Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[Wickerman]

Hi all!

An interesting piece of information needs to be attached to this thread. It concerns the assertions that no police constable would ommitt to report information concerning the murder. This, it is said, would ensure that Hutchinson did NOT approach a PC on Sunday, as he claimed.

That was another one of those Straw-man arguments. Insist that any policeman would report his meeting with Hutchinson, and because there is no record that the P.C. did, then the story must be false.
It's a tired old manipulative means of swaying the reader. Make something appear to be extraordinary, and when it is not, something must be suspicious.

Velikovsky used that ploy, Von Daniken also used the same principal.

The truth of the matter is, as your story indicates, the police were overwhelmed with 'stories' so it is not at all suspicious that the P.C. did not follow up on his Sunday morning meeting with Hutchinson.

A number of amateur enthusiasts tend to think along similar lines.
Analyze a story, where we have insufficient data, supply speculation. From the self-supplied speculation, they make assumptions. From these assumptions they draw conclusions.
To the gullable, these conclusions are delivered as facts.

It's a well worn theme in historical revisionism

Regardless, good point Fisherman.
Jon S.

[Fisherman]

Hi all!

An interesting piece of information needs to be attached to this thread. It concerns the assertions that no police constable would ommitt to report information concerning the murder. This, it is said, would ensure that Hutchinson did NOT approach a PC on Sunday, as he claimed.

Of course, since we have no records of what happened after Hutchinsons alledged meeting with the PC, it can be either way! But the misconception that policemen would not disregard any evidence purportedly relating to the Ripper deeds must be adjusted.

From the Echo, 10 November 1888:

"One of the usual and very natural effects of these hideous crimes is that the police, shortly after their committal, are deluged with descriptions of persons supposed to be the murderer, and with reference to individuals whose movements are looked upon as suspicious. During the night and this morning several people have called at Leman-street Police-station and communicated to the police tit-bits of information which they imagine will have some bearing, important or otherwise upon the movements of the miscreant. "We don't pay much attention to some of these," candidly confessed a young officer this morning to an Echo reporter. "Some of these people only make their statements for the express purpose of getting what they can. For instance, one woman came up to me about five o'clock this morning. 'Sergeant,' she said, 'I've got a little bit of news for you.' Of course I asked her what it was in the usual way, and she went on to tell me, with an air of peculiar mystery, that she lived in Mansell-street, just off Aldgate. She had a lodger, a tall, dark foreigner. He was out all Thursday night, but he returned yesterday morning about nine o'clock. He appeared to be 'hurried,' paid for his room, and left immediately. She had not seen him since, and had no idea where he went. He left a small bag behind, and she, anticipating a prize, burst it open during the day, to find it contained - nothing."

This shows us quite clearly that the police did leave a number of statements unattended to. Therefore, we must accept that the very same thing may well have happened to the statement offered by George Hutchinson on Sunday

""We don't pay much attention to some of these," is what the young PC interviewed by the Echo states, and one has to wonder where the line was drawn. Certainly, the story that exemplifies a statement that was dropped by the police, does not contain any fantastic or unbelievable elements as far as I can see. And still, it was dropped. Therefore, it appears that Hutchinsons story of Astrakhan man could just as well have joined the score of dropped information.

... and that means that we need to treat Hutchinson´s assertion that he DID speak to a PC on Sunday morning as a totally feasible thing, as far as I can see.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“Of course not - this is blatantly untrue. Lewis changed her testimony on seven points out of nine, ending up with a score of 78 per cent of changes.”

I don’t think so, somehow. I think this is just you misapplying faulty mathematics in a highly eccentric fashion again. Obviously “78 percent of changes” is a complete nonsense, as is “out of nine”. Nobody seriously wants to argue that Lewis’ entire testimony is comprised of only nine points, which we know for certain it wasn’t. The description of the loiterer comprises a very small part of her overall testimony and police statement. It is an irrefutable fact that Hutchinson changed his testimony to a far greater extent than Lewis did, and it is also an irrefutable fact that considerably more authors and researchers have criticised Hutchinson’s account than they have Lewis’. The idea of prioritizing three-day late, discredited, non-inquest Hutchinson over Lewis who attended the inquest, and about whom nobody had anything negative to say, is a horrific fantasy nightmare of an idea. I’m just so relieved it’s emanating from only one highly dubious source and no other.

I’m not aware of many authors who are “quite impressed” by Hutchinson’s “honesty”. In fact there are more suspect books on Hutchinson than there are books that particularly commend his discredited evidence. The exceptions to this are suspect books that attempt to draw very bad parallels between their suspect and the Astrakhan man.

