Lying Witnesses - Did Sarah Lewis Lie?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"This is factually incorrect."

It is! You are correct. What I meant was that Hutchinsonīs description of the man he saw was only superficially altered, whereas Sarah Lewisīman changed from total nondescription to a description including hatcolour and even the intents of the man.

I am full well aware that Hutchinson added other things, though.

" I would reiterate, therefore, that placing Hutchinson over Lewis in the credibility stakes does not belong in polite, civilized society."

Letīs see, what have you come up with by now? My views are "unpolite", "uncivilized", "heartless", "not sane", "unimaginative" (yes!) and "bordering on an obscene crime against thought". Plus a few more that I did not care all that much to go looking for.

And to think that YOU call ME heartless? I mean, it is quite terrifying to be faced with shortcomings like these, especially considering that they are brought about by your lacking capability to have your views challenged! God only knows what you may conjure up next?

"Lewis did not “suffer” any bad treatment from the Daily News. This is a mistaken impression on your part which you nonetheless persist in repeating."

I seem to remember, Ben, that you were very upset about the way the witnesses were treted by the Daily News in your initial posts on the matter? But now, you instead seem to opt for a stance where you donīt recognize what others easily can see? How strange!

"I don’t think I’ve put my “money” on any firm conclusion with regard to the killer’s identity."

There you are - once MORE we disagree totally!

"That’s your choice."

Only it isnīt, is it? If it HAD been, you would have accepted it, but instead you start calling me all sorts of colourful things.

"As for your own ideas as to what constitutes an ideal poll (and which you are eager for me to contribute to), I’ve already said that if you’re that much of an eager beaver, set one up yourself."

I have. Just for you, Ben. Two polls, in fact. I think the time has come for you to fill them in.
I would also, considering that you call me heartless, like to demand an answer from you what that says about your allegations of Hutchinson being a liar and a killer, plus your merriments about Dew; the "Dew poo" and the "Dew spew". I am going to fake being just as upset (in reality, I am a bit more rational that this, but in order to be able to level with you, something out of the ordinary is required) about that as you seem to be about my assesment of Sarah Lewis, and I urge you to provide an explanation.

Come now, Ben, and get it overwith. It wonīt hurt all that much - but admittedly, it WILL show that you are wrong about the poll question and unethical in your rather outrageous treatment of me. Moment of truth, Ben - you can do it!

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Categorically

This poll was not designed to elicit one response - how could it have been? It would have been just as interesting (in my view) if a majority of voters had voted 'No'.

I fully expect that others will hold views different to my own; and don't particularly feel the need to endorse my own with those of others. What people think is up to them. The only purpose of this poll was to find out what that was in this context.

I actually hoped that the thread would provide the opportunity for discussion on the wider issue of witness testimony in this case, which has recently been raised regarding witnesses other than Lewis (in addition to her).

Thanks to everybody who has participated.

[Ben]

I agree entirely with Garry and Jen on the Leander issue.

“And I fail to see why the idea that Hutchinson was a more reliable witness would be dotty, given that he did NOT change HIS testimony more than very superficially inbetween police report and paper interviews”

Don’t be absurd, Fisherman.

This is factually incorrect.

Babybird has already pointed out that the discrepancies between Hutchinson’s initial police statement and subsequent press interviews are considerably greater than the addition of “not tall, but stout” and a widewake hat that appeared in Lewis' testimony. The two versions were so considerably at odds with one another that they contained polar opposites. This cannot be said of Lewis’ evidence. Hutchinson’s evidence, moreover, was discredited because of doubts about his credibility that surfaced because of the late arrival of his evidence and his failure to attend the inquest. It also contained an impossibly detailed description of a "suspect" whose appearance suspiciously incorporated numerous elements that had already been associated with the ripper’s popular image. I would reiterate, therefore, that placing Hutchinson over Lewis in the credibility stakes does not belong in polite, civilized society.

