Lying Witnesses - Did Sarah Lewis Lie?

[Ben]

I have no objections to, and indeed would heartily encourage, any “challenge to my views”, Fisherman. Unfortunately, in this instance, your particular challenge has taken the form of a brand new, high controversial stance that hasn't gone down very well with its intended audience. If this wasn’t immediately apparent to you (as it should have been) when you first advanced it, then this recent poll must surely have illustrated the extent to which it was rejected. The “bad blood” you describe is the result of your continued aggressive insistence on this ridiculous theory’s validity, and confused mindset that anyone who disagrees with you must have a biased agenda, and must be a “Hutchinsonian”.

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

Good. Well then you will be equally “aware” that Hutchinson was responsible for considerably more “additions” than Lewis, and that the additions in the former case were far more detailed and specific.

“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?”

Indeed, but you should also recall that I later realised that I had perhaps been too hasty in condemning the Daily News for their observations, and wrongly concluded that they had accused Lewis of lying. I have no idea what you mean when you say that “others can clearly see” something in that particular report that I can’t.

As for this protracted silliness about “polls”, I have already encouraged you to construct your own if you’re hell-bent on it. Since polls are intended for multiple recipients, I can only assume that you meant you wanted me to answer some questions? If so, I would happy to respond to a request, but I will not, under any circumstances, accede to a “demand” from anyone. If you’re talking about witnesses who provided a police statement AND inquest testimony, every single one of them “changed” their evidence to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the circumstances.

Best regards,
Ben

[harry]

In the one instance Lewis could be relating to the physical or facial features,while the additional detail related to dress.So truthfull on both counts.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"your particular challenge has taken the form of a brand new, high controversial stance that hasn't gone down very well with its intended audience."

And what audience would that be?

"then you will be equally “aware” that Hutchinson was responsible for considerably more “additions” than Lewis, and that the additions in the former case were far more detailed and specific."

You often quote Sugden, Ben. This time Iīll do it for you:

"Two circumstances in particular speak strongly in his favour. The first is the remarkable consistency between his two statements. They each contain information not to be found in the other but there are only two actual discrepancies of fact between them ... Given the length of statements , however, these small discrepancies are not significant. Far more impressive are the numerous points of corroboration (at least forty) between the two accounts."
"A yet more telling circumstance supports Hutchinson. Abberline, an experienced and outstanding detective, interrogated him on the 12th - and believed him."

Would you, Ben, speak of a "remarkable consistency" between her two statements? I know I wouldnīt. Actually, I donīt know of any single person who would - but Iīm sure you are the one to come closest!

"you should also recall that I later realised that I had perhaps been too hasty in condemning the Daily News for their observations"

So, sort of a change of testimony on your behalf too? You FIRST read the text and was very upset about how Lewis and Prater were treated - then you read it again, and found that they were not treated badly at all? I see.

"As for this protracted silliness about “polls”, I have already encouraged you to construct your own if you’re hell-bent on it. Since polls are intended for multiple recipients, I can only assume that you meant you wanted me to answer some questions? If so, I would happy to respond to a request."

Good! Then I ask you ever so politely to answer these two questions:

1. Is it generally speaking more credible that a witness that is consistent throughout, and never changes his or her testimony is more trustworthy than a witness that changes his or her testimony to a smaller or lesser degree?
A: yes
B: no

2. Did Sarah Lewis change her testimony inbetween police report to a smaller or lesser degree?
A: yes
B: no

...and after that, I will probably have something to say about polls in general and the one of this thread more specifically.

I would also like to have an answer, if you please, to my question about why you call my suggestion that Lewis may have been telling porkies "heartless", given that you have suggested that George Hutchinson was a liar, a killer and an eviscerator. Is that not a lot more heartless?

Thanking you in advance,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“And what audience would that be?”

You tell me, Fisherman. If you’re hoping to change the minds of those who have already rejected your recently conceived “Lying Lewis” theory, you’re clearly having no success at all. If your repetitious posts aren’t aimed at us, who are they aimed at?

