Lying Witnesses - Did Sarah Lewis Lie?

[Wickerman]

Hi Babybird

Your post has made me wonder about the half dozen or so women that are believed to have 'parrotted' Lewis's story - why would they do this?

Sally.
Apart from one quote offered by Ben, which in my opinion only referred to repeat claims of "murder", are you aware of any other specific instances of this 'parroting' claim (half dozen?)?
Is this a story which has taken on a life of it's own, or is there some real basis behind it?

Historians will often tell you that if you repeat something often enough it will be believed, whether it is true or not.

Thanks, Jon S.

[Rubyretro]

Your post has made me wonder about the half dozen or so women that are believed to have 'parrotted' Lewis's story - why would they do this? Perhaps they might have been (or hoped to have been) paid by the press for their story? Would that account for it? Does anybody know?

[/QUOTE]

Possibly because it made them look interesting and feel more important ?

I would think that people in the area were all gossiping about the murders and adding their own personal theories. Maybe someone who claimed to have
some personal knowledge and have been 'on the spot' would have everyone
wanting to listen to her and buy her drinks in the pub?

[Sally]

I think Mrs Kennedy and Mrs Lewis were demonstrably separate people, because only Lewis was called to give evidence at the inquest therefore given credence by the Police as a genuine witness. If it had been discovered that Lewis was also operating as someone called Kennedy and approaching the Police with different versions of her account, I don't think she would have been called, and there might be some doubt as to her credibility.

Why would the Press recount a tale by Mrs Kennedy if she was really Sarah Lewis? Getting a story from a woman who had actually attended and testified at the inquest would give their story more credence and clout too.

Maybe i am missing something but I cannot see any evidence that they were ever considered to be the same person, therefore it must be concluded that they were not.

Hi Babybird

Your post has made me wonder about the half dozen or so women that are believed to have 'parrotted' Lewis's story - why would they do this? Perhaps they might have been (or hoped to have been) paid by the press for their story? Would that account for it? Does anybody know?

[Sally]

No!, Sarah Lewis did not lie.

There appears to be no evidence that she did so, no.

In saying that I am not including embellishments as lie's. Schwartz embellished his original story when he spoke to the press. Likewise, Packer embellished his story the second time he told it. However, with Packer it was explainable, in my opinion, the questions posed were different.
As we know, Hutchinson embellished his story to the press after he had given his statement to police.

We should accept this as human nature. Also, there is a distinct difference between talking to a policeman, who is often asking very pointed questions, because he knows what he's looking for, and a press reporter who is looking for a tasty yarn, with the press - the more colour the better.

I think you make very sound points there, Wickerman.

Rather than looking for any excuse to label these people as liars we should try to better understand the environment they lived in. In many cases these people were suspicious of police, some were afraid to be telling tales, there could be reprisals.

Yes, I agree - the environment in which these people existed has to be taken into account. My impression in several cases of 'lying' witnesses is that those concerned didn't want to be involved. As you say, many were suspicious of the police - there may not be anything more to it. Mary Ann Connelly, for example, almost certainly lying about where she lived. Why? Presumably she didn't want to be involved. And actually, who can blame her?

In passing the loiterer she may have not chosen to look him in the eyes as she passed. So, with it being dark, she's in a hurry, maybe looking down or ahead, she rightly states she couldn't 'describe' him (hair, eyes, moustache, whiskers?, etc.). Assigning a black hat to him is hardly a helpful description.

She was also Jewish, apparently, on an anti-semitic street; and a woman on her own in the middle of the night. I dont' think we should be particularly surprised if she hurried passed the man she saw on entering Miller's Court.

I don't really see the significance of arguing whether she was the same person, or a different person.
Either way we should accept Kennedy's statement on the same level as Lewis.

Well, I think the relevance in this context is that, if she did speak to the press under another name, it casts doubt on her status as a non-pulicity-seeking witness; and thus on her integrity. I believe I have seen an argument to that effect.

Thanks for your response, Wickerman!

[babybird67]

the inquest is the key i think

I think Mrs Kennedy and Mrs Lewis were demonstrably separate people, because only Lewis was called to give evidence at the inquest therefore given credence by the Police as a genuine witness. If it had been discovered that Lewis was also operating as someone called Kennedy and approaching the Police with different versions of her account, I don't think she would have been called, and there might be some doubt as to her credibility.

Why would the Press recount a tale by Mrs Kennedy if she was really Sarah Lewis? Getting a story from a woman who had actually attended and testified at the inquest would give their story more credence and clout too.

Maybe i am missing something but I cannot see any evidence that they were ever considered to be the same person, therefore it must be concluded that they were not.

[Wickerman]

No!, Sarah Lewis did not lie.

In saying that I am not including embellishments as lie's. Schwartz embellished his original story when he spoke to the press. Likewise, Packer embellished his story the second time he told it. However, with Packer it was explainable, in my opinion, the questions posed were different.
As we know, Hutchinson embellished his story to the press after he had given his statement to police.

