Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Photos From Hell : The 125th Anniversary Convention Photo Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
    Big Jon
    Researcher

  • Big Jon
    replied
    Originally posted by Monty View Post
    Ok Jon,

    In your talk you stated -

    "Was this line up good practice? In short no. By giving the witness only one suspect to pick out as Jack the Ripper the police were inadvertently telling the witness that this was Jack the Ripper and merely asking them to confirm the fact. Research has shown that witnesses automatically assume the guilty party will be in a line up."

    We do not know for sure how this I D at the Seaside home was conducted. A line up? Doesn't seem like it to me as the word 'confronted' was used by Anderson ("the moment he was confronted with him"). This was a confrontation I. D.

    Now this serves, primarily, as a means of unsettling a suspect rather than securing an identity. In other words this act was more to try and gain more information from the suspect, or even a confession, rather than ascertaining that the witness saw the suspect.

    This can be very effective and was common for the period, so in terms of 'good practice", it depends on what you are referring to. Identification or ascertaining guilt/confession?

    Monty
    Thanks Neil. It hadn't occurred to me that the purpose may have been to unsettle the suspect, not to identify him. I can imagine though that it was common for the time.

    I was referring to good practice in identification. That by presenting a witness with just one suspect and asking them if they were the person they saw, it isn't the best way to get an accurate identification.

    But I agree if the purpose wasn't to get an identification then that could be quite effective.

    Thanks for raising this mate.

    Leave a comment:

  • Monty
    Author & Researcher

  • Monty
    replied
    Originally posted by Big Jon View Post
    Neil, I'd honestly trust your opinions more than I would some peoples evidence.
    Ok Jon,

    In your talk you stated -

    "Was this line up good practice? In short no. By giving the witness only one suspect to pick out as Jack the Ripper the police were inadvertently telling the witness that this was Jack the Ripper and merely asking them to confirm the fact. Research has shown that witnesses automatically assume the guilty party will be in a line up."

    We do not know for sure how this I D at the Seaside home was conducted. A line up? Doesn't seem like it to me as the word 'confronted' was used by Anderson ("the moment he was confronted with him"). This was a confrontation I. D.

    Now this serves, primarily, as a means of unsettling a suspect rather than securing an identity. In other words this act was more to try and gain more information from the suspect, or even a confession, rather than ascertaining that the witness saw the suspect.

    This can be very effective and was common for the period, so in terms of 'good practice", it depends on what you are referring to. Identification or ascertaining guilt/confession?

    Monty

    Leave a comment:

  • Chris G.
    Registered User

  • Chris G.
    replied
    Originally posted by Big Jon View Post
    Neil, I'd honestly trust your opinions more than I would some peoples evidence.
    Ha ha.

    Leave a comment:

  • Big Jon
    Researcher

  • Big Jon
    replied
    Originally posted by Monty View Post
    Not corrections Jon, no need. It would be unfair of me to insist as I haven't the evidence, yet, to support my opinion for that exact period.

    Besides, it has no bearing on the point made/conclusions draw, which I completely agree with.

    Monty
    Neil, I'd honestly trust your opinions more than I would some peoples evidence.

    Leave a comment:

  • Monty
    Author & Researcher

  • Monty
    replied
    Originally posted by Big Jon View Post
    Neil,

    Thanks for your kind words - I bow to your knowledge of 1888 procedure sir. Have published "warts and all", but happy to put some corrections at the bottom if you can detail what the actual procedure would have been.
    Not corrections Jon, no need. It would be unfair of me to insist as I haven't the evidence, yet, to support my opinion for that exact period.

    Besides, it has no bearing on the point made/conclusions draw, which I completely agree with.

    Monty

    Leave a comment:

  • Big Jon
    Researcher

  • Big Jon
    replied
    Originally posted by Monty View Post
    As I said to you at the time Jon,

    Really enjoyed your talk. Did have an issue regarding the statement taking aspect however I'm being uber picky my friend, and its only my opinion anyway.