Hutchinson’s police and press statements are not remarkably consistent with one another, and even if they were, it would simply mean that he repeated the same demonstrably false description twice. It is not a virtue to be able to repeat a description of something you cannot possibly have seen in the conditions described. It's like a "consistent" description of a pig flying. Moreover, it is most assuredly “significant” when a witness provides polar opposite descriptions. As Bob Hinton explained:

“Far from dismissing these discrepancies as “not significant” as one author has done, these discrepancies are vital to disproving the validity of the entire statement”

As for Abberline's initial “belief” in Hutchinson, it is startlingly apparent that this was later revised when the account was discredited. But both this topic and Hutchinson’s description have been discussed ad nauseam elsewhere, so we will avoid repetition by resisting the temptation to pursue either or both of these done-to-death subjects here.

“Would you, Ben, speak of a "remarkable consistency" between her two statements?”

No, but she is far closer to being so than discredited Hutchinson and his differing police and press versions.

“So, sort of a change of testimony on your behalf too? You FIRST read the text and was very upset about how Lewis and Prater were treated - then you read it again, and found that they were not treated badly at all? I see”

Yes, and this because I have the ability to ponder, reflect, and reassess, rather than being so utterly and stubbornly entrenched in a conclusion that I’ve already jumped that I cannot revise my opinion. I feel rather sorry for people not only lack this ability, but perceive it as a weakness.

“Is it generally speaking more credible that a witness that is consistent throughout, and never changes his or her testimony is more trustworthy than a witness that changes his or her testimony to a smaller or lesser degree?”

As far as I’m concerned, the former group doesn’t even exist.

“Did Sarah Lewis change her testimony inbetween police report to a smaller or lesser degree?”

Along with every single other witness.

“I would also like to have an answer, if you please, to my question about why you call my suggestion that Lewis may have been telling porkies "heartless", given that you have suggested that George Hutchinson was a liar, a killer and an eviscerator.”

Because the circumstances that were present in Lewis’ case (don’t make me repeat them again) were absent in Hutchinson's. I’m fond of the way you insist on listing “eviscerator” in addition to “killer”, by the way. I think the former is implied by the nature of the crime, somehow.

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

"You tell me, Fisherman. If you’re hoping to change the minds of those who have already rejected your recently conceived “Lying Lewis” theory, you’re clearly having no success at all. If your repetitious posts aren’t aimed at us, who are they aimed at?"

Who do you write for when you say Hutchinson would have been the killer? The already convinced, the rejectors or the undecided ones? Once youīve answered that question, you may have a clue about my stance.

"Hutchinson’s police and press statements are not remarkably consistent with one another"

I think so. Sugden thinks so. I know Stewart Evans have expressed thoughts along that line too. So for once, I am not painfully alone, it would seem!

"It is not a virtue to be able to repeat a description of something you cannot possibly have seen in the conditions described."

Nor is it a virtue to claim that you know what the lighting conditions under which Hutch saw his man were like when you really canīt tell.

"As Bob Hinton explained: “Far from dismissing these discrepancies as “not significant” as one author has done, these discrepancies are vital to disproving the validity of the entire statement”"

Wow. That guy would have CRUSHED Lewis!

"As for Abberline's initial “belief” in Hutchinson, it is startlingly apparent that this was later revised when the account was discredited. But both this topic and Hutchinson’s description have been discussed ad nauseam elsewhere, so we will avoid repetition by resisting the temptation to pursue either or both of these done-to-death subjects here."

What has NOT been done to death is the perception that it was HUTCH that was discredited, when it in fact was his STORY! But letīs kill that off now!

"she is far closer to being so than discredited Hutchinson and his differing police and press versions"

Me oh my. No further comments, your honour!

