Lying Witnesses - Did Sarah Lewis Lie?

[Ben]

it was, and is for everybody.

Indeed, Sally.

And fortunately, everyone understood that.

Well, everyone bar one, apparently.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sally]

I speak of "your poll" as a poll on behalf of those who regard Hutchinson as a liar and potential killer.

Fish - That is your view. The poll was not intended for anybody in particular - it was, and is for everybody.

I think we're done here.

[Garry Wroe]

... I speak of "your poll" as a poll on behalf of those who regard Hutchinson as a liar and potential killer.

As opposed to a poll in which an overwhelming majority of participants voted honestly and objectively on the basis of the available evidence.

I live in hope, Fisherman, that one day you will awake to the realization as to the extent of your ignorance regarding the empirically established cognitive processes which mediate eyewitness recollections.

But I’m not holding my breath.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"I put this poll up, for the reasons stated in my initial post. It's my poll, not Ben's - that is factually incorrect."

I know that - and I have in a post to Ben told him that I know that it was your poll, but I speak of "your poll" as a poll on behalf of those who regard Hutchinson as a liar and potential killer.

I could, if you want me to, speak of "Sallys poll"...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Categorically..

Hi Fish

I put this poll up, for the reasons stated in my initial post. It's my poll, not Ben's - that is factually incorrect. Not to want to detract from anybody's glory, or anything, but I'm afraid the credit is all mine.

As you have already made it quite plain that you consider my poll to be useless (your own term) I don't see the point of discussion the actual poll any further, do you?

I'm pleased to see discussion continuing in other directions.

Thanks again to everybody who has voted to date.

[Fisherman]

"You tell me, Fisherman. If you’re hoping to change the minds of those who have already rejected your recently conceived “Lying Lewis” theory, you’re clearly having no success at all. If your repetitious posts aren’t aimed at us, who are they aimed at?"

Who do you write for when you say Hutchinson would have been the killer? The already convinced, the rejectors or the undecided ones? Once you´ve answered that question, you may have a clue about my stance.

"Hutchinson’s police and press statements are not remarkably consistent with one another"

I think so. Sugden thinks so. I know Stewart Evans have expressed thoughts along that line too. So for once, I am not painfully alone, it would seem!

"It is not a virtue to be able to repeat a description of something you cannot possibly have seen in the conditions described."

Nor is it a virtue to claim that you know what the lighting conditions under which Hutch saw his man were like when you really can´t tell.

"As Bob Hinton explained: “Far from dismissing these discrepancies as “not significant” as one author has done, these discrepancies are vital to disproving the validity of the entire statement”"

Wow. That guy would have CRUSHED Lewis!

"As for Abberline's initial “belief” in Hutchinson, it is startlingly apparent that this was later revised when the account was discredited. But both this topic and Hutchinson’s description have been discussed ad nauseam elsewhere, so we will avoid repetition by resisting the temptation to pursue either or both of these done-to-death subjects here."

What has NOT been done to death is the perception that it was HUTCH that was discredited, when it in fact was his STORY! But let´s kill that off now!

"she is far closer to being so than discredited Hutchinson and his differing police and press versions"

Me oh my. No further comments, your honour!

"Yes, and this because I have the ability to ponder, reflect, and reassess, rather than being so utterly and stubbornly entrenched in a conclusion that I’ve already jumped that I cannot revise my opinion. I feel rather sorry for people not only lack this ability, but perceive it as a weakness."

And how about my view on Dew? You are in the habit of quoting a number of passages I wrote about him, if I am not mistaken? Do you feel sorry for yourself in that context?
Sometimes, Ben, consistency is everything.

"As far as I’m concerned, the former group doesn’t even exist."

Oh, dear. That alternative was not open to you. As far as I am concerned, we cannot say that Sarah Lewis lied or was truthful - we can only speculate. But the only options open to ME in YOUR poll was "yes" or "no", and the exact same applies here. So which is it going to be, please? Yes or no?

"Along with every single other witness."

Same thing here, I´m afraid. Yes or no?

"Because the circumstances that were present in Lewis’ case (don’t make me repeat them again) were absent in Hutchinson's."

If you mean that there is a better case for Lewis not being a liar than there is for Hutchinson, I´m afraid that is just a judgement on your behalf. It still applies - and you have acknowledged it many times yourself - that Hutchinson may not have been a liar and a killer.
So why is it that it is not heartless on your behalf to jump the gun and call him so? It is an infinitely much graver allegation than pointing to the possibility of a lie on Lewis´ behalf. I speak of somebody potentiall wanting her fifteen minutes of fame. But you, Ben, point George Hutchinson out as the possibly worst killer that has walked the face of earth. But that does not seem to bother you.

