|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 846
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 2:43 pm: |       |
Hi,
We have now full transcript of Walter Dews Ripper recollections, something I have not read in detail before.
Several points have to be made, as we should all respect that this officer, was on duty of the day of kellys murder, and was the second police officer to view the remains of Kelly.
walter Dew was a respected police officer, that had a long and successful career, and he makes no secret to the fact, that the 9th november 1888, remained firmly implanted in his memory .[as one would suspect].
He states that he was chatting to another officer in commercial street station, on the morning of the 9th, when in rushed a young man breathless, and visably shaken, and after he composed himself the best he could , uttered murder.
He described this person as a young man , and later on as a youth.
Therefore this person was clearly not Bowyer, as we have always accepted, or Indian Harry as he was called, for he was in no way a youth.
Dew also does not mention Mccarthy following in the station a few moments later, as it has been widely assumed.
If one looks at the incident, it makes perfect sense, for the person to have seen the body, to after reporting the incident to his boss, to be sent as fast as he could to commercial street police station.
This hurried activity , would have been someone who could run fast, and a person fleet of foot, such as a youth would be the obvious.
we also have the account by this youth how he discovered the body, he was sent by McCarthy, to check on Kelly, as the residents of the court were concerned, as she was not seen that morning , if one takes in account that some of the courts dwellers, heard a scream at 4am, coming from Kellys room , also Catherine pickett could not make her hear , when knocking at her door at 8am, one can imagine slight concern, and it is entirely possible that none of them dared to look through the broken window, incase the worst scenerio had happened, and therefore this concern was forwarded to McCarthy who sent the youth, round to her room, to check that she was ok, on knocking her door, mayby calling out, and receiving no answer, he took one step more checking on her welfare, by peering through the broken window.
This is completly against all of our knowledge on the casebook, for it puts a vastly different picture on events that morning, for exsample , McCarthy sent this youth , the same person who scurried to the station, to check on kellys whereabouts, not to collect outstanding rent.
and if this report by Dew is true, and I can find no justification to suggest otherwise, as this man was there at the time , very much involved, then much as I hate to admit it Barnett if he was the killer , is more likely to have commited that act at 4am, which is against any previous feelings, that i have always imagined, for it would have been near impossible to have committed that murder during daylight hours with people of the court , knocking the door, and talking in the court about the previous nights events.
I should say near impossible , but not impossible, for Barnett would have been unaware of any four o'clock screams, and unusual activity regarding kellys safety going on around him.
The lord mayors show is intresting, for kelly said 'this will be the last show i shall see' which implys that she had been before, one wonders if she went in 1887, alone or with Barnett, she clearly would have mentioned it to him, on the past few days visits, but she as we know , never got to see it.
Regards Richard. |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 582
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 2:50 pm: | |
McCarthy and Bowyer gave statements to the police on the day of the murder and explained their actions to the inquest a few days later.
Walter Dew wrote his account of the events 50 years later. There is nobody on God's own earth whose memory is reliable 50 years after an event.
Furthermore, there is actually no contemporary evidence that Walter Dew was even present. He is mentioned neither in the police reports nor in any newspapers. Many people writing memoirs exaggerate their own role in events. That isn't to suggest that he was lying, often when people have told a story over and over again revising the details as they go along, they come themselves to believe that the revised version is what really happened.
That's not to say he wasn't there, but I see no reason to alter the accepted view of events based on things written that long after the event. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 847
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 3:04 pm: | |
Hi Alan,
That was a quick response, I had only just posted it.
Are you suggesting that this 'I caught Crippen' officer was a idiot, if so was the capture of Crippen, a invention, this incident was 28 years previous.
I can recall incidents 50years ago , that were extremely traumatic, the death of my mother in 1954, even at the tender age of seven, I can recall conversations with my father, the time of the day he told me, where i was , and the feelings i had when in bed that night.
Are you suggesting that Dew invented the age of the messenger, and he could not tell the difference between a youth and a more mature man,
and are you suggesting that Dew did not rush to Dorset street as written, and did not view the body as stated.
I Will leave the final conclusion to others .
Regards Richard. |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 230
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 3:45 pm: | |
Richard,
I can't speak for Alan (to his utter relief I am sure), but I agree with everything in his post. Doesn't mean Dew was an idiot or even a liar, just that unless he kept a journal or other meticulous personal note when he got to writing his memoirs nearly fifty years later that his recollections were understandably faulty and likely confused with many other events.