"Yes, and this because I have the ability to ponder, reflect, and reassess, rather than being so utterly and stubbornly entrenched in a conclusion that I’ve already jumped that I cannot revise my opinion. I feel rather sorry for people not only lack this ability, but perceive it as a weakness."

And how about my view on Dew? You are in the habit of quoting a number of passages I wrote about him, if I am not mistaken? Do you feel sorry for yourself in that context?
Sometimes, Ben, consistency is everything.

"As far as I’m concerned, the former group doesn’t even exist."

Oh, dear. That alternative was not open to you. As far as I am concerned, we cannot say that Sarah Lewis lied or was truthful - we can only speculate. But the only options open to ME in YOUR poll was "yes" or "no", and the exact same applies here. So which is it going to be, please? Yes or no?

"Along with every single other witness."

Same thing here, Iīm afraid. Yes or no?

"Because the circumstances that were present in Lewis’ case (don’t make me repeat them again) were absent in Hutchinson's."

If you mean that there is a better case for Lewis not being a liar than there is for Hutchinson, Iīm afraid that is just a judgement on your behalf. It still applies - and you have acknowledged it many times yourself - that Hutchinson may not have been a liar and a killer.
So why is it that it is not heartless on your behalf to jump the gun and call him so? It is an infinitely much graver allegation than pointing to the possibility of a lie on Lewisī behalf. I speak of somebody potentiall wanting her fifteen minutes of fame. But you, Ben, point George Hutchinson out as the possibly worst killer that has walked the face of earth. But that does not seem to bother you.

Consistency, Ben, is sometimes everything.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Categorically..

Hi Fish

I put this poll up, for the reasons stated in my initial post. It's my poll, not Ben's - that is factually incorrect. Not to want to detract from anybody's glory, or anything, but I'm afraid the credit is all mine.

As you have already made it quite plain that you consider my poll to be useless (your own term) I don't see the point of discussion the actual poll any further, do you?

I'm pleased to see discussion continuing in other directions.

Thanks again to everybody who has voted to date.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"I put this poll up, for the reasons stated in my initial post. It's my poll, not Ben's - that is factually incorrect."

I know that - and I have in a post to Ben told him that I know that it was your poll, but I speak of "your poll" as a poll on behalf of those who regard Hutchinson as a liar and potential killer.

I could, if you want me to, speak of "Sallys poll"...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

... I speak of "your poll" as a poll on behalf of those who regard Hutchinson as a liar and potential killer.

As opposed to a poll in which an overwhelming majority of participants voted honestly and objectively on the basis of the available evidence.

I live in hope, Fisherman, that one day you will awake to the realization as to the extent of your ignorance regarding the empirically established cognitive processes which mediate eyewitness recollections.

But I’m not holding my breath.

[Sally]

I speak of "your poll" as a poll on behalf of those who regard Hutchinson as a liar and potential killer.

Fish - That is your view. The poll was not intended for anybody in particular - it was, and is for everybody.

I think we're done here.

[Ben]

it was, and is for everybody.

Indeed, Sally.

And fortunately, everyone understood that.

Well, everyone bar one, apparently.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

“Who do you write for when you say Hutchinson would have been the killer?”

I don’t, Fisherman.

I've suggested that he may have been, but I've never initiated any discussion of Hutchinson as a ripper suspect. I usually only touch upon that particular angle when it is brought up by others, and when my opinion is specifically requested on the subject – like now, for instance.

We can’t ascertain the precise extent of street illumination at the time of the alleged “Astrakhan” encounter, but I think we can take an educated guess that it would have been extremely minimal. Not ideal conditions for the discernment of "eyelash" colour, for instance

“And how about my view on Dew? You are in the habit of quoting a number of passages I wrote about him, if I am not mistaken? Do you feel sorry for yourself in that context?”

But you haven’t even acknowledged that you've revised your stance on Dew – that’s the difference. Had you done so, I would have been far less inclined to refer to the fact that you now focus exclusively on the positive with regard to Dew, whereas you used to focus exclusively on the negative. At least I’ve admitted that I’ve revised my stance on the Daily News report after scrutinising it further.

