|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Bob Hinton
Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 48
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 2:58 pm: |       |
I would like to relate a little story about something that happened the week before last.
I was sitting outside a local pub having a quiet drink, when I noticed a chap standing at the rail of a multi story car park a few yards away. Before I could do or say anything he had jumped.
I moved so quickly I think he and I arrived at the same spot (nearly) at approximately the same time, unfortunately due to the effects of gravity and a concrete surface his arrival was a lot messier than mine.
He landed almost flat on his back, striking the back of his head first. He was bleeding copiously from his eyes, nose and mouth and I thought he was dead. However I noticed some bubbles coming from his mouth showing that he was still alive.
I placed him in the recovery position and as he turned over I could see the back of his head was severely damaged with brain matter seeping out.
I attended him alone until the police arrived. He was defibbed on the spot by the paramedic, and rushed to Morriston hospital by air ambulance.
He died two days later.
Now the reason I went into such detail is that it is important to get the facts straight from the only person who was there at the time - me. The extent of his injuries is also relevant.
The following week I was in the same spot having another quiet drink when I overheard the rather loud conversation of a group of people at the next table. One man was holding forth about the incident.
" Oh yes" he said " I was sitting right here when it happened" ( whether he was or not I really couldn't say) the man continued. " Yes he jumped over and landed without hurting himself, climbed back up and did it again"
I was absolutely amazed to hear this, and even more amazed over the following days to hear that this story had actually taken hold and was being repeated and believed by many, many people.
The point is in a hundred years time whose account will be accepted? Mine or theirs? Obviously if any researcher worth his salt does his job properly and gets hold of the medical report the extent of the mans injuries would completely rule jumping up and going for another try out. But how many of us are guilty of latching on to a bit of information and accepting it?
The funny thing is that when I heard this chap speak, I was sure in his own mind he believed exactly what he was saying. Could this self delusion be the answer to conflicting evidence - Caroline Maxwell for example?
Bob Hinton |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 177
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 3:26 pm: | |
Bob,
Your anecdote confirms much of what I've been saying here. We need to take all of the witness testimony with a grain of salt.
B |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Sergeant
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 33
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 4:47 pm: | |
Hi Bob,
A fascinating, if tragic, way of discovering a
pitiful truth about the human race - tell a
lie that is amazing enough times and it "becomes
the truth" to the listeners after awhile (the
Nazi, Joseph Goebbels, made a similar statement
once). I would just correct one point you made
in passing. You said if the future researcher is
doing his work (or her work) properly, she should
have the hospital record. Yeah - if the hospital
record exists anymore. I work in a state agency,
and I recently got a claim that involved medical
problems stemming from a 1992 crime. The hospital
wrote back to me that under New York State law,
they are not required to keep a medical record
over seven years, so I could not get the hospital
record on this incident. I feel certain that
similar rules apply in other jurisdictions.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Alexander Chisholm
Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 15
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 10:18 pm: | |
Hi Bob
Many thanks for providing that interesting, if tragic, example of witness testimony in action. But I think your post also raises an interesting point on interpretation of evidence.
As I see it, any future researcher, really worth his or her salt, would not be able to arrive at any definite conclusion about whose testimony to believe from the medical report.
The medical report would confirm the result of the final jump. The second witness claims the jumper survived his first attempt uninjured. The medical report would allow no certainty on the possible accuracy of such a claim.
The extent of injury caused, and recorded in the medical report, might suggest the unlikelihood of any first jump being survived uninjured, but falls from great heights have occurred with remarkably little effect on those concerned. So no competent researcher 100 years hence could draw definite conclusions one way or another from the medical report. Of course, they could offer their assumptions, based on their preferred interpretation of available evidence, but that's a different kettle of frogs altogether.
To add to the mix, your inability to confirm whether or not the second witness was present would have to raise questions in the minds of future researchers about how observant you were on that occasion, or how well you remembered the event.
All in all, I think our future researcher might have little room for certainty in this case, Bob. Are you sure you were there? 
Best wishes
alex
|
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 60
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 4:40 am: | |
Hi Bob
Beware the future researchers' compromise solution - you were there, but you weren't all there!