Lewis did not “suffer” any bad treatment from the Daily News. This is a mistaken impression on your part which you nonetheless persist in repeating.

I don’t think I’ve put my “money” on any firm conclusion with regard to the killer’s identity. I consider it beyond question that Hutchinson lied about his reasons for hovering outside a crime scene shortly before that crime was committed, and I have suggested that he may have done so because he was responsible for the crime. It’s one possible reason at the very least, and to my mind a plausible one.

“This time over, I donīt attach any weight to the outcome of the poll, no.”

That’s your choice. Personally, however, I tend not to make a lot of noise about things I don’t attach any weight to. It’s a bit pointless. As for your own ideas as to what constitutes an ideal poll (and which you are eager for me to contribute to), I’ve already said that if you’re that much of an eager beaver, set one up yourself.

All the best,
Ben

[babybird67]

In the case of the signatures, I could have stated that I sent all signatures to Leander, but I never did, did I? I sent the one that I thought extremely alike Hutchinson the witnessī, since I wanted to find out if an expert on the subject was of the same meaning as I as. And that he was!

I think you will find that's exactly what Garry meant about bias. That you preselected the examples most likely to corroborate what you thought and only sent those to Leander. There is no better example of biased research than that. The equivalent for Sally in this poll, for you to be able to substantiate your unfair accusation of bias, would be for her to decide that her view, Lewis was not lying, was correct, and only to provide the particpants with the opportunity to agree with her. The Poll would then stand as , did Sarah Lewis lie? Option 1, No. Option 2, there is no option 2, I am too biased to provide one. Since clearly the poll provides an opportunity for people who disagree with Sally to express the diametrically opposed opinion to her own, it is not biased, and is, as others have commented, an extremely simple and useful poll, designed one woud imagine to bring sanity and integrity back to the discussion of Sarah Lewis's testimony.

Frank Leander confirmed a probable match inbetween the signatures he examined. To his mind, they were written by the same man. And I was totally transparent throughout, translating in full each post by Leander and being quite clear about how I did it.

I don't think he did. I remember the conclusion he drew was that a match could not be ruled out. That does not equate to 'probable' as we debated ad infinitum on that thread.

Other posters claimed that I had lied, and stated that they would make mince-meat out of me by contacting Leander to have their suspicions confirmed. I then kindly supplied Leanders mail address (since people were too lazy to search for it on the net themselves, a very easy thing to do), but strangely, to this day I have never heard a further word about this...?

Who? Kindly provide a quote here.

Nobody, not Crystal, not Romford Rose, not Jane Welland, absolutely nobody, including a poster that still graces these boards with her presence, have ever done the community here the favour of showing me off as the liar they claimed me to be. And THAT, Garry, would not have been because of a sudden flair for philantropy.

If you mean me, Fish, have the guts to say so. If you do mean me, then don't try to second guess my motives or presume to know why i did not contact Leander at the time. The reason might surprise you. Anybody who wishes to know the reason is welcome to pm me.

I think that sums up the Leander thread pretty well. But then again like Sally says: Everybody has a bias. Maybe I was much, much more fairly treated than I perceived at the time.

You were extremely fairly treated as you always are. It is unfortunate you are unable to extend the same courtesy to your research.

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"Should anyone be inclined to see real bias, they might care to access the Leander thread and see which of the three Hutchinson statement signatures were conveyed to Frank for analysis."

The Leander thread is arguably one of the very best threads to study a bias on, yes.

In the case of the signatures, I could have stated that I sent all signatures to Leander, but I never did, did I? I sent the one that I thought extremely alike Hutchinson the witnessī, since I wanted to find out if an expert on the subject was of the same meaning as I as. And that he was!

