Lying Witnesses - Did Sarah Lewis Lie?

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"There is no 'wrong' question here."

On the contrary. There is nothing right here. All polls that do not offer answering options that cover the full field of repondents are at fault - as is this. There is not even the "Don´t know, no opinion" option about!
I have been perfectly clear in telling you exactly where you have gone wrong, and I have presented to you the way in which the question should have been asked to give a fair assessment of the sentiments among the ones who have an interest in the subject. That is all I can do for you. There is much, much written about these issues, so I thoroughly reccommend reading up.

"It is, in fact, the most straightforward and simple question there could be."

Almost. If you had offered only one option of an answer, it would have been even simpler, Sally! The funny thing is, though, that simplicity is very often the wrong way to go if you need to cover all the ground in a poll. Like I said, there was not an alternative for me, for example, and you did not give any room at all for the ones who have not made their minds up. That is significant for a bad poll.

" If you don't like it, then don't feel obliged to comment further. "

If I HAD liked it, THEN I would not comment. The whole reason for my doing so is to point out that the "poll" is pretty useless. Fair is fair - and keeps me quiet. I don´t rule out that a fair poll would have resulted in your side gaining the most apprentices, but like I have pointed out before: It would not have changed history anyway.

"As for your ridiculous insinuation that the poll was set up to get a specific answer - I fail to see how: a simple 'yes' or 'no' option cannot be said to be leading. It is entirely without bias."

The "simplicity" thingy again, Sally? If it is "simple", it is necessarily good? No.

A bias may present itself in omitting to offer the ones who have not made their minds up any option. And this "poll" effectively hinders those who see Lewis as a potential liar, but who will not go as far as to declare any certainty about it (a VERY wise stance) to state this.

A bias may also lie in not allowing any space for the underlying principal question of an issue. 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.

Another potential bias lies in trying to pass a "poll" such as this off as some sort of evidence, whilst looking away from other options of answers to a question. And in this case nothing is said about Lewis´inquest testimony perhaps being subconsciously concocted from nothing to please the inquest.

A bias always becomes visible in the choices made by the biased party, Sally - as well as the ones NOT made. And simply putting the blindfolds on and placing your hands over your ears while chanting "it was a good poll, it was a good poll, it was a good poll" only shows a reluctance to deal with your shortcomings if you have made all the wrong choices.

At any rate, having said this, I don´t think that there is much more to say. Unless you want to discuss these shortcomings further and perhaps acknowledge them?

Speaking of biases, I suppose, Sally , that you know what is the most significant feature of a totally biased person? I await your answer. A tip: It is NOT that the biased person lies!

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Fisherman

There is no 'wrong' question here. It is, in fact, the most straightforward and simple question there could be. If you don't like it, then don't feel obliged to comment further.

As for your ridiculous insinuation that the poll was set up to get a specific answer - I fail to see how: a simple 'yes' or 'no' option cannot be said to be leading. It is entirely without bias.

Obviously.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"The purpose of the poll was to ascertain people's thoughts on the subject"

Well, believe it or not, Ben, but that should be the object of every poll. How well the poll in question succeeds to establish something intereresting after that is decided by the quality of the question/s asked. And in this case, it left a lot to be asked for - among other things alternatives for those who do not ascribe to knowing that Lewis lied or told the truth.
As a matter of fact, if you voted for the option "Sarah Lewis did not lie", you bit off more than you could chew - for you cannot possibly know this. You can base a guess on the scant information available, but no answering options were around for those who did so. The one/s that voted for "Sarah Lewis lied" are equally saying more than the evidence could allow for.

This is all very basic. Never let somebody who cannot do it properly formulate the questions of a poll. The question you put to people should never need someone like you to step in and interpret them afterwards, telling us that although the question asked A, it should be obvious that B was what was meant; lost cause, then!

"Everyone understands that in order to participate in the poll, all they had to do was vote "yes" if they thought she was lying and "no" if they thought she was telling the truth."

Like I said! I think that most people DO believe that this is the question they answer, yes. But it is not the question that was asked! And the moment you realize this, you also realize that you have misconstrued the poll.
If you had asked "Do you BELIEVE that Sarah Lewis lied at the inquest?", you would at least have asked a question to which it is viable to hold a stance. But you did not (I speak of "you" here, although Sally was the one who did the job. If you think it was a bad job, you should of course object to this). The more interesting thing, though, is that you would probably have gotten another outcome in your "poll" with this question. And if you had asked "Is there a possibility that Sarah Lewis lied at the inquest?", you would have ended up with yet another set of answers.
Actually, asking it that way, all other sets of answers than a hundred per cent "Yes"-answers would have been an intellectual disgrace, since we all know full well that she MAY have lied.