Of course Hutchinson would not have been “subjected to the consequences of obstructing police work", any more than other discredited witnesses such as Packer and Violenia would have been. If the police decided to penalise Hutchinson for lying, all Hutchinson had to say was “Really? Prove it” and walk away. In the absence of any final proof that he lied, they had only their collective wisdom at their disposal with which to discredit his account, which was precisely what happened.

“Hutchinson as a person was not discredited at all. Nobody had a derogatory word - not one! - to say about George Hutchinson. His story, though, was discredited.”

As I’ve explained before – it makes no sense whatsoever to dislocate a bogus story from its source like that. It’s akin to claiming that Jack the Ripper was innocent, but his knife deserved to be executed for its terrible crimes. We know full well that the reason for Hutchinson’s discrediting was directly linked to doubts over his credibility. It was stated in the Echo, following direct communication with the police, that Hutchinson’s statement had been “considerably discounted” because of his failure to come forward earlier and present his evidence “on oath”. No sane individual is remotely likely cite this reason for Hutchinson’s discrediting and then argue “date-confusion” as the ensuing conclusion. There is no logic or rationale in observing: “Hutchinson only came forward after the inquest, so therefore he must be a decent, honest, charmingly befuddled idiot”. No, the likelihood is that after contemplating his absence from the inquest, they came to the conclusion that he was a two-a-penny fabricator.

“Then again, it is ALSO a fact that she MAY have been.”

It is a fact that she wasn’t.

The mere suggestion that she was discredited, or even mildly doubted, is just a hideous concoction on your part that enjoys next to no support, courtesy of its transparent absurdity.

“The article you refer to describes a man that was seen in Kellys company and that acted in a gentlemanly manner. It is a FACT that this description only tallies with one person in the investigation, and that person is astrakhan man.”

Please don’t delude yourself to such an embarrassing extent. It’s not becoming. The description in question does not relate to Astrakhan – FACT. It relates directly to the inquest testimony of Sarah Lewis who was the only witness to describe a “gentleman” - FACT. Moreover, the description in question originated from the inquest, which the Echo knew full well Hutchinson did not attend. The description tallies perfectly well with Lewis’ description of a “gentleman” and no other suspect – certainly not Astratwat, who was not described as a gentleman, and whose creator was already safely discredited by then.

It is a fact, therefore, that the description of a Birmingham suspect on 19th November, as published in the Echo, was compared to Lewis’ evidence, thus demonstrating to the discerning and sane that it was still being taken seriously a week after the inquest.

“I have proven that people that change their testimony are normally regarded as bad eggs by the legal system, unless they have good reason to change it.”

You waste your own time as usual in a misguided and fruitless exercise. All witnesses change their testimony to greater or lesser extents. In Hutchinson’s case, that change was positively gargantuan in scale. In Lewis’ case, it was scarcely worth commenting on, which is why mainstream rational thinking will continue to endorse Lewis as a credible witness well after you’ve gone the way of the dodo.

“I have proven that Sarah Lewis changed 78 per cent of her original police report when it was time for the inquest. It is equally clear. Seven parameters out of nine”

You haven’t done any such thing, and it is ridiculous to pretend you have. I can’t believe anyone can be so silly as to claim than Lewis’ testimony is comprised of “nine parameters”.

“I have proven that the spider in the net of the Riper investigation, Swanson, was of the meaning that changed testimony equalled useless testimony, more or less.”

He was of no such “meaning”. You are once again pretending that Swanson’s comments were generalized, as though he were outlining general police procedure when it came to assessing eyewitness evidence, when in fact, he was talking specifically about Packer, who doesn’t compare in the slightest to Lewis.

There is not the slightest evidence to suggest that either Lewis or her evidence was doubted by anyone at the time, and fortunately, it appears that practically everyone but you realises this. There was a recently conducted poll entitled “Did Sarah Lewis Lie”, and last time I checked, of the 15 total posters, 14 voted no, and one 1 voted yes. I wonder who that single voter was? You provide not the slightest scrap of evidence suggesting that any doubt was accorded to her evidence, just a lot of “must haves” based on extremely faulty reasoning. Even when evidence is provided that demonstrates conclusively that she was taken seriously a week after the inquest, you come up with predictably bad excuses for rejecting it. Speaking of predictability…

“I do not have your stamina, and so I must settle for telling the truth and leaving it at that.”

You say that, but I very much predict that you’ll do your usual, and not stick to that intention. I know exactly what’ll happen. You’ll see this post, succumb to temptation to respond at length, and defend it on the basis that “Oh I wasn’t going to post, but I had no idea you were going to say all that!”