Robert |
Bruce Tonnermann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 1:58 am: | |
This story has nothing to do with witness testimony, but has much to do with braggadocio. A strange analogy to draw. |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 167
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 9:39 am: | |
Bob Hinton,
A sound point. I myself have been guilty of taking witness testimony as a 'definite', in this case.
Also, much respect to you for attending the the man until help arrived.
|
Bob Hinton
Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 50
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 10:13 am: | |
Bruce,
Would you care to expand your point?
Bob |
Saddam Hussein The Dictator
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 10:13 pm: | |
Common sense is missing in the above. 100 years from now a competent, truth-seeking thinker, if not merely a researcher, would analyze all the information about the case, taking account of both eyewitness reports. (S)he would then compute the distance fallen and the surface landed on, and would reasonably determine that witness #2 was incorrect.
Maxwell is a different story. Her testimony was confirmed by two other people--unlike the story of witness #2--and is not inherently implausible--like surviving a long fall is. That doesn't mean she saw Mary Jane Kelly--only that she might have.
Catch my drift? Maxwell demands more work.
SHTD |
Bruce Tonnermann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 2:28 pm: | |
I hardly see how you can compare a conversation overheard in a pub with someone supplying verbal testimony to the police.
Many such conversations may be overheard in pubs in relation to sensational recent events. If the person had been approached by the police to provide his story as a witness to the incident the following would have happened:
1. He would have probably backed down and admitted that he did not witness the incident at all and was merely bragging that he was a witness and did not actually know what had happened.
2. If he had stuck to his untrue story, flying in the face of the obvious fact that the unfortunate person was dead, he would have been dismissed out of hand by the police as a witness.
3. Either way the story would have not held up in the witness scenario.
Two points are worth noting in your story. It seems odd that the fact that someone had actually died was not obvious and widely known. It in no way may been drawn as a parallel with any witness used by the police in 1888. Even in the case of Mrs. Mortimer her story was treated with scepticism at the time and not generally accepted at all. |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 55
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 04, 2003 - 8:35 pm: | |
Dear Bruce,
Unfortunately I don't have the same faith in witnesses backing down and telling the truth when confronted by the police. Don't forget you have to establish what you mean by truth. As I pointed out the chap was speaking with such conviction that I'm sure in his own mind he was speaking the truth.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by your last paragraph about someone dying being widely known. Although in this particular case there was a lot of confusion about this.
I phoned the hospital the day after the incident and was told he was seriously ill. Teletext and Ceefax didn't actually carry the story until the Saturday, and there was nothing at all about it until I saw the Thursday paper saying that he had died on the Sunday. Now the intersting thing is there were still people going around on the Wednesday saying with absolute conviction he was still alive!.
My point is this. In this incident, which was well witnessed and documented within the space of one week, even with all the advances of communication that we have nowadays we have confusion about:
The actual jump.
The injuries sustained after the jump. I'm afraid Sadaam or Radka whatever his name is is wrong in his assertion that a competant researcher would quickly get to the truth. The researcher would find out the man sustained fatal injuries from a fall. However whether those injuries were sustained after one jump or two would be impossible to acertain, especially if his first jump resulted in no injuries!
How long the man survived his injuries.
Now don't forget this only happened a couple of weeks ago and already we have confusion! Add another hundred years and is it any wonder we are having such a hard time.
I would recommend "Analysing Witness Testimony" edited by Anthony Heaton-Armstrong as vital reading for anyone interested in just how unreliable witnesses can be!
Bob
|
Bruce Tonnermann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 2:43 am: | |
The point is missed by the poster here. I did not say that I had faith in the fact that witnesses would 'back down and tell the truth' when confronted by the police.
In fact, I am well aware of the vagaries and foibles of some witnesses. What I was saying was the illustration used of drawing a parallel between a loud-mouth overheard in a pub and a witness quizzed by the police over an incident allegedly witnessed is a bad one. It is more relevant to cite the many cases of actual witnesses being wrong as to what they believed they had seen, rather than this odd example. It's almost as if the teller of this story wanted a reason to air his experience on these boards.
Perhaps the fact of actual death, in this case, may have been shrouded in confusion, but there was no doubt that the person was badly injured and rushed away to hospital. The pub braggart, according to the story, said he was unscathed and walked away.
