Lying Witnesses - Did Sarah Lewis Lie?

[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.

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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

[Ben]

Thanks, Sally, for the voice of reason.

Spot on and succinct!

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Evidence? No? Thought not. "

I canīt recall ever claiming that I had. All I recall is a certainty that you have as much evidence for YOUR view. Not that it puts us on level terms in my mind ...

My wording:

"Unfortunately, in all of this she spoke of a man outside Crossinghams, and, equally unfortunately, this was the approximate place where George Hutchinson had stood the night before, if I am correct."

"Evidence? No? Thought not."

The evidence that she spoke of a man outside Crossinghams lies in her police report and the inquest files. The evidence that if I am correct, Hutchinson stood at the approximate same place as the loiterer, lies in Hutchinsonīs police report.

"Faith is the enemy of Reason, right?"

At times, yes. Not at others, though.

"Firstly - there is no evidence which either implies or suggests that Sarah Lewis was not considered an honest witness at the tmie."

The police report is evidence. The inquest files are evidence. They do not tally. Since we have no recording telling us that Lewis was considered a bad witness, the offhand chance is there that she was not. But it would reflect poorly on police, press and community.

"Secondly - there is no evidence which either implies or suggests that Sarah Lewis was not actually an honest witness."

The police report is evidence. The inquest files are evidence. They do not tally. That in itself implies tells us that she EITHER remembered things quite late OR tried subconsciously to help the police OR told porkies. And none of us are going to be able to establish which applies in this case. We have not a shred of evidence that the police did follow up on her tip and that may tell us something. But no matter what, lying is one of the three opportunities that may apply here, and the criminal history is absolutely crammed with people who have been revealed as liars subsequent to their telling differing stories to the authorities. That is all that needs to be recognized, and after that we are all free to put two and two together.
Once again, to those who panic morally: I am not saying that Sarah Lewis WAS a liar, I am saying that I MYSELF think that it is a very good suggestion. The best, in fact.

"Thirdly - there is no evidence which either implies or suggests that anybody, other than possibly Walter Dew thought that Hutchinson might have mistaken the night"

But that will do very nicely, thank you very much! Why would we lament that we do not have the whole police force on record, saying that Hutchinson would have been mistaken as to the days, instead of welcoming the fact that we actually DO have a renowned policeman and detective offering this information? Tons of views and facts and insights and information have gone lost to us, so letīs make do with what we have!
My hunch here is that if we had had PC Mizenīs memoirs telling us the same thing, you would have said that two old policemen with rotten memories are no guarantee either, or that Mizen did not associate with the ones in the know, und so weiter. What I cannot imagine is a "Oh well, it seems you were right all along then" from your side in such a case. 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?
Iīm seasoned by now when it comes to these things, Sally!

"Fourthly - what you see as 'faith' in Sarah Lewis is in fact reason. It is the logical deduction, based on the evidence we have at this time."

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.

"If you have additional evidence of which we are unaware, then by all means, let's see it."

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".

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!

The best,
Fisherman

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

[Sally]

10 - 1

Fisherman

In Lewisīcase, I speak for a scenario where she did not tell the truth, but instead offered testimony that is most probably misleading.

Evidence? No? Thought not.

Unfortunately, in all of this she spoke of a man outside Crossinghams, and, equally unfortunately, this was the approximate place where George Hutchinson had stood the night before, if I am correct.

Evidence? No? Thought not.

That, and that only, I suspect lies behind the faith that people put in Sarah Lewis.

Oh No! the 'F' word again!

Faith is the enemy of Reason, right?

Firstly - there is no evidence which either implies or suggests that Sarah Lewis was not considered an honest witness at the tmie.

Secondly - there is no evidence which either implies or suggests that Sarah Lewis was not actually an honest witness.

Thirdly - there is no evidence which either implies or suggests that anybody, other than possibly Walter Dew thought that Hutchinson might have mistaken the night

Fourthly - what you see as 'faith' in Sarah Lewis is in fact reason. It is the logical deduction, based on the evidence we have at this time.

If you have additional evidence of which we are unaware, then by all means, let's see it. Otherwise, all you have is your opinion, no more or less valid than that of anybody else.

[Fisherman]

Wickerman:

"First, on the subject of Sarah Lewis' pre-inquest statement. As we read through it line by line, especially when we get to, "........ I only heard it once, I did not look out the window, I did not know the deceased." It seems apparent to me Sarah Lewis is responding to questions".