As for the Crippen capture, Dew played a paramount role in that case and was lionized at the time with full newspaper coverage. Never a shrinking violet, I can imagine he had a scrapbook or two filled with press cuttings about those events to which he may have resorted when writing the book.
One accepts anything Walter Dew wrote about the Ripper case at considerable peril.
Don. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 851
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 4:01 pm: | |
Hi Donald,
The best recollections are from ones own memories, we must not forget that this was a traumatic event, McCarthy made it clear that the morning of the 9th november would remain with him for ever , the discoverer of the body of kelly , whether it was a much younger Indian Harry, or a unnamed youth , proberly suffered the same.
As I unfortunetly was not present at the time, and Dew was I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt, when it comes to recollections.
Richard. |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 231
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 4:29 pm: | |
Richard,
Fair enough. I don't agree about Dew, but it would be a boring world if we did all agree. And you always manage to disagree with good humor, something appreciated by me and I think most posters.
Don. |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 60
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 1:16 am: | |
One thing to note, going along with Alan and Donald's points, is that a number of other details as Dew presents them are verifiably wrong. If we are to rewrite the case evidence based upon this man's personal recollections as he presented them to the public, we'll have to move Chapman's death back two weeks, among other things.
It cannot be stressed highly enough that memories change, twist, and otherwise end up with fictional representations of what really happened. Add into that the natural urge to make oneself sound more important, especially in an autobiography, and I don't think we can necessarily be sure that Dew ever saw MJK in life or death, other than the same photo we've all seen. He may have, but who knows.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 855
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 4:14 pm: | |
Hi,
I am somewhat surprised at the lack of intrest on this thread, Dews account of the murders , unless one is lucky enough to have a copy of the book, is printed in full for the first time on this site, and I consider it a excellent account.
I will not disagree that memory tends to fade with passing years, but I will repeat in traumatic events , memory never fades.
I appeciate Dan, that he made some errors in his recollections, the Hanbury st date etc.but he admitted that he did not witness all of the victims, and I suggest that he gave a honest account of the ones he did.
Unless Mr Dew was a fraud , and a liar[ which I would dispute] his claim to have seen Kelly parading around Whitechapel/Aldgate, in company with women of her class, is proberly accurate.
And his detailed acount of The morning of the 9th november, can hardly be dismissed, for I am sure, those events , if witnessed by any of us on this site, would stay in our memories for ever.
I am dismayed by the amount of mistrust that most of the members of this site regularly discuss, Schwartz, Maurice Lewis, Maxwell, hutchinson, Now Dew.
These people that are considered all liars, or mistaken, were actually alive in 1888, which unfortunetly none of us were.
We on this site ,are on the whole
a well informed team, but we would have been hopeless at the time 116 years ago, for we would have mistrusted everybody, every witness would have been eyed on as non trustworthy.
All i wished to achieve on this thread was to suggest that a new approach to the morning of the 9th nov, may be looked at , according to Dews account.
Regards Richard. |
Maria Giordano
Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 17
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 6:01 pm: | |
I recently came across a diary that I kept when I was 16-17 years old.
This was a crutial point in my life, a time when I met many people who were instrumental in my becoming who I am now and who are still involved withme. I have vivid, explicit memories of that time.
Yet, the diary contradicted-in my own handwriting!- some of my most treasured memories. Things that are absolute,positive hallmarks of my own internal picture of who I am.
I got rid of the diary because somewhere in my illogical stubborn core I still think that the memories I have now are a true depiction of what happened. The evidence be damned.
Never trust memory. Especially of emotionally important and traumatic things.
Mags |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 577
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 6:19 pm: | |
Richard,
I have to agree with Maria. People exaggerate or minimalize things in their memories as time goes on. Probably every cop who worked in Whitechape had "personal experience" stories that detailed their involvement in the crime though their involvement if any at all was peripheral.
And 50 years later, those stories have become exaggerated. The people who do this are not liars, they honestly believe these events occurred as they relate them. Memory is a tricky thing. Not remembering something accurately doesn't mean you are making it up.
 |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 583
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 6:10 am: | |
I actually signed off shortly after making the last post and this is the first time I have signed on again, hence the delay.
This has been explained for me a few times already but just to clarify, no I am not suggesting that Walter Dew was an idiot or a liar. I did suggest that he may have exaggerated his role, but that was not to say that I believed he did, just that he may have, because it is something that many many people (and I would include myself in this) do.
However I will give you two examples of what I am really talking about.