Consistency, Ben, is sometimes everything.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“And what audience would that be?”

You tell me, Fisherman. If you’re hoping to change the minds of those who have already rejected your recently conceived “Lying Lewis” theory, you’re clearly having no success at all. If your repetitious posts aren’t aimed at us, who are they aimed at?

Hutchinson’s police and press statements are not remarkably consistent with one another, and even if they were, it would simply mean that he repeated the same demonstrably false description twice. It is not a virtue to be able to repeat a description of something you cannot possibly have seen in the conditions described. It's like a "consistent" description of a pig flying. Moreover, it is most assuredly “significant” when a witness provides polar opposite descriptions. As Bob Hinton explained:

“Far from dismissing these discrepancies as “not significant” as one author has done, these discrepancies are vital to disproving the validity of the entire statement”

As for Abberline's initial “belief” in Hutchinson, it is startlingly apparent that this was later revised when the account was discredited. But both this topic and Hutchinson’s description have been discussed ad nauseam elsewhere, so we will avoid repetition by resisting the temptation to pursue either or both of these done-to-death subjects here.

“Would you, Ben, speak of a "remarkable consistency" between her two statements?”

No, but she is far closer to being so than discredited Hutchinson and his differing police and press versions.

“So, sort of a change of testimony on your behalf too? You FIRST read the text and was very upset about how Lewis and Prater were treated - then you read it again, and found that they were not treated badly at all? I see”

Yes, and this because I have the ability to ponder, reflect, and reassess, rather than being so utterly and stubbornly entrenched in a conclusion that I’ve already jumped that I cannot revise my opinion. I feel rather sorry for people not only lack this ability, but perceive it as a weakness.

“Is it generally speaking more credible that a witness that is consistent throughout, and never changes his or her testimony is more trustworthy than a witness that changes his or her testimony to a smaller or lesser degree?”

As far as I’m concerned, the former group doesn’t even exist.

“Did Sarah Lewis change her testimony inbetween police report to a smaller or lesser degree?”

Along with every single other witness.

“I would also like to have an answer, if you please, to my question about why you call my suggestion that Lewis may have been telling porkies "heartless", given that you have suggested that George Hutchinson was a liar, a killer and an eviscerator.”

Because the circumstances that were present in Lewis’ case (don’t make me repeat them again) were absent in Hutchinson's. I’m fond of the way you insist on listing “eviscerator” in addition to “killer”, by the way. I think the former is implied by the nature of the crime, somehow.

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"your particular challenge has taken the form of a brand new, high controversial stance that hasn't gone down very well with its intended audience."

And what audience would that be?

"then you will be equally “aware” that Hutchinson was responsible for considerably more “additions” than Lewis, and that the additions in the former case were far more detailed and specific."

You often quote Sugden, Ben. This time I´ll do it for you:

"Two circumstances in particular speak strongly in his favour. The first is the remarkable consistency between his two statements. They each contain information not to be found in the other but there are only two actual discrepancies of fact between them ... Given the length of statements , however, these small discrepancies are not significant. Far more impressive are the numerous points of corroboration (at least forty) between the two accounts."
"A yet more telling circumstance supports Hutchinson. Abberline, an experienced and outstanding detective, interrogated him on the 12th - and believed him."

Would you, Ben, speak of a "remarkable consistency" between her two statements? I know I wouldn´t. Actually, I don´t know of any single person who would - but I´m sure you are the one to come closest!

"you should also recall that I later realised that I had perhaps been too hasty in condemning the Daily News for their observations"

So, sort of a change of testimony on your behalf too? You FIRST read the text and was very upset about how Lewis and Prater were treated - then you read it again, and found that they were not treated badly at all? I see.

"As for this protracted silliness about “polls”, I have already encouraged you to construct your own if you’re hell-bent on it. Since polls are intended for multiple recipients, I can only assume that you meant you wanted me to answer some questions? If so, I would happy to respond to a request."

Good! Then I ask you ever so politely to answer these two questions:

1. Is it generally speaking more credible that a witness that is consistent throughout, and never changes his or her testimony is more trustworthy than a witness that changes his or her testimony to a smaller or lesser degree?
A: yes
B: no

2. Did Sarah Lewis change her testimony inbetween police report to a smaller or lesser degree?
A: yes
B: no

...and after that, I will probably have something to say about polls in general and the one of this thread more specifically.

I would also like to have an answer, if you please, to my question about why you call my suggestion that Lewis may have been telling porkies "heartless", given that you have suggested that George Hutchinson was a liar, a killer and an eviscerator. Is that not a lot more heartless?

