer link if you missed it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...ess_Episode_1/

[Mitch Rowe]

Correct... Theres no way to tell anything from these cases by witness testimony alone. In fact the "witnesses" have probably led more people on wild goose chases than anything else.

[caz]

Good one, Mycroft.

More than just worth a watch - I'd call it essential viewing.

I'll be watching it again later. It was on quite late at night and I was struggling by the end to maintain full concentration. Tiredness or alcohol would have even worse effects on someone who wasn't expecting to witness anything that they would later be called upon to remember in detail.

One piece of vital advice would be to admit when you didn't hear or see something, or can't quite remember it, and stop well short of trying to flesh out a vague account with any assumed or imagined details. An offender could so easily walk free if a witness got something crucial wrong by trying to be too helpful.

Love,

Caz
X

[Garry Wroe]

One piece of vital advice would be to admit when you didn't hear or see something, or can't quite remember it, and stop well short of trying to flesh out a vague account with any assumed or imagined details.

It's not that simple, Caz. Mnemonic interpolation has been known about since at least 1930, when its discovery gave rise to cognitive psychology. The problem is that we all do it, and do it unwittingly. And since this is a largely unconscious, non-elective process, subjects have no idea that they are providing false or misleading information. It's simply the way in which the human brain functions.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[caz]

Yes, Garry, you are right of course, and it can happen to the best of us. But that only makes it even more vital not to do it consciously and add to the inherent risks of giving less than accurate information.

Obviously people can and do provide reliable information on any number of occasions. Liza and I caught our very own "nasty piece of work" on Brick Lane only the other Sunday, by recognising him again while we were bargain hunting and pointing him out to the police who had initially responded to a call by the victim of an assault.

We were described as the "Rosemary & Thyme of Tower Hamlets" by a very grateful WPC who said the suspect had admitted to the assault and would never have been found if it hadn't been for us keeping our eyes open. We then made a witness statement and he was charged later that day with bodily harm. Had he denied it, Liza and I would have needed to be extra careful about sticking to what we believed we saw and what we had described, or risk the degree of accuracy we had achieved between us.

Makes me all the more conscious of how important that is.

Love,

Caz
X

[Robert]

Up to a point, the police in 1888 did make allowance for witnesses who fleshed out details - hence Smith's comment that he couldn't lead Lawende.

[John Bennett]

A good example of this was used in a Ripper doc called 'Bloody Britain' many years ago. Presenter Rory McGrath was interrupted by a heckler in the street who shouted "Rory! Arsenal!" and so had to refilm the sequence.

It was all part of the program in fact. Rory was taken to a line-up of men, and had to identify the one who had shouted out. After a fashion, he eventually picked a man out, only to be told that the man who shouted out wasn't actually in the line-up at all!

One just assumed the man would be there and so the compulsion was to make an identification.

[RJM]

For those interested in learning more about the problems of eyewitness testimony and false memory, check out the works of American Professor Elizabeth Loftus. I find her work quite fascinating.

Robert

[caz]

One just assumed the man would be there and so the compulsion was to make an identification.

Hi John,

I think that's probably what happened in the A6 murder case, when the surviving victim picked the wrong man out of the first line-up, which didn't include Hanratty, who went on to be convicted after a second line-up.

If she was given the impression that a very strong suspect was in that initial line-up, it would have been very hard to pick nobody out and risk feeling responsible for letting this vicious killer go free. Maybe she thought that if she picked out the police suspect, she'd be identifying the killer, and if she mistakenly picked out someone who was only there to make up the numbers, it wouldn't be the end of the world.

You only have to see how many pages there are on the A6 murder thread to appreciate the repercussions of a victim being faced with two 'prime' suspects on separate line-ups.

Love,

Caz
X

[Victoria]

I think people generally believe that they are telling exactly what was seen.

But the fact is 'we see through a glass darkly' .. none of us sees things
as they really are. Very few can even see with 100% accuracy the physical world.
All sense impressions come into our mind through the five senses, and instead of seeing
exactly what is there, we colour it with past impressions from past
experiences, or knowledge stored in our mind.

This happens mechanically to us, it is the way the mind works, unless you understand the mind
a little and take steps to see 'clearly'.

Years ago in the Natural History Museum in London there was a interactive test where you watched a traffic
incident and then answered questions about what you saw. It was very revealing as to what happens,
even when you knew what the test was about .. and even repeated the same scenario.

[The Good Michael]

So... Hutchinson wasn't lying. Here's the proof.


Mike

[Mitch Rowe]

He may not have been lying. He may have embellished to the max. Or he lied for publicity. Or he was the Ripper playing funny little games.
Or he was some kinf of a freak savant who told the complete truth exactly the way it happened.

Even though witnesses may get it wrong alot of times there are times when they are right. Sorting it all out is the problem..