Lying Witnesses - Did Sarah Lewis Lie?

[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!

[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]

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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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