As you know, Garry, much debate has revolved around the question whether all three signatures were even written by the same man. Thus, sending them all to Leander could have resulted in some confusion. And at the end of the day, what matters it if Leander had opted for the two remaining signatures not being by Toppy - when he had already stated that he would be very surprised to find that the third signature and Toppyīs ditto were not written by the same man, adding that he expected any forthcoming evidence to corroborate this meaning of his?

Frank Leander confirmed a probable match inbetween the signatures he examined. To his mind, they were written by the same man. And I was totally transparent throughout, translating in full each post by Leander and being quite clear about how I did it.

For this, I was rewarded wiith one poster claiming that Leander hd fobbed me off, that he was not reliable and so forth. Other posters claimed that I had lied, and stated that they would make mince-meat out of me by contacting Leander to have their suspicions confirmed. I then kindly supplied Leanders mail address (since people were too lazy to search for it on the net themselves, a very easy thing to do), but strangely, to this day I have never heard a further word about this...?

Nobody, not Crystal, not Romford Rose, not Jane Welland, absolutely nobody, including a poster that still graces these boards with her presence, have ever done the community here the favour of showing me off as the liar they claimed me to be. And THAT, Garry, would not have been because of a sudden flair for philantropy.

I think that sums up the Leander thread pretty well. But then again like Sally says: Everybody has a bias. Maybe I was much, much more fairly treated than I perceived at the time.

You tell me, Garry!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I said I don't perceive clearly ridiculous notions as a threat to my own position. That doesn't prevent me from getting intensely annoyed by such dotty ideas as Hutchinson being more reliable than Lewis, for example."

Would Paul Beggs assessment that Lewisīstatement cannot be used belong to such "clearly ridiculous notions"? Just asking. Nobody wants to be called a purveyor of ridiculous notions.
And I fail to see why the idea that Hutchinson was a more reliable witness would be dotty, given that he did NOT change HIS testimony more than very superficially inbetween police report and paper interviews, whereas Lewisīditto are not even remotely related, given the treatment she suffered in the Daily News as opposed to the judgements made about Hutchinsons character, given Dewīs assertions and given the total disinterest in following up on Lewis tip whereas we know that Hutchinsonīs ditto was pursued many days after his interview. Itīs all simple mathematics, and none of it comes out in favour of Lewis.
Incidentally, Ben, two questions: Why is it that you call my assessment of Lewis heartless, while you yourself have your money on Hutchinson being a deranged killer and eviscerator? How do I become the bad guy in this context?
And why will you not answer my polls? It would be interesting to see you do that!

My words: "the poll results are of no interest to me."

Your advice: "Don't keep fussing so much about the poll in question then."

Ah! But a poll and the result of it are two different things, Ben. Much like asking "Did Lewis lie" or "Do you think that Lewis lied". You have had trouble with telling those options apart too. This time over, I donīt attach any weight to the outcome of the poll, no. And this is why I argue against it: One SHOUL attach weight to polls if they are any good, so when one doesnīt - it is not a good poll.

Awaiting your answers to my polls and the Hutchinson/Lewis/heartlessness questions,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Fish - yes, but that doesn't work, does it? Because unless you (generic 'you') are entirely without bias yourself, you cannot be wholly objective. And if you cannot be wholly objective, then how can you identify another person as 'totally biased'?"

"Surely, our perceptions of bias are subjective?"

Yours, maybe - but SURELY not mine (joke!).

"I still don't see why this is a 'useless' poll."

I know that, Sally!

The best,
Fisherman

But is not all of this slightly beside the topic of this thread?

I am sure this is all very relevant - but to what discussion, I really couldnīt say. My point is that a totally biased person is one that cannot possibly ever see his or her bias, and I think that even extremely biased persons would be able to realize that this holds true. That, though, does not mean that they will be able to see through an issue where they have a total bias of their own.

[Garry Wroe]

Should anyone be inclined to see real bias, they might care to access the Leander thread and see which of the three Hutchinson statement signatures were conveyed to Frank for analysis.

