| Author |
Message |
    
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 112
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 5:44 pm: |       |
Pearly Poll -- soldier (Tabram)
Mrs. Long -- shabby genteel foriegner (Chapman)
Schwartz -- brown hair, fair complexion, age 30, height 5'5", small brown moustache, full face, broad shoulders, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak (Stride)
Lawende -- age 30, 5'7", fair complexion, brown moustache, salt and pepper coat, red neckerchief, grey peaked cloth cap, sailor like.
Hutchinson -- dandy in astrakhan coat
The only two descriptions that could possibly match are those of Lawende and Schwartz. Schwartz describes a dark jacket and Lawende a salt and pepper coat, but salt and pepper could be dark. Schwartz describes a black cap with peak and Lawende says a grey peaked cloth cap. But dark grey and black are pretty close. Schwartz doesn't mention the red neckerchief, and Lawende misses the broad shoulders and full face. Schwartz says the hair was brown but Lawende doesn't mention it. 5'5" and 5'7" are close enough.
The point is he didn't have time between Stride and Eddowes to change. It is certainly true that witnesses do not have a great track record for accuracy, but a soldier, a swarthy "foriegner", a sailor, and a stagey looking dandy in an astrakhan coat and collar? We've always questioned Hutchinson's Astrakhan Man because he didn't seem quite real. Maybe instead of questioning Hutchinson's veracity we ought to consider that Jack was using disguises? One of the things that witnesses do is that they are unconsciously influenced by what others have said. You would expect some similarity in their descriptions even if it was only because they had read the descriptions of other witnesses in the papers. With the exception of the double event all the other descriptions are wildly different. Again -- disguises? grease paint? padding? |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 361
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 1:02 pm: | |
Hi Diana
I remember someone on the Boards saying that disguises and make-up work quite well when viewed from a distance, but are fairly easy to spot from close-up. I don't know whether or not that's true, but one thing that Hutchinson's man at least would have needed is waterproof make-up, because it was raining that night. I think it also rained on the night Sept 29 - 30. Was waterproof make-up around then?
Robert |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 113
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 5:02 pm: | |
Both Schwartz and Lawende describe someone fairskinned as does Hutchinson. The only time he was swarthy was for Mrs. Long. I would assume that fake moustaches eyebrows and clothes would not be adversely affected by rain. I will now venture forth onto the web to trace the history of grease paint! |
Richard Lawrence
Police Constable
Username: Rl0919
Post Number: 3
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 1:06 am: | |
I think some reservations regarding most of the witness testimony are in order. Witnesses can offer widely varying descriptions of a suspect, even under test conditions where it is known absolutely that they all saw the same person at the same time.
The conditions for the Ripper witnesses were far from ideal. In all cases it was night and the lighting was poor. Mrs. Long only saw her man from behind, and paid him no special attention. Lawende seems to have gotten a decent look, but only in passing. His companions paid even less attention.
Schwartz witnessed an actual assault, and felt threatened himself. This means he paid attention, and there seems little doubt that he saw the person who killed Stride. But the paradox is that eyewitnesses to actual crimes are often so stressed out that they lose a lot of the details.
Only Hutchinson appears to have made a conscious effort to get a good look under non-stressful conditions. But his credibility is suspect precisely because of some of the details of his description. (His suspect was openly wearing an expensive watch chain in the middle of the night in one of the most notorious areas of the city. Right!)
For Schwartz and Hutchinson, there is the additional problem that it is possible the corresponding victims (Stride and Kelly) might not even be victims of Jack the Ripper.