So you see, Ben, what you have on your hands is a worthless poll. Any other question would have tipped the scales in another fashion than the one you opted for. This is not to say that it would have ended up in this or that fashion - you cannot know that until it´s done.

At the end of the day, it is also by and large very uninteresting. If we DID ask the question "Is there a possibility that Sarah Lewis lied at the inquest?" and got a result where each and every voter came up with an assertion that such a thing was impossible, it would not in the slightest way have any impact on the truth behind it all, would it? If Lewis lied, no poll 123 years later would change that fact. If she told the truth, the exact same thing applies.

Polls, by the way, are always interesting, no matter how badly the questions in them are formulated. But that interest is not tied to fixing any fair answer, if the question is really of a low quality.
Polls are sometimes relevant to find a fair answer to a fairly formulated question. That is one step up from the other version. But they still cannot change history.
And if a poll is organized by somebody who has a manifested interest in supporting just the one side in a question, and organized by asking the wrong question - well, then we are back at kindergarten again, believing that a bunch of supporters howling your name means that you are the good guy.
I was rather hoping that we had left that stadium.

"Better luck next time.
(And I'll continue using this little sign-off if you persist in using it, and if you do, we'll just have to see who has the most willigness to win the pettiness battle)"

Oh, that´s an easy thing to decide. You are the winner of ALL pettiness battles, of course! I´ll stop immediately!

The best,
Fisherman

[babybird67]

questions in polls

You're perfectly able to set up your own poll Fisherman but with the question you propose being so vague I doubt anybody would bother voting at all. Generalisations aren't particularly useful in establishing things in a given context when so many other details have to be taken into account. What people are taking into account here when deciding whether Lewis was honest or dishonest weren't just the changes in her evidence which were so minor as to be almost unworth commenting on, but the possible motive for lying, and most importantly any EVIDENCE that she may not have been totally honest.

The overwhelming majority of the contributors to the poll all agree that she was honest. That is because they have the intelliegence to look at the surrounding details of what we know about the case and about Lewis's behaviour and have taken these aspects into account when making their decision.

As I've pointed out before, Hutchinson's evidence changed much more from what he told the Police to what he later told the Press and yet you remain firmly resistant to tarring him with the same brush. Why is that?

[Ben]

The purpose of the poll was to ascertain people's thoughts on the subject, Fisherman, not what they had already proven to be true (which would be utterly pointless).

This is obvious.

Everyone understands that in order to participate in the poll, all they had to do was vote "yes" if they thought she was lying and "no" if they thought she was telling the truth.

Better luck next time.

(And I'll continue using this little sign-off if you persist in using it, and if you do, we'll just have to see who has the most willigness to win the pettiness battle)

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Just thinking aloud here, but I wonder if the only person to complain about the nature of this poll was also the only person who voted “Yes” to the question “Did Sarah Lewis Lie”?

If you are asking about me, I can say that I refrained from voting. None of the alternatives provided answers to my stance.

"The purpose of the poll was to establish what people think, not what they actually know"

That´s fitting, I have to say, given that nobody COULD know. The salient point here, though, is that a poll that could have been interesting was left decapitated, and therefore useless. None of the people who stands somewhere inbetween knowing that Sarah Lewis lied and those knowing that she did not were provided with an answer that suited their respective stances. A poll asking "Is Ben biased?" and offering the only option "Yes" would be just as useful.

So yes; better luck next time!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Just thinking aloud here, but I wonder if the only person to complain about the nature of this poll was also the only person who voted “Yes” to the question “Did Sarah Lewis Lie”?

The complainant in this case does not have a leg to stand on for the simple reason that there is nothing to complain about. Either Lewis lied or she didn’t, and the intention of Sally’s poll was to canvass people’s opinion in this regard. Of course no “certainty” can be reached, but it seems that Sally and everyone else understood that the poll was not intended as an arena for stating definitely ascertained facts (otherwise there would be no need for a poll, obviously), but rather a thread for the expression of opinion. If you think she lied, tick yes; and if you don’t, tick no. It’s perfectly straightforward.

