Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Sightings

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Sightings

    Thread for listing and discussing the 'sightings' reported from during the time of the murders until years after.

    Debra Arif
    located an article, which by now many are aware of, regarding Dr. Henry Maudsley, who believed he may have run into the Ripper on the night of one of the murders....we're currently discussing the possibilities as to which murder that may have been.

    So...fire away folks....
    To Join JTR Forums :
    Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

  • #2
    Just wanted to "bump" this forum since I think it is an interesting topic. Any particular sighting anyone wanna talk about?

    Comment


    • #3
      Israel Schwartz's sighting of a man and woman struggling on Berners Street is interesting. He alegdlly heard the man shout Lipski!
      Whether this was to an accomplice, Schwartz himself or even the atttacker talking to himself is interesting.
      It is also interesting that Schwartz saw a man on the other side of the stret who looked his way and pursued him, until Schwartz reached a railway viaduct.
      Could the second man just be a frightened bystander?
      Could Schwartz have been economical with the truth?

      Could Jack have an accomplice?

      Comment


      • #4
        Och!

        Hello Sleuth.

        "Could Schwartz have been economical with the truth?"

        Economical? Downright Scots, I should think. (heh-heh)

        Cheers.
        LC

        Comment


        • #5
          Hope I'm not repeating myself here. Thought I posted this but I think it got lost on the way.

          This clip is from "South Wales Echo", 24 November, 1888. I think I know the event referred to but the specific mention of Berner Street is intriguing. On the other hand maybe it is just filling space in the paper.
          Attached Files
          The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

          Comment


          • #6
            Thought I posted this but I think it got lost on the way.

            It disappeared down an unfrequented thread.

            Comment


            • #7
              This thread looks like a decent place to post this next item. It is taken from page 21 of Mike Hawley's newly released book.

              Recently, a compelling study by the Innocence Project out of the School of Law at Yeshiva University demonstrated the weakness of eyewitness testimony. They studied 239 cases where the determining factor for conviction was eyewitness testimony. Shockingly, 73% of these convictions were overturned by DNA testing. Additionally, surveys reveal that most jurors give priority to eyewitness testimony over other types of evidence, believing that human memory is accurate and unalterable. Psychologists explain that false memory is a reality, produced by a process called memory reconstruction.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Joe Chetcuti View Post
                This thread looks like a decent place to post this next item. It is taken from page 21 of Mike Hawley's newly released book.

                Recently, a compelling study by the Innocence Project out of the School of Law at Yeshiva University demonstrated the weakness of eyewitness testimony. They studied 239 cases where the determining factor for conviction was eyewitness testimony. Shockingly, 73% of these convictions were overturned by DNA testing. Additionally, surveys reveal that most jurors give priority to eyewitness testimony over other types of evidence, believing that human memory is accurate and unalterable. Psychologists explain that false memory is a reality, produced by a process called memory reconstruction.

                For far too long now researchers have placed too much importance to the descriptions of persons allegedly seen with Stride and also with Catherine Eddowes the next victim. To put these descriptions in the right perspective and to judge if they can be totally relied upon as being accurate we have to look at the current UK law regarding witness identification. The stated case I will refer to is R v. Turnbull 1976, from this case certain identification guidelines were then adopted. A mnemonic used to remember the various points is ADVOKATE:


                These are what a court of jury must apply when identification isssue are before them.


                Amount of time under observation: How long did the witness have the person/incident in view?

                Distance: What was the distance between the witness and the person/incident?

                Visibility: What was the visibility at the time? Factors include time of day/night, street lighting, etc.

                Obstruction: Were there any obstructions to the view of the witness?

                Known or seen before: Did the witness know, or had the witness ever seen, the person before? If so where and when?

                Any reason to remember: Did the witness have any special reason for remembering the person/incident? Was there something specific that made the person/incident memorable?

                Time lapse: How long has elapsed since the witness saw the person/incident?

                Error discrepancy: Are there any errors or material discrepancies between descriptions in the first and subsequent accounts of the witness?

                I know these guidelines were adopted for use in connection with the identification of modern-day offenders and suspects however; they can still safely be applied to the various witnesses and the description they give from 1888. Taking all that into account I would reiterate that in any event the various witness descriptions are unsafe and therefore should not be relied upon.