    One of the great conference talks I say....not as good as mine though ;-)

    Monty
    Neil,

    Thanks for your kind words - I bow to your knowledge of 1888 procedure sir. Have published "warts and all", but happy to put some corrections at the bottom if you can detail what the actual procedure would have been.

    Leave a comment:

  • Monty
    Author & Researcher

  • Monty
    replied
    As I said to you at the time Jon,

    Really enjoyed your talk. Did have an issue regarding the statement taking aspect however I'm being uber picky my friend, and its only my opinion anyway.

    One of the great conference talks I say....not as good as mine though ;-)

    Monty

    Leave a comment:

  • Big Jon
    Researcher

  • Big Jon
    replied
    I've had a few requests to put the text of the talk online, so here we go:

    http://jlrees.co.uk/jtr-conference-2013/

    Leave a comment:

  • Big Jon
    Researcher

  • Big Jon
    replied
    Originally posted by Bob Hinton View Post
    A book that I have found very useful over the years on the subject of eyewitness testimony is Analysing Witness Testimony: Psychological, Investigative and Evidential Perspectives - A Guide for Legal Practitioners and Other Professionals by Anthony Heaton-Armstrong, Eric Shepherd, and David Wolchover.

    I got mine years ago from the Oxford University Press. If you can get hold of it, it’s well worth putting on your bookshelf.
    I recall using that in university at some point!

    Leave a comment:

  • Bob Hinton
    Author

  • Bob Hinton
    replied
    Eyewitness's

    A book that I have found very useful over the years on the subject of eyewitness testimony is Analysing Witness Testimony: Psychological, Investigative and Evidential Perspectives - A Guide for Legal Practitioners and Other Professionals by Anthony Heaton-Armstrong, Eric Shepherd, and David Wolchover.

    I got mine years ago from the Oxford University Press. If you can get hold of it, it’s well worth putting on your bookshelf.

    Leave a comment:

  • Big Jon
    Researcher

  • Big Jon
    replied
    Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
    Oh yes, I see now. Fantastic idea for a talk, Jon. Hope I can see the video of it sometime.

    You're probably aware that in the Zodiac case, in the early murder that MAY have been Zodiac, a girl was murdered after leaving a library by someone who was in the library and sketched a crude poem on a desk. The police gathered everyone who was there at the same time, had them wear the same clothes and stand in the same spot, in hopes that someone could remember the man who would naturally be missing. It didn't catch the man, but it was a novel idea.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott
    I was not - interesting idea though.

    Leave a comment:

  • Tom_Wescott
    Researcher and Award Winning Author

  • Tom_Wescott
    replied
    Originally posted by Big Jon View Post
    I'm a bit of both Tom!

    I spoke about problems facing the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. Even had a practical demonstration in which I had people remember a black guy as being white and a majority of delegates give a false suspect identification.
    Oh yes, I see now. Fantastic idea for a talk, Jon. Hope I can see the video of it sometime.

    You're probably aware that in the Zodiac case, in the early murder that MAY have been Zodiac, a girl was murdered after leaving a library by someone who was in the library and sketched a crude poem on a desk. The police gathered everyone who was there at the same time, had them wear the same clothes and stand in the same spot, in hopes that someone could remember the man who would naturally be missing. It didn't catch the man, but it was a novel idea.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Leave a comment:

  • Big Jon
    Researcher

  • Big Jon
    replied
    Courtesy of Adam Wood and Lizzie Quinn - our fantastic actors Rafiq and Becky and a picture of them in action:

    Leave a comment:

  • Big Jon
    Researcher

  • Big Jon
    replied
    Originally posted by Monty View Post
    I would like it to be known I was spot on with my desription, plus I knew he wasn't in the line up.

    Where's my medal?

    Monty
    Well done Monty - I will have a cookie sent to you.

    Leave a comment:

  • Monty
    Author & Researcher

  • Monty
    replied
    Jons experiment was pretty similar to that Chris.

    Monty

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X