This was obviously a case of a person deliberately inventing to gain attention in the pub and cannot be compared to a witness actually interviewed by the police in order to elicit a coherent story.
Again, I say, I would not argue about the unreliability of witnesses, that was not the point I was making. |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 58
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 9:26 am: | |
Dear Bruce,
First off I was christened Bob - not poster, you do have my permission to address me as such!
I think if anyone is missing a point here its you. If you had bothered to read my post correctly you will see that I said:
"Yes he jumped over and landed without hurting himself, climbed back up and did it again"
and not as you seem to think:
"according to the story, said he was unscathed and walked away. "
The reasons for the chap making the statement are immaterial the importance is that other people believed him and if questioned about the incident later would have no doubt repeated the story believing it to be true. If you think the analogy is a bad one, then you are perfectly entitled to your opinion ( I heard a saying the other day about opinions it goes " Opinions are like ......)
I'm not quite sure what you mean by:
"It's almost as if the teller of this story wanted a reason to air his experience on these boards."
I'm not sure I need a reason to air any of my experiences if I so wish, in exactly the same way you don't need a reason to contribute to these boards. You are free to relate any of your own experiences at any time, we are all waiting with breath bated eager to hear them!
yours
Bob
|
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 214
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 11:11 am: | |
All,
If you don't trust Bob's anecdotal evidence, here's the real deal:
You can find this all at the website: Errors in Eyewitness Identification Procedures
-------------------------------------------------
Errors in Eyewitness Identification Procedures
Abstract
Eyewitness testimony may be questioned on three scientific grounds. First, visibility conditions may be poor - low light, poor weather, etc. Second, many research studies report that even unde good visibility, humans are poor at facial identification. However, the validity of this research, much of which is performed in artificial and unrealistic situations, has often been challanged ...
Introduction
Jurors treat eyewitness identification as
compelling evidence in both civil and criminal trials. The strength of eyewitness testimony is demonstrated by a study (cited in Loftus and Doyle, 1992) that recorded verdicts in a mock trial. Two separate sets of the jurors heard evidence differing only by the presence or absence of an eyewitness. With no eyewitness, only 18% of jurors gave guilty verdicts. Addition of an eyewitness identification increased the proportion of guilty verdicts to 72%. Moreover, even when the identification was impeached, the guilty rate was still 68%. Several other studies have similarly found that juries tend to base their decision on a confident eyewitness identification even when other factors (such as poor visibility or bias) question its validity.
Although jurors rely heavily on eyewitness identification, there is overwhelming evidence that eyewitness identification is highly fallible and that eyewitness confidence is a poor guide to accuracy. Here are just a few examples:
A recent study (Wells, et al, 1998) examined the first 40 cases where DNA exonerated wrongfully convicted people. In 90% of the cases, mistaken eyewitness identification played a major role. In one case, 5 separate witnesses identified the defendant.
Huff (1987) studied 500 wrongful convictions and concluded that mistaken eyewitness identification occurred in 60%. This is an amazingly high number since eyewitness identification is an important factor in only 5% of all trials (Loh, 1981).
Cutler and Penrod (1995) examined eyewitness identification accuracy from controlled studies performed in "natural setting." In the typical study, a person enters a convenience store and performs some memorable action (such as paying in pennies) to ensure drawing the clerk's attention. Later the clerk views a photospread and identifies the "customer." The percentage of correct identification ranged from 34-48% and the percentage of false identification is 34-38%. It is hard to know how far to generalize such studies, but they suggest that eyewitnesses are almost as likely to wrong as to be correct when identifying strangers. Moreover, these results occurred until highly favorable circumstances: extended duration, good lighting, clear visibility, and no "weapons focus."
Why is mistaken identity so common? One reason is poor encoding at time of initial perception. This could be due to poor visibility (bad lighting, brief duration, long distance, etc.) or to the tricks played by human perception. A second reason is faulty memory. Memory has several quirks which affect reliability, including 1) low resolution (a remembered face is not as clear as one actually viewed), 2) the tendency for memories to be constructed so that missing information is supplied from expectations/biases or from an external source (TV, newspaper, other witnesses, the police, etc) or from other memories and 3) systematic perceptual distortions in memory (small sizes grow and large sizes shrink, color are remembered as brighter, etc.)