I don't think disguises are needed to explain the differences in these confused and confusing circumstances. And for what it is worth, they do agree in a number of ways. All the parties agree to having seen a white male suspect. He was not obviously old or obviously young. He was dressed normally, not in any outlandish garb. He was of normal height for the time. These are all good things to know, because they can help eliminate some possible suspects. But pinning too much on the witnesses beyond these generalities is probably a bad idea.
|
Martin Fido
Detective Sergeant
Username: Fido
Post Number: 61
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 7:54 am: | |
I agree that Hutchinson's statement contains increasing amounts of highly dubious detail (like the colour of the suspect's eyelashes! Detected under a gas lamp???), and the spats he describes would be quite improper wear unless the astrakhan-collared gentleman had just got up, and proposed to proceed to breakfast and his morning's work after his little dalliance in Spitalfield. But I don't agree that the "big seal with a red stone" makes his watch chain too valuable for wear in dangerous Dorset Street. I have been surprised by people who imagine that the large lump of valueless red glass in a ring I often wear is actually an impressive gemstone of some kind.
All the best,
Martin F |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 387
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 6:46 am: | |
Hi Martin
What do you make of the way Kelly's supposed to have addressed Hutchinson? I think Hutchinson gives it variously as "Hutchinson" and "Mr Hutchinson". The former seems almost contemptuous and the latter too formal, when she's supposed to have known him for some time.
Why not just "George"?
Robert |
Martin Fido
Detective Sergeant
Username: Fido
Post Number: 64
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 7:50 am: | |
Surname only would be perfectly acceptable at that time, Monty. Shaw objected that Oscar Wilde's insistence on being called "Oscar" by his friends and "Mr Wilde" by everyone else was exceedingly uncomfortable in a society where everybody who owned evening dress rubbed shoulders with the intelligentsia and the haut monde and a raft of journalists at theatres and various receptions, and the accepted convention of addressing all men automatically by their untitled surnames removed stiff formality without assuming unacceptable familiarity. (Of course, awful old Tum-Tum would still have insisted on being called "Sir", and no doubt dukes and bishops still put on airs and demanded their graces.)
All the best,
Martin F |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 389
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 7:58 am: | |
Thanks for that, Martin.
Robert/Monty
I thought I'd been feeling strange lately! |
Martin Fido
Detective Sergeant
Username: Fido
Post Number: 65
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 9:30 am: | |
Many apologies for offering you the wrong familiarity, Linford, old boy!
Ever yours,
Fido |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Detective Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 59
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 9:31 am: | |
Robert. Martin and all
Martin,
Wouldn't you agree yhat the "watch chain with the red stone and big seal" would have been enough to fool a would be thief in the relative darkness of the "Do As You Please" It need only take a thief or a gang of thieves willing to take a flyer on its' athenticity to get the man robbed and probably beaten. After all, your ring fools people in good light as far as I can gather. I agree with the rest of your post.
Robert
Thats a good observation I had never given any thought to that before. "Hutchinson" sounds almost dismissive to a man she wanted money from. Why not just" George"? Possibly Hutchinson knew her better than he was willing to let on. He was seen with a murder victim not too long before she died and was observed watching her room for at least 3/4 of an hour. He may have wanted to distance himself from her for fear that the authorities would try to link him to her in a way closer than he wanted and scrutinize him more closely ,as I believe they should have done.
The police dropped the ball on Hutchinson.
Richard and Diana
I would only be truly comfortable putting an eyewitness on the stand if there was someone or something to corroborate his testimoony. That is to say if the identification was made at night in poor light. Identifying the victim and her clothing helps. But even this is far from an ideal scenario.
Schwartz and Lawende may have seen the same man with minor differences in some details. Unless of course Stride was not a JTR victim. If that is true then we are heading round and round in a circular argument.
Best Regards
Gary
|
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 394
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 11:08 am: | |
Hi Gary
I think it was about the time you went for your tests that there was a flurry of activity on the Hutchinson thread, with Bob Hinton posting to it. Then it sort of petered out. I find Hutchinson an interesting suspect.
Robert |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Detective Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 60
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 11:26 am: | |
Hi Robert
Thanks for that, I notice that while I was writing my post Martin was posting his information on the issue of the use of surnames.
Two posts going on at exactly the same time on the same subject by two diffent people.I must be physic. I will be channeling JTR next.