Thanking you in advance,
Fisherman

[harry]

In the one instance Lewis could be relating to the physical or facial features,while the additional detail related to dress.So truthfull on both counts.

[Ben]

I have no objections to, and indeed would heartily encourage, any “challenge to my views”, Fisherman. Unfortunately, in this instance, your particular challenge has taken the form of a brand new, high controversial stance that hasn't gone down very well with its intended audience. If this wasn’t immediately apparent to you (as it should have been) when you first advanced it, then this recent poll must surely have illustrated the extent to which it was rejected. The “bad blood” you describe is the result of your continued aggressive insistence on this ridiculous theory’s validity, and confused mindset that anyone who disagrees with you must have a biased agenda, and must be a “Hutchinsonian”.

“I am full well aware that Hutchinson added other things, though.”

Good. Well then you will be equally “aware” that Hutchinson was responsible for considerably more “additions” than Lewis, and that the additions in the former case were far more detailed and specific.

“I seem to remember, Ben, that you were very upset about the way the witnesses were treted by the Daily News in your initial posts on the matter?”

Indeed, but you should also recall that I later realised that I had perhaps been too hasty in condemning the Daily News for their observations, and wrongly concluded that they had accused Lewis of lying. I have no idea what you mean when you say that “others can clearly see” something in that particular report that I can’t.

As for this protracted silliness about “polls”, I have already encouraged you to construct your own if you’re hell-bent on it. Since polls are intended for multiple recipients, I can only assume that you meant you wanted me to answer some questions? If so, I would happy to respond to a request, but I will not, under any circumstances, accede to a “demand” from anyone. If you’re talking about witnesses who provided a police statement AND inquest testimony, every single one of them “changed” their evidence to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the circumstances.

Best regards,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

Are you seriously trying to say that you had three signatures and picked out the one that you personnally thought was the most like Hutchinson's and then submitted it?

It was the one of the three Hutchinson statement signatures which most approximated Toppy’s signatures, Hatchett.

If you did then surelly that must invalidate any conclusion, because you have I think possibly contrived the evidence.

There’s no ‘possibly’ about it.

The results would then be worhtless.

Absolutely, Hatchett.

Garry … was well aware this made any conclusions Leander came to completely meaningless, since bias and selective sampling was involved right from the word go.

It was as clear a case of ‘sampling error’ as I’ve ever come across, Jen, made even worse by the fact that, unbeknown to Mr Leander, the one Hutchinson signature he did see had actually been adulterated.

[babybird67]

Hatchett:

"The results would then be worhtless."

Of course it would be! If a renowned document examiner,

Who didn't examine any documents in this case.

compares two signatures and find then a match,

But he didn't find a match. He stated not only shouldn't his opinion be taken as anything other than a spontaneous and personal one, not based on his professional reputation, but even then did not find a match. He said the possibility of a match could not be ruled out.

then that comparison is obviously totally worthless if not all signatures were involved. Selbstverständlich! Seeing more signatures would arguably ALTER the inherent elements of the first two.

The point was there was a less similar signature allegedly by the same person which Leander should have been given the opportunity to compare with the others before he had been led to make conclusions about the other two. Garry pointed all this out in an excellent post about the subject. As a scientific researcher concerned with the truth, he was well aware this made any conclusions Leander came to completely meaningless, since bias and selective sampling was involved right from the word go. Whether the two signatures he was given the courtesy of seeing changed or not has nothing to do with it.

[Fisherman]

Hatchett:

"The results would then be worhtless."

Of course it would be! If a renowned document examiner, the best Sweden has to offer, compares two signatures and find then a match, then that comparison is obviously totally worthless if not all signatures were involved. Selbstverständlich! Seeing more signatures would arguably ALTER the inherent elements of the first two.

Lovely logic there, Hatchett!

The best,
Fisherman

[Hatchett]

Hi,

I am getting disturbed by the complexity of the views, or should I say the complexity that some of the posters are putting in their views on this poll. The poll is a very simple "yes" or "no". There certainly can be no bias. I would suggest that people should just vote and shut up and await the result. That is what we do in elections, isnt it?

Fisherman, I read your post about Leander. Are you seriously trying to say that you had three signatures and picked out the one that you personnally thought was the most like Hutchinson's and then submitted it?

If you did then surelly that must invalidate any conclusion, because you have I think possibly contrived the evidence.

The results would then be worhtless.

Best wishes.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"It would have been just as interesting (in my view) if a majority of voters had voted 'No'. "

Didn´t they ...??

The best,
Fisherman