As Sally says, it is her poll and not mine, and if you wanted to provide further clarification, all you had to do was provide some explanatory reasoning on the thread itself, just as Sally did in her first post. You could have voted no, and then posted: “But I am by no means certain about this”, or anything you wanted.

“If you mean that there is a better case for Lewis not being a liar than there is for Hutchinson, Iīm afraid that is just a judgement on your behalf”

Not just mine. Pretty much everyone else’s except yours, apparently, including the contemporary police.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"I live in hope, Fisherman, that one day you will awake to the realization as to the extent of your ignorance regarding the empirically established cognitive processes which mediate eyewitness recollections."

I have a few hopes of my own too, Garry. Letīs see who gets there first, shall we!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"We can’t ascertain the precise extent of street illumination at the time of the alleged “Astrakhan” encounter, but I think..."

I donīt. I recognize that we canīt tell - and thatīs it. Whatever "thinking" I add subsequentially may be wrong or right.

"But you haven’t even acknowledged that you've revised your stance on Dew – that’s the difference."

Nor have I done so - but I DID offer to claim that I had if it made you feel better. That should do, should it not?

"At least I’ve admitted that I’ve revised my stance on the Daily News report after scrutinising it further."

Mmmm. Perhaps you should scutinize it once more? Who knows what that may turn up?

"You could have voted no, and then posted: “But I am by no means certain about this”, or anything you wanted."

Eh - the options were just "yes" and "no", and as you may see, nobody has offered any "explanation" to why they opted for any of these faulty alternatives.

But would it not be a lot easier for you to simply acknowledge that GENERALLY those who change their testimonies are regarded as worse witnesses than those who dont? And add that Sarah Lewis DID change her testimony? Whrithing and slithering the way you do now mut be more painful, I would have thought?

"Not just mine. Pretty much everyone else’s except yours, apparently, including the contemporary police."

Thats gross misleading, Ben, and you know it. You should stay away from such things. You "think", as you put it, that this was so. I think not. But I am the only one of us who has the decency to admit that there is no certain answer at hand. To claim otherwise is to lie.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

... Not ideal conditions for the discernment of "eyelash" colour, for instance...

Agreed, unless Astrachan was in the theatre, had eyeliner or mascara on?

Hutchinson did claim that:

"I stooped down and looked him in the face." (under a streetlamp).


More likely, in my opinion, is that there has been confusion here.
The police report reads: " dark eyes and eye lashes"

Yet the press report reads: "dark eyes and bushy eyebrows"

Dark eyes and eyelashes, or dark eyes and eyebrows?

So once again a simple mis-reporting on behalf of the recorder is taken as more evidence of Hutchinson's unreliable statement?

We must remember, with Hutchinson, Lewis, Kennedy, Schwartz, and even Packer, and every witness who's credence has been called into question, in most cases their words are published, not verbatim but in paraphrase. Not always in their own words!

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

You still seem to be of the rather eccentric mindset that unless absolute certainty has been established, it is inappropriate to express an opinion. I dread to think how many years you’ve wasted here or how many keyboards you’ve worn out is this is really your mentality. Of course there’s no certainly involved, but this hasn’t stopped me and practically everyone else from opining that Lewis very probably told the truth, and that the lighting conditions were undoubtedly very poor in Commercial Street at 2:30am on the 9th November 1888.

“But would it not be a lot easier for you to simply acknowledge that GENERALLY those who change their testimonies are regarded as worse witnesses than those who dont?”

But there’s no such thing as a witness who provides his/her evidence more than once and never changes a thing in the process.

“Whrithing and slithering the way you do now mut be more painful, I would have thought?”

It might be an idea to tone down that antagonistic rhetoric, especially after chastising me at length for being disrespectful of other peoples’ opinions and motives for expressing them.

Regards,
Ben