Watch out Pamela Ball
Best
Gary
|
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 164
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 11:55 am: | |
Diana,Robert,
Robert
'STRANGE' ???? Waddaya mean strange ??????
Diana,
I can think of other descriptions that match. Two matching a man who was in the company of 2 victims of Jack, one with a woman who is not so widely agreed as a victim....which makes 3...I think !!
Robert....I mean Monty.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 395
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 12:07 pm: | |
Hi Monty
Maybe I Was Monty's Double.
Robert |
Neale Carter
Police Constable
Username: Ncarter
Post Number: 3
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 12:07 am: | |
Robert, Gary et al,
As we have previously seen on these boards and from personal experience, eyewitness descriptions and testimony are notoriously unreliable. I have been on a criminal jury asked to adjudge evidence relating to identification from witnesses and it was almost always easy for the defence barrister to introduce enough doubt to make it unuseable.
Although our burden of proof is not as strong here, on a scale of total believability to outright fabrication most of the witness descriptions are somewhere in the middle with Hutchinson towards the latter. As Diana observes the descriptions by Lawende and Schwartz do match in several ways and tend to corroberate each other. My interst is in if we consider Hutchinson's astrakhan man to be a deliberate fabrication, why do it? This leads down some very murky paths - perhaps best followed on the Hutchinson board? |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Detective Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 63
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 3:50 am: | |
Hi Neale
You wrote "...it was almost easy for the defense barrister to introduce enough doubt to make it (the eyewitness testimony) unuseable." This is why attorneys cringe when it is time for their eyewitnesses to be put on cross examination. It is just too easy to cast doubt on their identifications and many an eyewitness has been made to look like a proper fool on the stand.
I recall seeing one alleged eyewitness forced to admit he was legally blind on the stand. Yet he had himself convinced that his I.D. was valid. Something similar happened in the Lindberg baby kidnapping case. Although here, you had the added incentive of a large reward motivating the witnesses.
You and Robert are correct. This discussion needs to be taken to the Hutchinson board, as I do not want to repeat anything that has already been discussed or rehash any of the discussions which I may have missed while I was in the hospital a while back.
All the Best
Gary
P.S. The Lindberg kidnapping eyewitness saga would have been amusing if it wre not so much a travesty of justice. I will tell it if there is any interest. |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 403
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 4:16 am: | |
Yes, Gary, let's have the story please.
Robert |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Detective Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 65
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 5:47 am: | |
Hi Robert
When New Jersy Governor Hoffman put his political career on the line by staying Hauptmann's execution so that he could re-examine the facts, he interviewed a man named Amandus Hochmuth, an 87year old chap. Hochmuth testified that he had seen Hauptmann driving by his house in a car with a ladder attached to it.
Hochmuth came to Governor Hoffman's office to collect his share of the reward money which amounted to one thosand dollars. This was a veritable fortune in the depression. Hochmuth turned out to be largely blind due to cataracts.
Hoffman tested his vision by placing an eighteen inch tall vase with flowers in it on top of a filing cabinet and had Hochmuth stand 10 feet away. He identified the object as a womans hat. He realized that his guess was wrong by the reaction of those in the room and altered his sighting to that of a bowl of fruit sitting on top of an unknown piece of furniture. (see "Crimes of the Century" by Gilbert Geis as the most concise report of the story. The Lindbergh books either tell the story or ignore it depending on the views of the authors).
You might want to check out the Lindbergh Message Boards. They have an African-American woman who claims to be the Lindbergh baby. She states she had her sex and race changed shortly after her birth to aid in the cover-up. I should note that the site does not advocate her claims.
All the Best
Gary |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Detective Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 66
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 5:51 am: | |
P.S. I could start a thread on the Shades of Whitechappel boards if there is enough interest. I believe there was one on the old boards, but I will have to check to make sure.
Best
Gary |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 405
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 7:28 am: | |
Fascinating story, Gary. The eyesight business reminds me a little of "Twelve Angry Men" in which, if I remember rightly, the jury work out that an old man who was an eyewitness, actually wore glasses.