That would be more or less a correct assessment, Jon. And in itīs turn, that would depend on the police naturally having a strategy and a formula for things like these; if they had simply allowed the witness to speak freely, they may not have gotten answers to all questions that they deemed relevant. On the whole, I think we must open up for the possibility that a witness may also have volunteered material that was NOT asked for, and that was regarded as important enough to find itīs way into the report, but the bottom line will be that the police report we have in Lewisīcase would have been a documentation of an interview where the police conducted the proceedings.

"We have no idea what the questions were, nor what her complete responses were. All we have are the specific points that the officer deemed relevant for the subject of a Coroners Inquest."

I see where you are coming from, but I cannot agree totally here. If our assessment of this all is correct, and the police asked questions, then all we have to do to find a general picture of them questions, is to look at the answers. For example, the answer " I did not know the deceased" would have been lead on by the question "Did you know Mary Kelly?".
So I think that much as we cannot know exactly what was asked, we can get a good picture of the general areas of interest, as deemed by the police. And one such area was the one focusing on the people she had observed in the street before entering Millerīs court. She was asked about this, quite apparently, and she would reasonably have been asked, I think, to describe as best as she could what she could remember about them. This would have been of great relevance to the inquest. And I think that the passage "I cannot describe him" fits in very well with your proposed scenario of the police asking questions. They would arguably have asked "As you came down Dorset Street and went into the court, were there any people around?" or something to that effect, a question that I donīt think - but I cannot know, of course - was answered by "Yes, there was a man standing outside Crossinghams, but I cannot describe him". My guess is that she recalled and mentioned her seeing a man outside the dosshouse, and that she was subsequentially asked "Could you describe him?". And at that stage, she may have said "No", and the police may have asked nothing more. But considering that this was the only person she DID describe as present in Dorset Street at her police interview, and realizing that the man stood directly opposite Millerīs court, I would like to think that a little more interest was sparked! It think that it is reasonable to believe that the police asked "Nothing? Have you no rememberance of how tall he was, how old, his clothes? No?", and then Lewis would have added "Sorry, but no, I cannot seem to remember anything at all".

On the whole, it matters little if the police DID ask follow-up questions on this issue. If they did not, they would have deemed Lewisīdenial satisfactory at any rate - she was not able to describe the man.

"the pre-inquest statement is only a brief representation of what she will present at the inquest."

That is correct, on the whole.

"at the inquest her evidence will be directed by specific questions from the Coroner, and on occasion the Jury"

That too is correct.

"That being the case we should allow that Lewis was not free to express every detail that came to mind as if she were at a free-forum."

That is a bit more debatable. Michael Kidney shows us this - what he said was not governed by the coroner or the jury to any full extent. And the same opportunity stood open for Lewis too; she could add things along the line, although the testimony as such was given itīs main shape and form by the questions asked by coroner and jury.

"Therefore, equally we should not accuse Lewis of, on the one hand, holding back evidence ..."

Agreed - further information that Lewis may perhaps have been able to provide may have gone lost because a certain question was never asked. But I donīt think that Mrs Lewis has been accused of withholding evidence, Jon!

" ...or on the other hand, embellishing her previous statement."

Ah! This is a different bird altogether! For it was not exactly as if she was not ALLOWED to furnish a description of her loiterer and his actions at the stage of the police report, was it? Instead, it would seem that she was asked about this very thing - and provided the answer that she could not describe him at all.
Now IF we had had the feeling that what Lewis had to say about the man was in any way suppressed at the stage of the police report, then you would have had a point here, but I cannot rationally see that having happened. Can you?
No, she WAS asked, and she DID say that she had nothing to offer descriptionwise, and therefore, when she suddenly tells us that he was stout, short, clad in a black wideawake (some reports add that he was dressed in dark clothing) and watching the court as if waiting for someone to come out, it is not the release of a flood of information that was previously dammed by the police, but instead something that means that we must question her credibility as a witness severely. This, apparently, is what Paul Begg recognizes too - Lewis either remembered, subconsciously wanted to please or told porkies. There are no other alternatives. If she had said the same thing at the police report, we would not be discussing the differing relevance of these options, but instead simply accept that we would not have any reason to question her veracity. As it stands, though, she delivered something that would never hold up in a court once it was realized that it swore against her earlier account.

