Lying Witnesses - Did Sarah Lewis Lie?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Quote:
“Generally speaking, they would have been poor or very poor. Specifically speaking - we don´t know.”
Quote:
“We have no idea when Hutch recorded what he saw or in what exact conditions.”
These are two highly contradictory statements, Fisherman."

No, they are not. I am saying that the lighting conditions GENERALLY SPEAKING would have been poor or very poor, and then I am adding that we dont know at what stage Hutch made his observation just as we don´t know in what EXACT lighting conditions.

Generally speaking, he would have made then in poor or very poor lighting conditions, but SPECIFICALLY speaking, WE DON´T KNOW.

Surely this semantical construction should not be unsurmountable? General - specific. Specific - general. Generally speaking, people out here are not Hutchinsonians - but SPECIFICALLY ...

"I suppose you would call that an “evasive” answer too?"

No. I call it an "expected" one.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Surely..

Eyelash 'shade' has more to do with hair colour than eye colour?

[Ben]

“When someone is said to have dark eyes & eyelashes they just have dark eyes - its a common expression even today.”

I don’t think so, Jon.

I’ve certainly never heard it. I’m not aware than the darkness of people’s eyes have any effect on the shade of their eyelashes, not that eyelash “shade” can be really been gauged during a fleeting glance on the streets at night. This observation did not originate with me, incidentally. It’s been around for a considerable number of years, and is certainly not an “invented criticism” on my part. If people disagree, that’s fine, and they're more than welcome to have the Astrakhan man wearing theatrical make-up, but I have to wonder why some people are so eager to convince themselves of the patently false.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

I never suggested that Hutchinson was particularly “insistent” on any given point, but surely it doesn’t take too great a stretch of the imagination to accept that people may tell lies for various reasons? I don’t know why you make the distinction between “today” and 1888 in this context. Not being able to discern eyelash colour in heavily darkened conditions is a reality that held as true back then as it does today. The suggestion that the Astrakhan man was in the theatrical trade, and for some reason had stage make-up on his face at 2:30am, is an ingenious attempt to get round the problem, but it doesn’t quite work, in my opinion.

All the best,
Ben

Ben, I think you're labouring the point unnecessarily, the man had 'dark' hair, 'dark' eyes, 'dark' jacket, 'dark' trousers, 'dark' coat, there's no mention of colour?

Why are you talking about eyelash colour? When someone is said to have dark eyes & eyelashes they just have dark eyes - its a common expression even today. Who cares about colour? Nobody said dark brown, dark blue, or black - no colour is mentioned.

And some excentric men did wear makeup still in the Victorian era, a bit of a throwback to the 17th-18th century when it was common for gentry as well as their ladies.
Why does this matter so much to you, just to invent more criticism against Hutchinson?
"No-one can tell eyelash colour in the dark!!" - you jump to conclusions Ben, no-one HAS described eyelash colour - 'dark' is not a colour.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

I never suggested that Hutchinson was particularly “insistent” on any given point, but surely it doesn’t take too great a stretch of the imagination to accept that people may tell lies for various reasons? I don’t know why you make the distinction between “today” and 1888 in this context. Not being able to discern eyelash colour in heavily darkened conditions is a reality that held as true back then as it does today. The suggestion that the Astrakhan man was in the theatrical trade, and for some reason had stage make-up on his face at 2:30am, is an ingenious attempt to get round the problem, but it doesn’t quite work, in my opinion.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

“Generally speaking, they would have been poor or very poor. Specifically speaking - we don´t know.”

“We have no idea when Hutch recorded what he saw or in what exact conditions.”

These are two highly contradictory statements, Fisherman.

If you are able to recognise that the lighting conditions “would have been poor or very poor”, you obviously do have an “idea” about it. It may not amount to proof that Hutchinson was lying, but it ought really to be considered a very compelling indication in that regard.

“If a person changes his testimony on a certain point or points, will that GENERALLY mean that the police invests less faith in him or her than they would have done if the testimony had not been changed on this point/s?”

No.

Because there is no such thing as a witness who provides his/her evidence on more than one occasion and doesn't change a single detail.

I suppose you would call that an “evasive” answer too?

Regards,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

Fish -are you sure that you know what day it is ?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"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."

Generally speaking, they would have been poor or very poor. Specifically speaking - we don´t know. We have no idea when Hutch recorded what he saw or in what exact conditions. That means that we may think that it would have been hard to achieve what he claimed to achieve, that others think it would have been quite possible, and that the question remains open to discussion, and thus unviable as any sort of proof that Hutchinson was lying.

There are others out here that spend too much time on things they can never achieve too, Ben. You are one of them.

"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."

The question is a GENERAL one and quite easy to answer. I will rephrase it to facilitate for you:

If a person changes his testimony on a certain point or points, will that GENERALLY mean that the police invests less faith in him or her than they would have done if the testimony had not been changed on this point/s?

You may notice, as we go along, how enormous the impact of phrasing the question is? Which is what I spoke about from the outset. You are proving this now, byshowing how you can evade providing an unambiguos answer to the question I am asing you. But I think it will prove harder this time?

No matter what, since you are proving my point anyway!

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

...Clearly, therefore, he meant to specify eyelash colour in his initial statement. Of course, if people want to believe that Hutchinson really did discern eyelash colour, I guess it's up to them.

Hi Ben.
I don't see what was to be gained by Hutchinson insisting on something if he didn't really see it. Neither do I see the point in making an issue of something that we cannot judge today.

Were you aware that Liz Taylor's eyes always looked darker than normal because she had double-eyelashes?

Quote:
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
:-)

Best Wishes, Jon S.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

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

...Which he didn't wipe off in the dressing room afterwards?

Talk about shattering the illusion and breaking that Stanislavskian fourth wall!

That reminds me, I'd better remove mine.

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

On behalf of which "recorder"?

Sgt. Edward Badham who took Hutchinson's statement?

No, almost certainly not. Hutchinson signed his own statement, signifying his approval of its content, including the "dark eyelashes" detail. Clearly, therefore, he meant to specify eyelash colour in his initial statement. Of course, if people want to believe that Hutchinson really did discern eyelash colour, I guess it's up to them.

Wow, though.

Best wishes,
Ben

[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

[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.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

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

I don´t. I recognize that we can´t tell - and that´s 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

[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. Let´s see who gets there first, shall we!

The best,
Fisherman

[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, I´m 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