The eyesight test here took place in an office.Occasionally there'll be a film in which a defence barrister actually gives a key eyewitness an eyesight test in court - he'll walk a few feet away and then ask the witness what he's holding in his hand, that kind of thing. Does this actually happen in courts?
Robert |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Detective Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 68
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 12:25 pm: | |
Hi Robert
I've never seen a vision test in court. I have heard the question asked as to whether the witness wore glasses and if so whether they had them on at the time of the sighting. Some answers are very suprising, such as hearing someone admit they need glasses but are too vain to wear them.
People get flustered on the stand.
There are some nationally known defense attorney's who may have tried a test similar to the one you describe. But, they have ego's as big as the great outdoors. The lawyer would have to be sure of his victims markedly poor vision or he/she could see the whole thing blow up in his/her face.
Thanks for the feedback on the story. I thought it might shed some light on why the officials in the JTR case were reluctant to issue a reward for information leading to the killer. People will do amazingly dishonest things for money.
The worst case I know of concerning reward money involved the Atlanta child murders for which Wayne Williams was eventually found guilty.
The Atlanta safety director spread out five-hundred thousand dollars in one hundred dollar bills on his desk to grandly illustrate the enormity of the reward money.
You can imagine the chaos that followed.
All the Best
Gary |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 236
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 9:00 pm: | |
Hi, Gary and Robert:
I would welcome us starting a thread on the Lindbergh case, which is certainly one of the most fascinating crime mysteries. The story of the African American woman who thinks she is the Lindbergh boy is hilarious. Reminiscent perhaps of Janice Knowlton's contention that she was sexually abused by Black Dahlia victim Beth Short and that her father killed Short. It just goes to show what people will convince themselves of!!!
In terms of the Ripper case, I think Mathew Packer and George Hutchinson provide examples of two individuals who gave at the least elaborated testimony, if not in the case of Hutchinson, an entirely fabricated story for whatever reason. Packer's testimony changed from what he said to the police to what he told the newspapers, becoming more elaborate in the press reports. I think we can see that Hutchinson was ultimately not believed by the police by the fact that his statement to Abberline languished in the files. It was later ignored by Anderson and others who favored a low class Jew rather than the rich looking foreign- or Jewish-looking man that Hutchinson described.
All the best
Chris |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Detective Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 78
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 9:53 pm: | |
Chris
Glad you got a kick out of the latest Lindbergh baby claimant. A thread is needed.
All the best
Gary |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 102
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 9:24 am: | |
Dear Everyone,
A case I was sitting on once revolved around eyewitness tetimony where a witness identified the defendant in the early hours of the morning at a range of about 35 yards.
I was amazed that the defence solicitor failed to ask the witness, one, if he wore glasses and two how come he managed to identify him in the dark.
As the presiding magistrate you are allowed to ask questions of witnesses yourself so I put the questions to him.
After that I always swore that ever I got into trouble I would be very careful about choosing my defence council! Kavanagh QC it ain't!
Bob |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 409
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 9:58 am: | |
Hi Bob
What was the outcome? Was the defendant acquitted?
Robert |
Christopher Lowe
Police Constable
Username: Clowe
Post Number: 4
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 6:01 pm: | |
Here in Ireland (aka tribunal land) Judges such as Mr Justice Barron use the following method to assess witness evidence in hearings.
"160
ASSESSMENT:
The assessment of credibility in a witness requires the answers to several questions.
(1) Are they a person of character, who would be expected to be telling the truth;
(2) Were they in a position where they would have come by the information
which they claim to possess;
(3) Was that in fact the way in which they came by the information; and
(4) Have they any motive for providing false information.
If the motive is improper, it may so colour the information, as to make it so unreliable
that the other questions need not be posed."
Barron Report (Dublin, 2004)
While it is not flawless it could help in judging the Ripper witnesses
Is mise le meas
Christopher Lowe}} |
