Lying Witnesses - Did Sarah Lewis Lie?

[Ben]

Oh for crying out loud, Fisherman.

This poll was set us to establish what people thought about the proposal that Lewis lied. No sane human being, let alone an intelligent one, could possibly have misunderstood this. Are you seriously suggesting that there are posters out there who read Sally’s opening post and thought: “Uh-oh, she’s clearly demanding absolute proof here. I don’t believe Lewis lied at all, but since I can’t prove it, I won’t vote”…?

If you confirm that you are suggesting this, I’ll have trouble believing you, in all honesty. Here is what Sally said in her opening post:

“The poll is specifically to vote on whether you think Sarah Lewis lied to the police/at the inquest; or not.”

There is no possibility of confusion as to what the contributors were supposed to vote on. Your accusation that Sally “botched” the poll is totally without foundation. Of course nobody “knows” the answer. If certain knowledge had been established, there wouldn’t be any need for a poll. You are simply lashing out with irrational accusations and illogical criticisms because you are dissatisfied with the results. I’m not “stepping in and interpreting” the intention of the poll because that would be unnecessary – there is no possibility of misinterpretation, and I distrust the honesty and intentions of anyone who claims otherwise.

Anyone who thinks that Sarah Lewis must be lying because of the details “not tall, but stout” and wore a wideawake is advancing not only an illogical fringe-endorsed idea, but a heartless and unimaginative one. It doesn’t take into account the fact that she was detained within the court on the morning afterwards. It doesn’t take into account considerable sleep deprivation. It doesn’t take into account the fact that she became unwittingly associated with a brutal murder committed a few feet away from where she slept. Fortunately, these aren't points lost of everyone else, including Garry Wroe, whose background is in psychology.

If she wished to gain attention, “not tall, but stout with a wideawake” are hardly the sort of sensational detailed that might have achieved this. So out goes that silly idea. Moreover, she would have "gained attention" anyway on account of where she slept on the night in question. It is very clear that her evidence was taken seriously at least a week after it was divulged at the inquest – thus reassuring everyone else that what you irrationally describe as “faith” in Sara Lewis is merely a recognition of the police’s view of her evidence at the time, and the total absence of any reason to think that she lied. The “Lying Lewis” proposal was bad enough, but to claim that discredited Hutchinson is more reliable that Lewis as a witness borders on an obscene crime against thought. You make whatever “calls” you want, but best not to keep ramming them down people's throats when it's clear they're not swallowing it. Long-winded repetition and omnipresence on any thread involving Lewis/Hutchinson just isn’t going to lend weight to your thoroughly rejected proposals.

It seems obvious to me that you’ve only recently latched onto to this Lying Lewis nonsense because you think it might come to the rescue of Walter’s “different day”.

Regards,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

the most obvious trait of a totally biased person. You have not answered that one yet?

As an example, a person that jumps on any thread discussing George Hutchinson, and systematically argues the opposite to Ben. A person furthermore, who when the known facts being dicussed would tend to support Ben's arguement, finds a thin hollow straw to clutch (and failing that simply makes one up) and attempts to puff it up into an argument by the sheer number of words and posts he writes, in the hope that quantity will make up for lack of quality, and the other side will just get fed up and go away. A person who when he is out argued simply refuses to accept it.

[Sally]

No, Fish..

What I cannot imagine is a "Oh well, it seems you were right all along then" from your side in such a case.

Well, what an imagination you must have then Fish. If you would care to provide evidence for your statements then of course I will consider it.

And that is sort of coupled to the question I asked you before about the most obvious trait of a totally biased person. You have not answered that one yet?

I'm not really sure what you're getting at Fish. Everyone has a 'bias', you included. Of course I have a bias - it's towards the evidence. It doesn't matter to me personally whether Lewis was honest or not - why should it? It's a matter of interest, yes.

But I don't think that's what you mean, is it? I hope this isn't yet another attempt to discredit anybody who challenges your view.

Iīm seasoned by now when it comes to these things, Sally!

I don't know what you mean, Fish, sorry.