"I guess I have to admit my biase is to defend these witnesses :-)"

I would not call that a bias, Jon, and I donīt think you have one. Not at all, in fact. I think you have instead fallen prey to a good upbringing and a will to be as decent as possible towards people.
Myself, being perhaps less of a gentleman, I approach this question from another angle. My main concern is to stay true to my convictions, and in this case, my guess is that Sarah Lewis provided the inquest with details that were the products of her imagination, either as the result of a wish to please or as the product of a wish to gain attention and become the sensation of the day in the Ripper investigation. That was no small feat, incidentally!

I do not have any monopoly on where to sort Lewis in. I can only offer my best guess. And I do so in order to clarify exactly where I stand. I think that Sarah Lewisī wish to enjoy a Rippercoloured fame got the better of her. I do not blame her for that - as such, I am not a condemning person when it comes to matters like these. It would be a perfectly understandable thing to do on her behalf.
But just like I said, my being of this sentiment does not mean that Ripperology is forced to accept it. Others will disagree. But reaching the best possible understanding of a phenomenon comes not from agreeing to rule out possibilities that may somehow upset people. We should not agree that the Ripper cut Mary Kellyīs breasts off as the result of slipping with the knife. It would make the affair less sordid, and it would allow for a less sinister interpretation of the Ripper, thus allowing him the benefit of a doubt in a very gentlemanly fashion. But to try and understand as best as we can, and as a collective, a weighing together of all the views in the community of Ripperologists must be done. And in this case, the ones opting for a slip of the knife would in all probability have been outweighed by the ones speaking for a darker option.

In Lewisīcase, I speak for a scenario where she did not tell the truth, but instead offered testimony that is most probably misleading. Unfortunately, in all of this she spoke of a man outside Crossinghams, and, equally unfortunately, this was the approximate place where George Hutchinson had stood the night before, if I am correct. That, and that only, I suspect lies behind the faith that people put in Sarah Lewis. And it is an obvious call to make, I can see that. But I try to se a little bit further! I donīt see, for example, any follow-up on her loiterer, in any shape or form. Admittedly, the description was a vague one, but one would have expected a description of a man standing outside a murder venue at the approximate time of the murder, and described as watching that spot intently, to evoke at lest some interest on behalf of the police. But I donīt see that interest, not in actions and not in memoirs. What I DO see, however, is a follow-up, albeit on a lesser scale, of the information Hutchinson offered, a full week after it was presented to the police. And thus I make my call!

The best, Jon!
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

...And in this case nothing is asked about whether changing your testimony inbetween police report and inquest points to a lesser truthfulness than the one we award those who stand by their initial statements.

Hi Fisherman.
Perhaps I can share a couple of observations.
First, on the subject of Sarah Lewis' pre-inquest statement. As we read through it line by line, especially when we get to, "........ I only heard it once, I did not look out the window, I did not know the deceased."
I seems apparent to me Sarah Lewis is responding to questions, this statement is not a continuous flowing narrative given by Lewis, but a compilation of responses recorded by the interviewing officer.

We have no idea what the questions were, nor what her complete responses were. All we have are the specific points that the officer deemed relevant for the subject of a Coroners Inquest.

Next, we move to Lewis's Inquest testimony. If you have Stewarts 'Ultimate Sourcebook' you will notice that many of her responses are divided by a dash, "-".
Typically, these dashes, "-", separate individual responses to questions. Some authors leave out these separators and present Inquest testimonies as if they are free-flowing narratives, which they are not.

Given that the pre-inquest statement is only a brief representation of what she will present at the inquest. And, that at the inquest her evidence will be directed by specific questions from the Coroner, and on occasion the Jury. That being the case we should allow that Lewis was not free to express every detail that came to mind as if she were at a free-forum.
Therefore, equally we should not accuse Lewis of, on the one hand, holding back evidence, or on the other hand, embellishing her previous statement.

I think we are all familiar with the scenario where a court official will ask the witness to, "tell the court in your own words how the events unfolded that night".
This does not appear to be the situation in the Coroners Inquest. Each witness gives details of themselves & where they live, in their own words, and then, the questions begin.

I guess I have to admit my biase is to defend these witnesses :-)

All the best, Jon S.