[Ben]

And I am having a VERY hard time accepting that you are not annoyed in the least by the built-in specifics of my scenario.

I didn't say I wasn't, Fisherman.

I said I don't perceive clearly ridiculous notions as a threat to my own position. That doesn't prevent me from getting intensely annoyed by such dotty ideas as Hutchinson being more reliable than Lewis, for example. The Maybrick as ripper theory also annoys me a great deal, but I'm hardly "scared stiff" by it or consider it a threat to my views on Hutchinson.

the poll results are of no interest to me.

Don't keep fussing so much about the poll in question then.

Now, those two polls, Ben ...?

I've already said you can create whatever polls you like.

Cheers,
Ben

[Sally]

It was not an allegation at all, Sally - it was a question whether you know how to spot a totally biased person.

The best,
Fisherman

Fish - yes, but that doesn't work, does it? Because unless you (generic 'you')are entirely without bias yourself, you cannot be wholly objective. And if you cannot be wholly objective, then how can you identify another person as 'totally biased'?

Surely, our perceptions of bias are subjective? In which case, all it amounts to is a personal opinion, which cannot stand independently of itself; unless perhaps by consensus.

I still don't see why this is a 'useless' poll. The voters in the poll and contributors to the thread don't seem to have thought so.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I’m simply saying that the impression you’re currently conveying is one of disappointment with the poll results"

No, Ben: the poll results are of no interest to me. Thatīs as it should be, given that I donīt think it was a useful poll.
Similarly, if I HAD thought it a useful poll, I would have been more interested in seeing what people think - but not inclined to believe that it affects history retrospectively.

I donīt see how I can explain this in any better manner? I thought I was crystal clear on it?

"You say you’re not bothered by what people think, but I find that this claim ill-accords with your continued persistence in repeating your anti-Lewis dogma."

Of course I care what people think. But I donīt care how they respond to useless polls, thatīs just it. I want people to see all options, and I donīt want anybody to call an obvious possibility "obscene". Fair is fair.

"I don’t consider that any of my proposals have come “under fire”."

Turn around, then, and you will see it.

"Yes, I do tend to get rather irritated and “hot-blooded”"

You do, donīt you? And I am having a VERY hard time accepting that you are not annoyed in the least by the built-in specifics of my scenario. I may be rushing to conclusions of course!

Now, those two polls, Ben ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"You think? How convenient. That allows you to claim that everyone is biased, doesn't it? "

It provides all people with the same means and opportunities, Iīm afraid.

"You frequently throw these allegations into your posts Fish"

It was not an allegation at all, Sally - it was a question whether you know how to spot a totally biased person.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

maybe we should have a poll on 'is Sally's Poll bias ?'

I'm sorry Ruby. I consider you far too biased to vote on a poll like that

(Note to self: I must take this seriously. Repeat 100 times.)

[Rubyretro]

maybe we should have a poll on 'is Sally's Poll bias ?'

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“Am I to take it you donīt accept my word for this?”

I’m simply saying that the impression you’re currently conveying is one of disappointment with the poll results (because they reveal the extreme unpopularity of your very recent proposal), and that you’re lashing out with irrational criticisms of the poll because of this. You say you’re not bothered by what people think, but I find that this claim ill-accords with your continued persistence in repeating your anti-Lewis dogma. It is obvious that nobody agrees with you, and that you’re not changing anyone’s minds, so why keep insisting on it very vocally and very aggressively? There must be some intended "audience" here.

I don’t consider that any of my proposals have come “under fire”. In order to “fire” you require ammunition, and “Lying Lewis” fails spectacularly to qualify as such, especially when it’s only emanating from one water pistol – yours. Yes, I do tend to get rather irritated and “hot-blooded”, but not because of any perceived threat to my ideas, but rather my intense dislike of bulldozer posting tactics. If you present an idea that doesn’t go down too well, it’s best not to keep screaming about it, in my opinion.

Regards,
Ben