We should accept this as human nature. Also, there is a distinct difference between talking to a policeman, who is often asking very pointed questions, because he knows what he's looking for, and a press reporter who is looking for a tasty yarn, with the press - the more colour the better.

Are there sound reasons for believing that Lewis and Kennedy were one and the same - or to discount that premise?

Absolutely there are. Rather than looking for any excuse to label these people as liars we should try to better understand the environment they lived in. In many cases these people were suspicious of police, some were afraid to be telling tales, there could be reprisals. Many unfortunates might choose to admit as little as possible in a public forum, whereas to the press, under another name they might offer a little more substance.

There are differences between Lewis's statement to the police and her inquest testimony. She goes, for example, from saying that she could not describe the man she saw on entering Miller's Court, to stating that he was wearing a black hat.

How do we account for these differences?

They are not significant. In passing the loiterer she may have not chosen to look him in the eyes as she passed. So, with it being dark, she's in a hurry, maybe looking down or ahead, she rightly states she couldn't 'describe' him (hair, eyes, moustache, whiskers?, etc.). Assigning a black hat to him is hardly a helpful description.

I, by the way, think that Lewis did not lie, and I don't think she was Mrs Kennedy, either. But that's just my view.

Thats OK, we cannot prove it one way or the other.
I don't really see the significance of arguing whether she was the same person, or a different person.
Either way we should accept Kennedy's statement on the same level as Lewis.

You see, the issue is not just about Lewis, it's about Kennedy as well.
One person wants to charge that Lewis told lies, someone else wants to charge that Kennedy told lies.
This kind of debate is not helpful to the overall cause.
We should accept statements from both names, Lewis & Kennedy as truthful and move on, because there is more of a benefit when we do.

Regards, Jon S.

[Sally]

Sarah Lewis

It has been suggested that Lewis was also 'Mrs' Kennedy. If we believe that, then she did go to the press, albeit incognito.

Are there sound reasons for believing that Lewis and Kennedy were one and the same - or to discount that premise?

There are differences between Lewis's statement to the police and her inquest testimony. She goes, for example, from saying that she could not describe the man she saw on entering Miller's Court, to stating that he was wearing a black hat.

How do we account for these differences?

I, by the way, think that Lewis did not lie, and I don't think she was Mrs Kennedy, either. But that's just my view.

[Sally]

I should have mentioned that..

this is an anonymous poll, aimed at gaining an impression of what the community thinks.

Thanks, Babybird, for
your response. I agree with what you say. You are quite right - human memory is not a perfect recording device, and what we recall is in fact not always the same at any given time. I am not an expert on the human mind - perhaps Garry could advise - but I presume (as seems quite obvious to me) that memory can falter under stress. From personal experience of having given a witness statement to the police on two occasions (lucky me!) I can only say that on one occasion at least, I could remember very little in the immediate aftermath - obviously that was the shock, although I didn't actually realise it at the time.

Now clearly, it doesn't do to apply one's own personal experience to that of a witness in the Ripper case; other than in a very limited way - but I think we should be aware of a number of potential factors at play in each individual case.

In short (and to avoid my going on ad nauseum!) yes, Context is King.

With regard to Sarah Lewis; I think it was Garry (?) who pointed out that Dorset Street was notoriously anti-semitic. As a Polish Jew, how comfortable would Sarah have been, wandering around Dorset Street in the early hours? If concerned for her own safety, how would that have affected her observational powers, if at all?

[babybird67]

hi Sally

excellent thread and good idea for a poll.

I don't think you can ascribe small discrepancies in the statements of witnesses to dishonesty. Garry has made some excellent posts about the psychology involved, and how trauma affects memory.

I think the problem comes when we place unrealistic expectations upon memory recall. Many people have the mistaken impression that human memory functions in much the same way as a mechanical recording device: faithfully recording everything with no gaps and no room for error. This is plainly not so. All sorts of things affect the ability to remember details, lack of sleep, trauma, distance in time from the particualrs being remembered etc.

Context is the key. When appraising a witness's reliability, we should be asking key questions:

one of those is motive to lie. Sarah Lewis had no motive to lie. She obviously was not recounting her story for fame or she would have been going to the Press with it as many others did. There is nothing outlandish in her statements which would suggest they were the products of imagination rather than experience. Everything she relates is consistent with what we know of the case. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that she was an honest witness relating to the Police/inquest what she had seen that night. I'd also like to add there was obviously not the slightest doubt in the mind of the Police at the time, as there is no evidence that she was ever disbelieved or discredited.

Jen x

[Sally]

This is a thread for the discussion of lying witnesses. Several witnesses involved in the case either changed details of their accounts on different occasions - police statement, inquest testimony, press statements etc.

Does this indicate dishonesty on their part? And if so, to what extent? Can we make a distinction between these people, or should we consider them all to be unreliable?

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

In short - there are discrepancies in the accounts of several witnesses. What should we make of them?

I look forward to all responses!