Oh-oh, Sally! "In fact"? Youīd wish! Letīs not try and establish guesswork, hopes and suggestions as anything else than what they are. Just like my suggestion that Sarah Lewis may have told porkies is just my best guess, so is your assertion that her elaborations on the loiterer were reason. Not admitting that is throwing sense overboard.

No, Fish. I didn't say that it was a fact that Sarah Lewis told the truth. I said that there was no 'faith' in Sarah Lewis. The presumption of her innocence, which most people appear to subscribe to is the logcial conclusion based on the evidence. That is the fact.

I donīt. And I for one would not claim that I did when I didnīt, the way you just did by naming your supposition that Lewisīelaborations were reason a "fact".

No, as explained above.

Now, try and calm down and accept that I challenge your views (and "facts") on totally fair grounds. I draw my deductions from another angle than yours, and therefore I end up with a different result. THAT is a fact!

I will if you will, Fish. So, no more 'Hutchinsonians', then?

PS. In Galileoīs case, it was a billion to one... Never celebrate what you do not fully understand

What's to understand? It's a basic poll. The results are evident. Fact.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Oh for crying out loud, Fisherman."

I always do faced with faulty polls like this.

"No sane human being, let alone an intelligent one, could possibly have misunderstood this. "

With respect, Ben, your prehistory when it comes to posting against me does not make you my first-hand choice when it comes to establishing sanity. And, equally with respect, I live in a world where polls are everyday occurences. I have studied information technology at the University, and I have seen how bad polls work. In short, I am a much more qualified judge of these things than, say, an actor would be.

And this is a bad poll, believe me.

If you care to read my posts a bit closer, you would, though, see that I in no way exclude that a better poll would perhaps not have changed the outcome. If the question "Does the fact that Sarah Lewis changed her testimony inbetween police report and inquest mean that the value of her testimony is significantly diminished" had been put, there is the chance that those participating in this poll - and they are rather few, mind you - would have answered "no".

I canīt tell.

And you canīt tell.

And that is a shame, since it would have provided us with a real possibility to comment on the principal question in this issue.

Polls are treacherous things, Ben. You need to realize this. I will show you what I mean by supplying YOU with a few questions, with - as in your case - no other alternatives to answer than by means of "yes" or "no", respectively. Here goes, Ben:

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

What would be your answers to these questions, Ben?

You see, robbing me and potentially lots of other posters of a viable option to answer the poll in this thread is exactly what makes me cry out loud. I think that answering my two polls above would put you in the exact same situation. In fact, I donīt think that either of us should take it upon us to make a poll - we are speaking for one side each in a conflict that has - incredibly - caused a good deal of bad blood, in spite of the fact that it should be quite uncontroversial, and therefore, we lack the kind of credibility we would need to do such a thing.

"Here is what Sally said in her opening post:"

... and then there is what she asked - and they are not one and the same. Which is why I say that it is a bad poll. Asking "Do you think that Sarah Lewis lied?" would have been a whole lot better, but it would still not cover the spectre that needs to be covered.

"There is no possibility of confusion as to what the contributors were supposed to vote on."

On the contrary. Claiming to ask one thing and asking another is EXACTLY what causes confusion.

"You are simply lashing out with irrational accusations and illogical criticisms because you are dissatisfied with the results."

Eh - no. I care very little about the results. Keep in mind that they represent less than a dozen people having been asked a question that has no answer. And I am not quite as dependant as you seem to be on what other people think, Ben. Itīs all good and well to exchange thoughts, but such a thing in itself should not be the only - or even the primary - cause for changing your mind. That, at least, is how I see things. You may see it differently.

The rest of your post I have already responded to numerous times. Of course, you take it somewhat further by writing: "The “Lying Lewis” was bad enough, but to claim that discredited Hutchinson is more reliable that Lewis as a witness borders on an obscene crime against thought", but that will have to stand for and reflect on you.

But I must say that I find your sentence "It seems obvious to me that you’ve only recently latched onto to this Lying Lewis nonsense because you think it might come to the rescue of Walter’s “different day”" rather sly, by implying that the theory of a lost day somehow was in need of any rescue.