...
Conclusion
Although eyewitness identification is highly fallible, it still carries great weight with jurors. There are some situations where identification is more likely accurate. For example, if the suspect is someone previously known to the victim, then high accuracy is more probable. When it comes to strangers, however, identifications are frequently in error. Lastly, eyewitness confidence provides only modest assurance that the identification is correct.
... |
Scott Medine
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 80
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 4:33 pm: | |
Everybody seems to be forgetting one big item ................... the police investigation.
It is true that not all police officers and detectives are stalwart citizens. It is also true that evidence gets mishandled and misplaced. However, these cases of mishandled evidence, police officer impropriety, etc.. are few and far between.
With this in mind, a case should never go to court hinging only on eye witness statements or a signed confession from the perpetrator. The prosecutor would be laughed out of court let alone be forced to watch his witness be turned inside out by a skillful defense attorney. All witness statements and confessions have to be backed by sound evidence. Hardcore, indisputable physical evidence is best, but when that is not available then hard to refute circumstantial evidence is required.
I feel sure that the police officer investigating would have discounted any such statement given by the guy Bob over heard. I am also sure any future researcher would also check into the police records. This would lend considerable credence in validating any statement made by a witness.
Peace,
Scott |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 219
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 4:49 pm: | |
Scott,
The main issue that we have is that many of these witnesses, and the statements that they made, weren't given to the police, or aren't recounted in the police files.
They are recounted in the press reports, and we all know that accuracy in reporting wasn't the (apparent) pillar of journalistic integrity it is now.
B |
Scott Medine
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 81
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 8:36 pm: | |
AND..... Who are you going to believe. The police reports and records or the newspapers. True, the media may shed light on a certain aspect of the case, but the police reports would contain actual investigative notes and reports, medical examiner reports, warrants ( here in the US found in the Clerk of Court Office) photos et al.
In the Victorian Era the police sciences were not as refined as they are now, but the police reports still hold a wealth of information. For example, if the police discount a witness ....that could be considered a clue as to the witness' credibility.
One hundred fourteen years from today, I would hope that the hypothetical researcher would have the good sense to consult the police records along with any news media accounts of the incident. I would hope he or she would have the intelligence to compare the post mortem notes, police accounts and media coverage and determine that the guy Bob overheard was full of do-do.
SCOTT"S HELPFUL HINTS.......... 
A little helpful information for anyone here in the US looking into present day crimes. If the police records are still sealed due to the crime still being considered under investigation, there may be a chance that a search warrant was executed on a particular home, office, car, et al. If you have a suspect and know this suspect's address you can search the Clerk of Court's records for any search warrant executed. The Clerk will have copies of the warrant and the return. The warrant has to list the probable cause for the search. This will include information not covered in the media. Things like statements from witnesses, cause of death, time of death and the crime, bullet caliber size, firearm type ( semi-auto or revolver) any evidence found at the scene linking the crime to the individual suspected, whether forced entry is suspected or not, items taken from the victim, the list goes on and on. Most of the information found here will be information that the police will with hold because its stuff that only they or the killer will know. By law they have to include this information in order for the judge to sign the warrant. Also listed on the warrant are the items the police will be looking for. They can fudge a little on the probable cause but have to include the items they are looking for and where they will search for the items. The problem with fudging the probable cause (with holding some information)is that this usually means the scope of the warrant is narrowed.It is also important to keep in mind that they CAN NOT RECOVER ANY ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE WARRANT. THEY ALSO CAN NOT SEARCH IN AREAS NOT COVERED IN THE WARRANT OR AREAS WHERE IT IS REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT AN ITEM BEING SEARCHED FOR CAN NOT BE HID. In other words if they are looking for a gun they can search a bread box but they can not search a jewelry box.
Once the warrant has been executed, they have to file a return with the court and the judge who signed the warrant. In most jurisdictions, this return has to be filed within twenty four hours after the search has been executed. The return list everything that was siezed by the police.
Peace,
Scott
|
Kris Law
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 3:40 pm: | |
Hello All,
I believe I understand what Bob's point was, as it was ridiculously clear.
