Lying Witnesses - Did Sarah Lewis Lie?

[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]

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 donīt 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

[Sally]

Fisherman

The question that would have BEST said something of interest about this whole affair, however, would have been: "Do you think that Lewisī 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.

[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

[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"

Thatīs 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]

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)

[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?

[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 itīs 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, thatīs an easy thing to decide. You are the winner of ALL pettiness battles, of course! Iīll stop immediately!

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]

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 "Donīt 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 donīt 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 Lewisīinquest 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 donīt 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

[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.

[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

[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]

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.

[Ben]

Thanks, Sally, for the voice of reason.

Spot on and succinct!

Best regards,
Ben