It is not.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"a person that jumps on any thread discussing George Hutchinson, and systematically argues the opposite to Ben."

No. Disagreeing with Ben is not what I am looking for here, Ruby. Try again!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"I don't think that's what you mean, is it? I hope this isn't yet another attempt to discredit anybody who challenges your view."

No, Sally, that is not it. The sign of a totally biased person is that such a person cannot comprehend that he or she IS biased, simple as that. As long as you can say "God, you are correct, that was biased of me, you are not beyond help, but when that trait disappears, the race is over.

"I don't know what you mean, Fish, sorry."

No further comments.

"I didn't say that it was a fact that Sarah Lewis told the truth. I said that there was no 'faith' in Sarah Lewis."

Oh well, I will quote you then: "what you see as 'faith' in Sarah Lewis is in fact reason"

So! This leaves us with two possible interpretations:
1. You say that what Lewis stated and I called faith is reason, and that this is a fact.
2. You say that it was reason of me to say that it was faith.

My advice to you is to drop this as quickly as possible, unless you can PROVE that reason prevailed in Sarah Lewis. Canīt do that, can you?

"I will if you will, Fish. So, no more 'Hutchinsonians', then?"

That would rest in your own hands, Sally.

"What's to understand? It's a basic poll. The results are evident. Fact."

... aaand Gaileos poll was just as basic! And the results just as evident: a billion to one. The problem being that the billion were wrong and Galileo right. Fact. THAT`S to understand, Sally!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“And this is a bad poll, believe me.”

I don’t. Sorry.

It's just you who says it's a faulty poll.

And only because you're unhappy with the results.

You make this more obvious with every post.

Your criticism of the poll has been exposed as ridiculous. Sally’s poll clearly and unambiguously invited people to vote yes or no to the question of whether they thought Lewis’ lied. It is a very good poll because it is straightforward, and because it avoids the sort of semantic fannying around and obfuscation that would obviously be at home in a poll of your construction. Remember that we’re not addressing the question of “diminished value” being placed in her testimony, but your claim that Lewis was responsible for deliberate invention, i.e. lying.

“You see, robbing me and potentially lots of other posters of a viable option to answer the poll in this thread is exactly what makes me cry out loud”

Well don’t waste time moaning about it here. If you really think you’ve been robbed of the opportunity to select an option that adequately reflects your opinion, why not make your own poll? There has been a lot of a bad blood occasioned by the recent Lying Lewis proposals, and this is to be regretted, but this would not have been shed if you had agreed to disagree and left it there rather than taking the incessant approach to debating. Your tenacity and enthusiasm for the subject are commendable, but it’s essential to develop an awareness of when people just aren’t buying a certain idea.

“Asking "Do you think that Sarah Lewis lied?" would have been a whole lot better”

That WAS asked.

Again, do you seriously think that the poll was a demand for proof either way, and that anyone was seriously deterred from voting because they thought it was?

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"It's just you who says it's a faulty poll.

And only because you're unhappy with the results."

Iīm sorry? I seem to remember that I just explained that I do not care much about things like these - least of all if I am of the meaning that a poll is misconstrued. Am I to take it you donīt accept my word for this?

I will say, though, that you make rather an obvious figure in the context - you rest your case against two things: Hutchinson being a liar and Sarah Lewis being corroboration for Hutchinsonīs being in place on Thursday. So of course, when not only ONE but BOTH of these things come under fire, you feel very much threatened. And if you had really regarded my stance an - what was it again - "obscene crime against thought", you could of course have laughed me off. But instead you reel between hotblooded argumentation combined with rather outrageous accusations, and the odd, half-hearted effort to try and look unshaken, and it all makes for a very clear picture: you are somehow scared stiff by my stance. In that context, it becomes rather amusing when you claim that I am having trouble "saving" Walter Dews suggestion!

"If you really think you’ve been robbed of the opportunity to select an option that adequately reflects your opinion, why not make your own poll? "

Didnīt you read my last post? Because I donīt think that any of us SHOULD make polls, representing, as we are, two sides in a conflict. Furthermore, no poll will change history, but I think I have said that before too?