Regular as clockwork. Just watch…

[Ben]

They would even point to the fact that she hadn't learn't her story off by heart.

A very good point there, Ruby, and one I'd overlooked.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben is at it again! Let´s see what he tries to sell this time!

"It is a fact that Hutchinson changed his testimony to a considerably greater extent than Lewis changed hers."

Of course not - this is blatantly untrue. Lewis changed her testimony on seven points out of nine, ending up with a score of 78 per cent of changes. Hutchinson changed little of HIS story, so little that many authors are quite impressed by it and regard it as a good sign that he was truthful. Stewart Evans, for example, is one such author.

"It is a fact that Lewis was a sworn-in inquest witness, unlike Hutchinson."

Yes, it is! But that does not mean that Hutchinson would not have been subjected to the consequences of obstructing police work, if the police had been of that meaning. Apparently they were not. They were instead, judging by Dew (who worked the case as a detective, including the Kelly killing), quite impressed with Hutchinson´s honesty.

"In it is a fact that Hutchinson was discredited, unlike Lewis."

Two wrongs out of two. Well, you choose to deviously put your sentence in a manner that can be "interpreted" (much your game, is it not?) in more than one way, so this may SEEM to have some truth to it. So let´s clear the smokescreens away, shall we?

Hutchinson as a person was not discredited at all. Nobody had a derogatory word - not one! - to say about George Hutchinson. His story, though, was discredited. And as you full well know, if somebody testifies with a good intention but gets things wrong unintentionally - like, for example the dates - the police will not castigate that witness and call him or her a timewaster/liar/publicity seeker. They instead say "thank you so much for your effort, we are very grateful for the good will you show by trying to help out - but we have found that you are unfortunately mistaken".

We have NO evidence that ANYTHING but the story was discredited. None. And you are aware of that, fully and clearly. Still, you repeatedly and apparently intentionally choose to misrepresent it.
You are welcome to say that you SUSPECT that Hutchinson was discredited and give the reasons why you think so, but until you can prove it, you need to stay with the evidence. And that allows for an appreciated effort on Hutchinson´s behalf, albeit an honestly mistaken one. If we had KNOWN and had it PROVEN that Hutchinson was discredited as a person, this possibility would not have been open to us. But is is. And that means that your claim that Hutchinson was discredited is demonstrably false as it stands. It´s called logic and consequence, honesty and fair play, Ben. And you should aquaint yourself with it before it is too late.

As fot Lewis, yes it is true that it is not a proven fact that she WAS discredited. Then again, it is ALSO a fact that she MAY have been. We don´t know, and both possibilities are open. So much for the "facts" - and what we can make of them, using our fantasy.

"It is a fact that Lewis continued to be taken seriously after the inquest."

No, it is not. The article you refer to describes a man that was seen in Kellys company and that acted in a gentlemanly manner. It is a FACT that this description only tallies with one person in the investigation, and that person is astrakhan man. It is also a FACT that the information does NOT tally with the man Lewis saw. It must therefore be regarded as highly improbable that the man described in the papers was actually described at the inquest by anybody. For at the inquest, NO man answering to the description in the papers was mentioned, as far as we can tell. If there was, it is not in the files left to us.
Ergo, it is a clear and unshakable fact that the papers got one or more parameters wrong, and that is the only fact we have at hand. No fact thus exists that tells us that Sarah Lewis was believed after the inquest.

But this, Ben, is the usual deplorable quality of your argument, is it not? Twisting, "interpreting" and adjusting to find as much of a fit with your theory as possible is the ordinary way for you to go about things.

I have proven that people that change their testimony are normally regarded as bad eggs by the legal system, unless they have good reason to change it. This is beyond doubt. It is a clear thing. Proven. End of story.

I have proven that Sarah Lewis changed 78 per cent of her original police report when it was time for the inquest. It is equally clear. Seven parameters out of nine. Proven. End of story.

I have proven that the spider in the net of the Riper investigation, Swanson, was of the meaning that changed testimony equalled useless testimony, more or less. We have it on record in his own words. Proven. End of story.

I have even provided a parallel case, showing that this is how the legal system works!

I can do all of this. ANYBODY can do all of this. It is a piece of cake. And when that is done, it is also proven that there is every reason to believe and accept that Sarah Lewis was doubted and regarded as a witness of little use after the inquest. That is not to say that we should work from the premise that she never even saw a man outside Crossingham´s, since that detail WAS included in her police report. Therefore, it is possible that the police attached some weight to this particular detail even after the inquest - but chances are that this thing TOO was affected by the dwindling trust the police would have held about Lewis! If a witness fails to come clear in one respect, the immediate suspicion arises that this may hold true for the rest of the parameters too. It is an easy thing to understand. You don´t by a second car from a guy that has conned you at the former car investment on your behalf, do you?

