Welcome to SoHo Strangler Week by Murdwell. To accompany the series, here's a few extra

details from the police files and the court records. To age your enjoyment and maybe even

help you grant the case. This episode is about the reliability of eyewitness testimony.

Now what I'm going to do with this one, I'm just going to focus on the murder of French

Marie. As you can remember with French Fifi Marie Cotton, there were no one cited

in and around where the murder took place. So we don't actually have anyone that we can

say yes, this is definitely the killer. With Dutch Lear, we kind of have a sighting

of someone who could potentially be the killer. The person who was last seen going

into 66 Old Compton Street with Dutch Lear, but we can't confirm whether that was the

killer. Whereas with French Marie, we've got a unique situation here in that it was

in broad daylight. There were multiple people, not only did people, unlike with Dutch

Lear, where some people got a fleeting glimpse here. People actually stood opposite the

killer. Some of them even spoke to him in broad daylight in normal environments. So this

is kind of, this is almost perfect. And even better, we even know what the killer looks

like. We even know what the suspect looks like. So it's perfect. We can kind of make

a good comparison here. So I'm just going to focus on French Marie. Now with eyewitness

testimony, it's always going to be problematic. The police state that eyewitness testimony

is only ever about 30% accurate. Your eyes are pretty good. It's just how your memory

translates things and what your memory chooses to remember. Because it doesn't remember

everything. It only remembers the pieces it wants to remember. And the rest it tends

to make up, unfortunately. So eyewitness testimony is not good. And we'll prove that with

the next section. Also, the problem with eyewitness testimony, especially in this case as well,

...