The purpose of the poll was to establish what people think, not what they actually know, and the critic(s) are well aware of that distinction however much they pretend otherwise. If anyone thought that Lewis “probably” lied but couldn’t prove it, they would still vote “yes” on the poll. It IS tremendously insulting to people’s intelligence to suggest they couldn’t have figured this out. Nobody is that stupid. In addition, it is ludicrous to infer that those who don’t believe Lewis lied only voted “no” in the poll because they “owe it to her” not to be critical. Bizarre stuff, truly. The only people making these sorts of inferences are those who aren’t happy with the poll results, and are now resorting to crap excuses for explaining away the overwhelming dissent to their views.

If anyone is misguided and irrational enough to believe that Lewis deliberately invented the vague, non-sensational details “not tall, but stout” for some unfathomable reason, then by all means tick yes. But I’m afraid from my experience the only people who currently subscribe to that view tend to have adopted it very recently in an effort to “help along” some of their equally outlandish and unpopular ideas.

There is no evidence that Sarah Lewis lied.

There is no evidence that anyone at the time thought she lied.

There is no reason to think she would have done.

The results of this poll are therefore both unsurprising and restoring to my confidence in people’s common sense.

As for the question of whether or not Lewis’ testimony’s evidence is important, it is clear from a report in the Echo (19th November) that the police considered it so a week after she provided her inquest testimony. Her evidence was plagiarized by other women who, unlike Lewis herself, went straight to the press. It is these women, not Lewis, who were the obvious “attention-seekers”.

"Better luck next time!" for the "Lying Lewis" theorist(s) methinks

[Sally]

Fisherman

The question that would have BEST said something of interest about this whole affair, however, would have been: "Do you think that Lewis´ changing her testimony inbetween police report and inquest is something that severely diminishes the value of it evidencewise?"

Best for whom? You? If I had asked that question, I doubt anybody would have responded.

I'm quite certain that posters on this forum are familiar with Lewis's testimony - they don't need me to hold their hands with unecessary explanation. The question is very simple - as I have already pointed out: either Lewis lied, or she didn't. That several posters have an opinion regarding this is evident from both the poll and the thread.

Clearly, you think that the difference between Lewis's police statement and her inquest testimony 'severely diminishes the value of it evidencewise'. The point of the poll was to determine what other posters thought, as well as you. Now we have an idea.

That's all, I think.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"I think 'lie' is putting it too strongly in nearly all the cases. It is probably more of a case of getting carried away and trying to be over helpful, in adding details that they imagined later and so forth. Also as I have said before, no two witnesses ever see the same event the same way as their eyes and minds will focus on different aspects, and their recounting of the event will be influenced by their past experiences, preconceptions and prejudices."

On the whole, this may be a wise view of things. As for Lewis specifically, this may have applied too. I am not in any position to make any specific call. But what I AM saying is that my best guess is that she invented details about her loiterer.
I make this call of mine against the background telling us that half a dozen women spoke about the murder cry as something they had heard themselves, something the Star provides a very informative article about. This was the kind of community Sarah Lewis spent her days within, and I don´t think we can say that these persons were trying to be over helpful - it seems much more to me as if they were attentionseekers.

In this context, it deserves to be mentioned, Lechmere, that I very much concur with you that past experiences, preconceptions and prejudices will adher to the testimony given by these people. That is exactly why I say that the picture painted by the Star could quite easily have applied to women like Prater and Lewis too.

There is a difference inbetween saying that somebody lies and saying that a very clear probability is there that this was the case. I am all for showing the people involved respect - but all against stretching that respect to a veil that obscures an understanding of where I stand. I am not laying down any truth about Sarah Lewis. I merely present my take on her and her evidence, enabling other posters to see where I am coming from.
At the end of the day, though, the one important thing is that it is realized that no matter whether Lewis was truthful or not, the circumstances surrounding her evidence tells us that it must be looked upon with the greatest of scepticism. An eager will to be over helpful combined with imagined bits and pieces, as you put it, is hardly the best material to work from!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

I think 'lie' is putting it too strongly in nearly all the cases. It is probably more of a case of getting carried away and trying to be over helpful, in adding details that they imagined later and so forth. Also as I have said before, no two witnesses ever see the same event the same way as their eyes and minds will focus on different aspects, and their recounting of the event will be influenced by their past experiences, preconceptions and prejudices.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"I dont' think we should be particularly surprised if she hurried passed the man she saw on entering Miller's Court."

Read the existing reports and evidence, Sally, and then you won´t have to guess. She did not see the man until she was passing into or even already inside the archway.

Police report:

"when I came up the Court there was a man standing over against the lodging house on the opposite side in Dorset Street ["talking to a female" - deleted] but I cannot describe him."

Inquest:

"When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake."