                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • #9
                  I'm interested in the general standards of eyesight then and now. Has eyesight got poorer? Or has it improved (disregarding the effects of glasses)? My gut feeling is that in an age when children worked at an early age, people's eyesight would have been superior to that of people who spend hours each day gazing at a variety of illuminated screens. But on the other hand were there food deficiencies in the LVP that may have damaged eyesight?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Robert Linford View Post
                    I'm interested in the general standards of eyesight then and now. Has eyesight got poorer? Or has it improved (disregarding the effects of glasses)? My gut feeling is that in an age when children worked at an early age, people's eyesight would have been superior to that of people who spend hours each day gazing at a variety of illuminated screens. But on the other hand were there food deficiencies in the LVP that may have damaged eyesight?

                    With regards to eyesight today if a witness wore glasses on a daily basis he or she would be asked if they were wearing them at the time of the ID.


                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Robert Linford View Post
                      I'm interested in the general standards of eyesight then and now. Has eyesight got poorer? Or has it improved (disregarding the effects of glasses)? My gut feeling is that in an age when children worked at an early age, people's eyesight would have been superior to that of people who spend hours each day gazing at a variety of illuminated screens. But on the other hand were there food deficiencies in the LVP that may have damaged eyesight?
                      Eyesight has to be better today overall. In Victorian times many illnesses, accidents and other conditions could partially or completely destroy sight. Older people would likely have untreated cataracts and other diseases of the aging eye which can be corrected or partially corrected today.

                      The poorer people back then would not likely have had access to glasses.

                      But I don't think the issue with identification is so much an eye sight problem as it is a brain problem. People see things inaccurately and remember them poorly. One glimpse of a suspect or a crime has to be entered into the memory on a short term basis. Real learning takes place with repeated experiences. It would be interesting to experiment with witness recall and accuracy. What would witnesses remember from one viewing of, say a bank robbery? How much better would their memories become if they saw a video of the action more than once? What would be the differences between short term memory and a more learned experience?
                      The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Anna I think someone did post such an experiment on these boards, but my memory is hazy(!)


                        I believe it had something to do with a JTR conference.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Robert Linford View Post
                          Anna I think someone did post such an experiment on these boards, but my memory is hazy(!)


                          I believe it had something to do with a JTR conference.
                          I don't know about that.

                          Something else to consider, comparing the old times with today, is today's people are frequently distracted by things that WILL impair short term memory such as listening to music on ear buds. Not to mention cell phones and the more complex, multi-tasking lives we live.

                          I just read again, witness statements from the Lizzie Borden case of 1892. People on the street had one or two thoughts in their heads when they saw or did not see whatever. Many were walking to or from one destination, the market, the dentist, their work. Those who had reason to check the time, for example to keep an appointment, remembered what they looked at to ascertain the time. These people remembered their surroundings and what they were doing when they experienced whatever they did. They were able to estimate or support times based on what they were doing and these bits of information were frequently confirmed by others who remembered things. Beside the personal conditions, Victorian era streets would not have been full of noisy, motorized traffic. (London streets of the time would have been crowded but still, motors were barely invented.)

                          Compare that to us today. Glance at watch, check email on cell phone, look for parking space, keep an appointment, find another parking space, check email, go shopping, have hard time finding parking place, meet friends for lunch, check email, pick up kids at school, take kids to sports practice, no time to fix dinner so order pizza, pick up kids........ Just one day's activities!

                          Which group of people would likely be the most accurate witnesses? Not to mention that modern people are filled with TV and films that portray crime, excitement, fantasy. In the old days something unusual would truly have been memorable as a break in somewhat monotonous lives.
                          The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by NorthEast Detective View Post
                            Just wanted to "bump" this forum since I think it is an interesting topic. Any particular sighting anyone wanna talk about?
                            Suspect that BS Man was Simon Morgenstern of 1 Plumbers Row.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by D.J.Adams View Post

                              Suspect that BS Man was Simon Morgenstern of 1 Plumbers Row.
                              Hi DJ Adams

                              on what basis do you suspect it or what grounds do you have for that particular suspicion?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X