Twenty years ago, late one night, someone who had mistaken me for someone else, followed me in his car and repeatedly tried to run my car off the road. This was understandably a traumatic event. My friend Mark was in the car at the time. When Mark and I tell the story together now, our accounts differ. They are the same on the most important points, but the rest of the account is often different. The reason for this is not that either of us is lying, it is because when I look into my memory, those important traumatic moments of the event are still fresh, but the other stuff, the bits in between, are gone and all that is left is the memory of myself telling and retelling the story a hundred times over the years.
Similarly, my father was in the army guarding Gibraltar harbour in the early 50's when a ship exploded in the harbour. You can find accounts of this in many history books. I have heard my father tell the story many times. His account is not always the same, and differs in many respects from the official history. My father is not a liar or an idiot, he is just an old man who doesn't have 100% recall of things which happened when he was a young man.
Giving Dew the benefit of the doubt and accepting that he did enter that room, I am sure that his memories of the event were vivid and accurate. That was a highly traumatic moment for everyone who entered the room. Dr Bond eventually committed suicide after years of nightmares stemming from the incident.
A person entering a police station to report a crime is not traumatic. Dew was a career policeman with over 40 years in the force. He must have been present when hundreds of people entered police stations to report crimes, and as a detective many of those crimes would be murders. Such things all get jumbled up in the mind. So his recollection of this incident differs from the official reports. Not only is this not significant, it isn't even surprising.
Walter Beck, we know, was the first policeman on the scene. Beck was also a highly experienced officer whose word should not be doubted and who was present at the inquest, and he in no way contradicted either Bowyer or McCarthy in their description of the events of the morning. This I would consider far more significant. |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1097
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 7:12 am: | |
These people that are considered all liars, or mistaken, were actually alive in 1888, which unfortunately none of us were.
I agree with this. None of us were there personally and so why do we doubt nearly everything some of the people say? It doesn't make sense to me. To me, personally, it shows people unwilling to look at the evidence.
I know memory fades with time, but as Richard says, the memory of traumatic events do not fade, or at least hardly fade. I still remember all sorts of things that I considered traumatic, like my granddad dying 6 years ago and even my great great aunt dying when I was only about 4 or 5 years old. I know that what I remember about that event when I was very young was true because I relayed it to my mum and she said she was surprised I remembered something that many years ago. None of these events were as traumatic as Dew's experience would have been and so I don't see why so many people doubt him purely because it goes against everything we previously had thought.
When something is traumatic then it tends to imprint itself in your memory and is more reliable than other memories.
The only option for people unwilling to believe in his memory is that he was a liar.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess  |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 584
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 7:22 am: | |
Sarah,
Disagree with you totally. People sometimes entirely forget traumatic events--everyone deals with traumatic memories there own way.
Now consider this, what is more likely--That McCarthy sent someone to do a bed check that morning and make sure that everyone in his dwelling, including a woman who was behind on her rent was all hunky dory or that he sent someone to collect that rent? Let's see....I know what option I am going with.
Second, what possible reason would he have to lie at the inquest? He certainly comes off much nicer in the first version of events than he does in the second.
Memories do change over time. Having someone come running into the police station is NOT traumatic as Alan pointed out. And it is entirely possible that what he witnessed in that room sort of canceled out the memories leading up to it, so he had to fill in that part.
You say we are unwilling to accept people's accounts. Which account should we accept then? The ones given under oath a mere days after the event, or the ones remembered some 50 years after the fact?
(Message edited by ally on May 04, 2004)
|
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 62
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 8:00 am: | |
Hi Sarah,
The facts are that memories are just not that reliable, and traumatic experiences are often the least reliable of all. Studies have shown this time and time again, regardless of whatever unverified anecdote you can pull up and try to present as proof to the contrary.
With all due respect, it's not up to you to put words into our mouths and say that if we don't automatically accept his personal account from 50 years after the fact that we are calling him a liar.
But then if you accept all of Dew's writing on this incident as accurate, you are actually calling both McCarthy and Bowyer liars, because their recorded statements contradict his. So the question now becomes why do you doubt the people we know were there and gave written statements to the police the same day and take the word of someone who isn't even mentioned in the official records as being there saying something different decades later?
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 584
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 8:21 am: | |
Basically it all comes down to this. There are three possible scenarios. One of these three MUST be the truth.