Daily News:

"In the doorway of the deceased's house I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing."

The Echo:

"She saw a man at the entrance to the court."

East London Advertiser:

"When she went into the court she saw a man standing outside the lodging-house door."

From all of these papers, it is abundantly clear that Lewis did not see her man until she had already reached the archway. It was from a position there she made her observation. Thus she had not much time to take a look at him at all, and thus she would not have sped "past" him, but instead perhaps away from him, walking into the court. I know there is a newspaper report somewhere, but I cannot remember where, that actually says that Lewis STOPPED on the pavement for a while before proceeding into the court, but I seem to remember that whichever paper this was, there were other details in it that did not tally with the rest of the papers, and so it´s value may not be much to lean against in any case.
The bottom line, though, is that the only paper that makes any sort of remark about how Lewis reacted to the man, claims that she actually stopped. No paper, as far as I can remember, says that she hurried away from him. The conception that she would have been much afraid is not supported by the press reports, I think.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"To imagine that the posters on this forum are unaware that they are giving their opinion is merely insulting their intelligence."

Well, that´s where you want to things to end up at all times, is it not? Fisherman insults Sarah Lewis, Fisherman insults the intelligence of the posters, Fisherman insults ...

But the truth of the matter, Sally, is that the questions you ask in a poll will govern the way the answers look. And a minimum requirement when formulating these questions is that they must open up for reasonable options of answering them.
What you did excludes - for example - the opportunity to express a belief that Lewis MAY WELL have lied. You only open up for a verdict of "Yes, she lied" and "No, she did not lie" - and the truth of the matter is that none of these alternatives is one that can be rationally supported since no certainty at all can be reached.

The question I suggested before would have been much more interesting to get an answer to, although it would have been to some degree predictable too - everybody KNOWS that a changed testimony aquires less faith generally than one that is not changed. It goes without saying.

The question that would have BEST said something of interest about this whole affair, however, would have been: "Do you think that Lewis´ changing her testimony inbetween police report and inquest is something that severely diminishes the value of it evidencewise?"

If you had put that question to the posters, you would have done a much better job, you would have gotten much more interesting answers and you would not have asked questions that are impossible to answer, given the evidence involved.

Better luck next time!

The best!
Fisherman

[Sally]

Furthermore..

This is a thread for the discussion of 'lying' witnesses.

The Ripper case is littered with witnesses whose various accounts contain discrepancies. In my initial post on this thread, the question I raised was: what are we to make of these discrpancies?

How do we judge the honesty of a witness? What should our criteria be? Can we even apply any kind of rule to witness accounts? Or are there so many variables as to make it impossible?

The question of witness accounts has been at the forefront of discussion on Casebook recently - in particular, the accounts of Sarah Lewis and Charles Cross/Lechmere. Obviously there are other examples - Maxwell, Morris (Maurice) Lewis, Bowyer, Packer, Hutchinson - the list goes on.

I think this is an interesting arena for discussion, and I would love to know what people think.

Thanks to all who have responded so far

[Sally]

Fisherman

Sorry, but that's ridiculous.

To imagine that the posters on this forum are unaware that they are giving their opinion is merely insulting their intelligence. Nobody knows for a fact - which is so plainly self-evident that it requires no specification.

The options for this poll are simple because it is a simple question. Anybody voting in this poll either considers that Sarah Lewis was honest in her testimony; or that she wasn't. Easy.

Looks like the majority so far think she was honest, doesn't it?

Better luck next time.

[Fisherman]

This, Sally, is the exact way I did not want a poll like this to look like. The reason is that we do not get an answer to the truly pertinent question: Can we use Sarah Lewis´testimony to establish what happened on the morning of the 9:th?

What you will get now is an answer that does not touch on this question. People who think we owe it to the participants of the Ripper saga - particularly those who made the effort to witness - not to criticize them, will of course vote for the no option. People who suspect that Lewis may have lied but are not sure will be reluctant to vote for that possibility. That´s what happens qwhen one does not even include the option "Sarah Lewis may have lied, but we cannot know".
If such a possibility had been offered, it would have been closer to my stance than "Yes, Sarah Lewis lied" - for we cannot be sure that she did. We can, however, think that she PROBABLY did - but since the question asked was not even "Do you THINK that Sarah Lewis lied?" but instead "Did Sarah Lewis lie?", your poll leaves us with a result that is as useful for an understanding as was Sarah Lewis´testimony at the inquest. Not at all, that is.

Better luck next time!

The best,
Fisherman