I have read many, many Ripper books over the years, and I can't say how many times I have read a certain authour discount another author's suspect because witness A said the Ripper had a light brown mustache, while witness B said he had no mustache at all, and witness C said he was 6 feet tall, while witness A and B both said he was 5' 5". so obviously this suspect could NOT be the killer. I have read statements such as this time and time again by several reputable authors. Invariably I wonder "what if this witness was mistaken though?"
I think what we should remember is that this case was extrememly famous at the time, and it wouldn't be crazy to imagine that some of these witnesses were talking just to hear themselves speak.
I think the analogy was apt, if not more than slightly disturbing.
-Kris |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 144
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 2:02 pm: | |
hi,
i haven't read all of this thread (warning!!)
i just think look at someone and try and say how tall they are?
i don't know!!¬!! its hard to tell thats my point
how tall does kat slater look for example, i don't know but i bet we all think different answers
jennifer |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 145
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 2:02 pm: | |
hi,
i haven't read all of this thread (warning!!)
i just think look at someone and try and say how tall they are?
i don't know!!¬!! its hard to tell thats my point
how tall does kat slater look for example, i don't know but i bet we all think different answers
jennifer |
Mark Groak
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 6:15 pm: | |
You may be on to something. Kat Slater lives in the east end and is known to have a vicious temper...Maybe we have a new suspect here! |
Dustin Gould
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 3:01 pm: | |
Bob,
I'm sorry you had to endure what you did, but your experience makes a good point in regards to 'witness testimony'. The fact that something so tragic and mind-altering could happen directly infront of someone, yet they couldn't recall it with much accuracy, or they outright embelished on it, makes me question just how much substance we should put in witness testimony. Or, maybe a better question, should we put any? Consider the host of variables or problems one may encounter with a witness testimony. The person's mental state, degree of vision, degree of sobriety, the circumstances under which the incident was scene, personal motives of the witness themself, and the list goes on. All factors to consider when deciding whether or not a witness is credible. It makes me question whether we shouldn't just do away with it altogether. |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 162
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 12:04 pm: | |
Dear Dustin,
You ask some very good questions. I think the best we can do when dealing with witnesses is to ask ourselves 'Is this logical? Is this likely?' You would be amazed at how much dross you can dispense with by simply asking these two questions.
For example a witness says ' I heard A whisper to B such and such' Now that would mean that the witness had to be practically on top of A & B to hear such a thing. Is it likely that such a conversation would take place between A & B with a stranger breathing down their necks?
Witness says 'Ah yes I saw A take out a red handkerchief and give it to B' Now if witness is several feet away from A & B, the exchange took place in the dark and there was no illumination it is impossible to say what the colour of anything is. Try it for yourself!
Using these two simple questions you would be amazed at what can be revealed.
all the best
Bob |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 173
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 2:27 pm: | |
Some people are more visually oriented than others. The brain is a processor of sensory input. We are all individuals. Some of us process visual input extremely well. Often such people make good portraitists. They also make good witnesses. They are said to have a "photographic memory".
Others process auditory input extremely well. It would be important to pay attention to what that witness heard. Such individuals can be said to have perfect pitch. Some of them can recite back long discourses after hearing them only once or twice.
In theory you could have people with exceptional taste, smell and touch processing skills (I expect some jokes to come of this statement).
The other thing that happens is that if you see a crime happen, especially if you are in physical danger yourself, or injured and in pain a lot of intense emotion enters the picture. This can affect the witness one of two ways. In the first instance the emotion is so strong that the cognitive and mnemonic parts of the brain are unable to function and later memories are confused and unreliable. In the second instance the opposite happens. The intense emotion causes every minute detail to be burned into their brain. The expression, "I'll never forget it as long as I live." is an example of this.
If we want to determine whether a witness had a certain sensory aptitude back in 1888 it would seem an impossible task. But there is one clue and that is the person's occupation. Most of us choose a job that we can be fairly good at. We instinctively have a feel for what we can do well.
An obvious example would be a situation where two eyewitnesses gave a conflicting description of a perpetrator and one was a portrait artist and the other was a radio announcer. We can at least get some pointers this way. |
Kris Law
Sergeant
Username: Kris
Post Number: 30
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 3:43 pm: | |
Hello Diana,
That's a very interesting point. I do wonder, though, if your memories wouldn't be much much sharper if the incident happened to you, as opposed to you simply witnessing something. The emotion is much sharper if you are directly in contact with the situation.