1. Walter Dew made a mistake when he called the person who reported the crime a "youth".
2. Bowyer and McCarthy both lied in their police statements and at the inquest about who reported the crime, for no apparent reason, and despite the fact that a senior police detective who knew the truth, Walter Beck, was in the room at the inquest, and Beck meantime for reasons of his own decided that this was okay and that he would not contradict them.
3. Beck was not present when the youth entered the police station, and he lied at the inquest, together with Bowyer and McCarthy, all the newspapers of the day were wrong in stating that Beck was the person to whom the crime was reported, and Dew made a mistake in saying that Beck was in the police station at the time.
Which of these scenarios seems most likely? |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1099
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 9:29 am: | |
Ok, ok, everyone,
I'm just saying that, because we've all heard one version, it doesn't mean that other options shouldn't be explored.
Alan,
If someone was hazy on the age of the person who reported the crime then why would he emphasize by calling him a youth?
Ally,
I guess you must be right, but whenever I've talked to people about past memories of traumatic type experiences (which is quite a lot) they all seem to remember them perfectly and so I presume that all those people were just doing what is natural, but if in your experience some people have forgotton these types of experiences or that they are hazy then I accept that.
I also always remember the parts leading up to these types of memories, although I must admit that my memory is very good and I can remember many things for long periods of time.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1079
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 11:47 am: | |
Alan,
No 1, No 1, No 1 !!
What do I win ?
Im with you all the way on this old chap. Time and memory conspire to produce a recollection which will be incorrect......especially after 50 years. Other events that happen soon after will influence what was actually seen and done. What remains is a actual memory of what caused the fear or excitement but the rest is, well just not noted with detail.
Last year a guy ran at four of us with a pair of shears. Could anyone of us describe him ? No. Could we tell you how he picked them up ? No. But we all could tell you the shears had Spear & Jackson on them.
Im not stating Dew was a hooky Bobby nor that he was an 'idiot'. Far from it.
Im just saying he was human.
Monty
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1101
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 11:56 am: | |
Monty,
You can't possibly say that no-one can remember what exactly happened 50 years ago to them. What about people with photographic memory? Also, as I said above, I have a very good memory. My nan could tell you things that happened to her when she was 9 years old, down to every tiny detail, and she is 82 now. Not everyone's memory works in the same way.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
Kelly Robinson
Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 23
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 12:14 pm: | |
Whether or not one can remember details, one can remember the event itself. Dew might have embellished or misremembered details, but I'm sure he'd know if he saw the body or not.
I feel confident trusting the major points, and take details with a grain of salt.
Kelly |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1080
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 12:22 pm: | |
Sarah,
Yes I can. I just did.
Every last minute detail after 73 years ? Everything ??
There will be something your Nan is wrong on.....and you, its human. Its the way we work.
Everyones memory does work in the same way and it deteriorates over time.
There are 3 categories of memory. Encoding (what did we see), Storage (remembering what we saw) and retrieval (recalling the memory). Its retrieval which is the doozy. Its at that stage we can input fiction which is later, over time, passed off as fact.
This is where I think Dew went wrong. It just goes to show. If a thing is worth remembering...WRITE IT DOWN.
Why do you think Rossers carry notebooks?
Monty
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 856
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 3:12 am: | |
Hi,
At the beginning of Dews account of the murders, he admits that after fifty years , some dates may be wrong, but he also states at the beginning of the account of the 9th november, his memory is vivid.
His station was commercial street, that is a fact, he remembers talking to a fellow officer, when a young man runs in, after a few moments, when this person is able to regain some composure, realizing the significance , both Dew and beck, using this young man as the pilot, rush out of the station, grapping as many constables they could muster, and proceed to Dorset street, and hence to millers court.
The above scenerio , seems a plausible account, also the fact that they would have questioned the young man 'how he came to find the body?
If I am right , there was an account in one of the newspapers, that residents of the court were concerned for the kelly woman , as they could not make her answer.
This would back up Dews Account of the Youth , beng sent by McCarthy to check on her whereabouts, as concern was being shown.
I am baffled that a lot of members, can disagree that Walter Dew was confused to the age of the person who reported that incident, and confused to the age of the person giving an account once they had reached the court.
One surely can not dismiss, that if McCarthy wanted to get a message to commercial street police station in a hurry, he would have sent a young fit person , not Bowyer[ indian Harry] who unless we are all wrong was a much older person.
They might have followed on, but there is no account of that, and I would have suspected that McCarthy or Bowyer, possible the latter stood guard at the spot , until police arrived.
I appreciate that Dews account of that morning is different than the inquest, but why?.