"don’t waste time moaning about it here."

I donīt waste any time at all. Whatever I do, whenever I do it, I work according to a schedule. Thatīs my intention, at least!

"That WAS asked."

Oh! Then I got the wrong poll, for in it, it was asked "Did Sarah Lewis lie?"

Try and chill, Ben. I wonīt be able to prove your scenario wrong - as yet.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

By the bye, Ben - I am still awaiting your answers to the two polls I put to you. Are they coming any time soon, by chance?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

No, Sally, that is not it. The sign of a totally biased person is that such a person cannot comprehend that he or she IS biased, simple as that. As long as you can say "God, you are correct, that was biased of me, you are not beyond help, but when that trait disappears, the race is over.

You think? How convenient. That allows you to claim that everyone is biased, doesn't it?

Yes, everyone who disagrees with you is biased, but as they are so biased, they don't even realise they're biased?

What?

So in effect you are saying that you have a carte blanche to label anyone who disagrees with your stance as biased and unreasoning?

Oh yes, and beyond help

Oh, and with an 'agenda'

Oh, and as a 'Hutchinsonian' (to qualify for which one does not actually have to express a view that Hutchinson was a murderer, apparently - but simply has to express an opinion contrary to your own)

You frequently throw these allegations into your posts Fish, but actually it looks from what you say as if you are the one who is biased; and you are the one with an agenda.

The poll is simple, straightforward and without bias. It appears to be only you who thinks otherwise.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“Am I to take it you donīt accept my word for this?”

I’m simply saying that the impression you’re currently conveying is one of disappointment with the poll results (because they reveal the extreme unpopularity of your very recent proposal), and that you’re lashing out with irrational criticisms of the poll because of this. You say you’re not bothered by what people think, but I find that this claim ill-accords with your continued persistence in repeating your anti-Lewis dogma. It is obvious that nobody agrees with you, and that you’re not changing anyone’s minds, so why keep insisting on it very vocally and very aggressively? There must be some intended "audience" here.

I don’t consider that any of my proposals have come “under fire”. In order to “fire” you require ammunition, and “Lying Lewis” fails spectacularly to qualify as such, especially when it’s only emanating from one water pistol – yours. Yes, I do tend to get rather irritated and “hot-blooded”, but not because of any perceived threat to my ideas, but rather my intense dislike of bulldozer posting tactics. If you present an idea that doesn’t go down too well, it’s best not to keep screaming about it, in my opinion.

Regards,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

maybe we should have a poll on 'is Sally's Poll bias ?'

[Sally]

maybe we should have a poll on 'is Sally's Poll bias ?'

I'm sorry Ruby. I consider you far too biased to vote on a poll like that

(Note to self: I must take this seriously. Repeat 100 times.)

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"You think? How convenient. That allows you to claim that everyone is biased, doesn't it? "

It provides all people with the same means and opportunities, Iīm afraid.

"You frequently throw these allegations into your posts Fish"

It was not an allegation at all, Sally - it was a question whether you know how to spot a totally biased person.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I’m simply saying that the impression you’re currently conveying is one of disappointment with the poll results"

No, Ben: the poll results are of no interest to me. Thatīs as it should be, given that I donīt think it was a useful poll.
Similarly, if I HAD thought it a useful poll, I would have been more interested in seeing what people think - but not inclined to believe that it affects history retrospectively.

I donīt see how I can explain this in any better manner? I thought I was crystal clear on it?

"You say you’re not bothered by what people think, but I find that this claim ill-accords with your continued persistence in repeating your anti-Lewis dogma."

Of course I care what people think. But I donīt care how they respond to useless polls, thatīs just it. I want people to see all options, and I donīt want anybody to call an obvious possibility "obscene". Fair is fair.

"I don’t consider that any of my proposals have come “under fire”."

Turn around, then, and you will see it.

"Yes, I do tend to get rather irritated and “hot-blooded”"

You do, donīt you? And I am having a VERY hard time accepting that you are not annoyed in the least by the built-in specifics of my scenario. I may be rushing to conclusions of course!

Now, those two polls, Ben ...?

The best,
Fisherman