Most of the witnesses in the Ripper case wouldn't have known at the time they were witnessing something important until afterward (with the possible exception of Israel Schwartz) and it seems unlikely that most of them would be able to remember clearly details in the dim gaslight.
For example, Hutchinson's testimony is utterly laughable. Light eyelashes? Pshaw! |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 330
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 11:18 am: | |
Bob,
This tale is tragic and I have only just now read this thread but one thing sticks out in my mind that may stick out in future researcher's minds. You didn't notice if the other man had been there at the time as well, so people may argue that you may not have seen the guy jump the first time, although I have to say it is very unlikely that he jumped once and landed unhurt, only to go back up and do it again.
Just over six months ago, we had someone jump off our main town car park. He was also alive at the bottom but died the next day in hospital. The difference here is that, unfortunately he was drunk and acting like a fool as he tried to jump from one part of the car park onto another which has a gap in the middle, but unfortunately he fell through.
Sarah |
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 1:16 pm: | |
If we fall into complete skepticism concerning what the case witnesses reported, then I think we have relinquished our ability to solve the case. Skepticism seems to many Ripperologists a powerful tool, at least to start, but too often we follow this muse too far and pay the price.
A lesson I learned in fly tying: Once you've got all your materials (feathers, chenille, yarn, bucktail, deer hair, tinsel, etc.) tied onto the hook, its time to do your trimming to finish the fly. Once you start trimming, however, you tend to get perfectionistic. The danger is to spot too many asymmetrical features and try to trim them all off. At a certain point, one realizes that one is trimming a bare hook.
So also with Ripperology. Plenty of asymmetrical features can be found in the testimony of the witnesses. Certainly some of the testimony is wrong, but that doesn't mean all of it is. What do we need to trim off, and what shouldn't we?
This is the proper modality. Skepticism isn't.
Bullwinkle
|
Jason Scott Mullins
Detective Sergeant
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 68
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 11:29 am: | |
My Word
David that was a clear, concise and lucid thought. I always knew you had it in you, despite what some others have said
Allow me to be the first to congratulate you.
Also for the record, I agree with you about being selective in what we need to trim off and what we do not. Although I would have thought that a given by now, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.
Oh and Merry Christmas to you
crix0r |
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 784
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 1:48 pm: | |
Hi all
Interesting thread which raises some very good points. As witness testimony has played such a pivotal role in Ripperology I think it is very valid to question how, if at all, we can sift the various witnesses to assess their usefulness in our quest.
The witnesses canm in my opinion, be subdivided into various categories. the problem, of course, is deciding who fits into which classification! For openers I would suggest the following categories for consideration:
1) Witnesses who appear to be giving a true account of what they saw, heard etc
2) Witnesses who appear to believe their account to be true but who, onbalance of probability, were mistaken in matters of timeing etc
3) Witnesses who have have embroidered their accounts either for notoriety or material gain
4) Witnesses whose accounts are subsyantially or entirely invented
Two points I'd like feedback on.
1) As the press coverage and high profile of the Ripper case took off, we might logically expect the later murders to attarcta higher proportion of unreliable or attention seeking witnesses. is there any evidence for this?
2) Was there the Victorian equivalent of "cheque book" journalism? That is, would the press have offered money to buy witnesses' stories? Doesn anyone known of any account of a witness being paid to spill the beans to the press?
All the best
Chris
|
Alexander Chisholm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 58
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 8:52 pm: | |
Hi Chris
Although probably more akin to ‘petty-cash’ than ‘chequebook’ journalism, there is evidence to suggest some small financial reward was available for stories.
On 1st Oct. 1888 the Star reports that One-armed Liz, who confirmed she had identified the body of Liz Stride, and Toby, the man who guided the reporter to One-armed Liz, both received at least the price of a bed for their trouble.
The relevant extract reads:
“One-armed Liz” made use of certain adjectives
SUFFICIENTLY EXPRESSIVE
of how deeply she felt on the subject, but the reporter omitted to take a note of them. She did not refuse the price of her bed, nor yet did the unkempt personage who had shown the way to the house. He was outside waiting, and a character he was too.
Best Wishes
alex
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