I Cannot see how Dew, Beck, and a number of police constables rushing to the scene, being led by someone , who Dew describes a a young man, [ also a youth] fade from memory, the whole incident from start to finish , must have been extremely traumatic.
Richard. |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 66
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 3:58 am: | |
Richard,
So Dew says that his memory is good, and therefore we should just believe him?
On Nov. 12, 1888, Thomas Bowyer testified: "We both went to the police-station, but first of all we went to the window, and McCarthy looked in to satisfy himself. We told the inspector at the police-station of what we had seen. Nobody else knew of the matter. The inspector returned with us." [emphasis added]
On that same date, Jon McCarthy testifies: "I followed Bowyer to Commercial-street Police-station, where I saw Inspector Beck. I inquired at first for Inspector Reid. Inspector Beck returned with me at once. "
Also that same date, Beck testifies and does not correct the story as told by Bowyer and McCarthy.
Fifty years later, someone who, according to the witnesses, wasn't even there has a completely different story (youth appears, Beck and Dew are both in the station and follow him, no Bowyer or McCarthy anywhere in sight) that, not surprisingly, makes him sound more important as he's writing an autobiography, and we are supposed to believe him and throw out what everyone else said?
Why?
It sounds like you believe Dew because you think his version of events sounds better. Of course it sounds better, he had 50 years to work on it.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 857
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 5:29 am: | |
Dan.
So in other words, there is no doubt in your mind, that Walter Dew simply lied.
He was not even there, The whole recollection was fabricated, he wrote a book recalling incidents, which did not exist.
The press released a report which appeared to have come from concerned residents, but obviously they were all telling porkies.
A bit like Maxwell, Maurice Lewis, and the man of imagination Hutchinson, all of these people deliberatly told outrageous fibs.
Then we have Schwartz, Best and Gardner, Lawande and associates, Mrs Long too.
Packer was dreaming also.
Not to mention Farsons imformant [ grave spitting] or even farson himself, and the whole of Associated redifusion.
Mrs coxs neice, was inventing words that were never spoken.
Dan. The list of liars is endless., we shall say soon that the Ripper murders never happened, it was all invented, so the world would have something to analyze.
Sorry to sound rude, but if we continue to dismiss every thing people remarked on in 1888, and since, we have absolutely no base.
Regards Richard. |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 586
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 6:26 am: | |
Okay Richard. Let's say that fifty years later, Dew was right. Now please explain why in the world McCArthy, Bower and Beck all perjure themselves over who went to the police station?
|
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 67
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 7:12 am: | |
Richard, no, I am not saying they all lied. That's ridiculous and, to be honest, I am bloody sick to death of people claiming that. It's like you are saying I better believe anything anyone ever says or else I'm a mean person attacking their honesty.
I am saying that people can be wrong, and often are. Memories are like that.
And, by the way, some do sometimes lie. You're fooling yourself if you think that everyone is always 100% honest. But I find it plausible that all of the people you mention might have thought they were telling the 100% truth. But we KNOW some of them didn't, because the stories contradict each other.
In this case, somebody is OBVIOUSLY wrong, because we have two different stories. We have three people who testify to one thing at an inquest three days after the event, and someone else saying something completely different 50 years later in a book about his life.
Hrmmmmmmm... Let me think, who is probably right?
As far as Mrs. Cox's niece goes, I have asked you at least twice now to give your source for the statement you claim she made, but you ignored it both times. But again in that case the niece decades after the fact gives (allegedly, since so far you are the only one claiming to know anything about it) a different story than the one the witness testified to at the time. A story told to the police during an investigation is always going to be way more trustworthy than some alleged story passed down the line years later. Obviously so. I mean, come on.
For a statement to be considered to be likely to be reliable, it should:
*Be made as soon after the event as possible
*Be made by the person involved and not passed on from person to person
*Not involve occasions in which the teller is trying to make themselves sound important
*Fit in with the known evidence, including other more reliable statements
*Be made before the person can compare stories with other people and possibly adjust their memories to fit in with other people's views
*Not have unlikely details (like Hutchinson's testimony)
*Not be rewarded financially (like Hutchinson, again)
*Be told without leading questions by the interviewer, as those can influence the recollection of the memory
*Not involve traumatic events
*Not be induced as part of a state of altered consciousness, such as hypnosis, which increases the susceptibility to give answers that you think the interviewer wants to hear
If something diverges from those criteria, it should be trusted less. The more it diverges, the less it should be trusted.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