Like I say, I - and potentially 7 billion people - can do all of this and prove that Lewis would have been distrusted if the ordinary police thinking was in place back in 1888.

The only thing I cannot do, the one thing I have never been able to do, and the only thing I will probably never be able to do, is to make you admit it.

But that owes to other things, not belonging to the category of facts. And there is little reason to attach much importance to it, since everybody can refuse to admit the obvious.

"The earth is round."

"No."

"Water is wet."

"No."

"Ants are smaller than elephants."

"No."

Anybody can do that. But nobody can support it, least of all you. The one thing that is very frustrating is that you somehow believe that your flawed reasoning and faulty presentation of what you call facts, allows you to call other peoples suggestions, mine included, derogatory names.

That´s arrogance and ignorance in a very unflattering combination, and it really does not belong here.

Now, Ben, I leave the field open for you to once again spread your unsubstantiated propaganda and "interpretations". I do not have your stamina, and so I must settle for telling the truth and leaving it at that. There is little more that I can do to prove my case, and there arguably should be no further need at all to realize this intellectually on behalf of anybody.

Proven. End of story.

Fisherman

[Ben]

Certain people really need to condense their unnecessarily long-winded posts for which they have recently been ridiculed even by people who pretend to be their mates.

Ruby was just subjected to what I regard as insufferably rude and obnoxious posts, in which she was accused of being intellectually and morally blind, that her place of residence was somehow associated with a propensity towards baseless speculation, and that her post was destined to be “laughed off the boards”. Let's see if this frosty-spirited little prediction comes true, shall we? This loathsome accusation came from a poster who tends to cry like a baby and bleat to the moderators whenever he feels he is subjected to that sort of venom himself. Fortunately, I know that Ruby is not the type to be intimidated by the filibustering, ponderous, bumptious sorts.

It is ludicrous in the unacceptable extreme for anyone to single out Sarah Lewis for supposed “damaged credibility” as a result of changed testimony, especially when we know for an irrefutable fact that Hutchinson changed his testimony to a far more appreciable extent in his three-day late, discredited testimony than Lewis did. Anyone advancing the claim that Hutchinson is more credible than Lewis on that basis is a despicable fraud and a sham. But nobody’s seriously arguing that here are they? Phew! So no despicable fraudulent shams about.

Clearly nobody has any problem with the minor discrepancies between her police statement and inquest evidence. Clearly nobody has any problem with her impression of the man’s interest in the court. Clearly, nobody considers a black hat a “detailed description”, and so on. If anything, an earlier witness statement is likely to be less reliable than a later inquest testimony, especially if s/he was an unwitting or unwilling participant in an extremely traumatic affair such as Lewis would have been in the morning of 9th November, after a harrowing discovery and a sleepless night.

Again, nobody rejected Lewis’ testimony, then or now, nor has anyone asserted – until Fisherman showed up– that her police statement invalidates her inquest testimony. She did not provide an “estimation of height and body structure”. She stated “not tall, but stout”. Hardly very detailed. She did not mention hat "fashions" either, but rather a common type of headgear and the most common colour for hats and coats around: black.

It is a fact that Hutchinson changed his testimony to a considerably greater extent than Lewis changed hers.

It is a fact that Lewis was a sworn-in inquest witness, unlike Hutchinson.

In it is a fact that Hutchinson was discredited, unlike Lewis.

It is a fact that Lewis continued to be taken seriously after the inquest.

But you get the occasional shabby, nauseating shambles of an argument that asserts that despite these facts, Lewis must be doubted, and not Hutchinson. At least all of us can sleep well tonight in the full and certain knowledge that such depraved and criminally insane nonsense will never, ever into mainstream “ripperology”. Swanson’s comments were acutely specific to Packer, who was discredited along with Hutchinson. There is not the flimsiest scrap of evidence to suggest that he ever doubted Lewis’ evidence, and the same may be said of all his colleagues and subordinates amongst the 1888 police. Anyone claiming that the police discarded Lewis' testimony had better provide some sort of evidence for this claim that everyone else rejects with a chuckle. The historical record has nothing remotely negative to say about Lewis or her evidence.

The recently presented “legal parallel” with Casey Reylonds is an embarrassing, offensive joke. It perpetuates the fallacy that the wideawake man was the primary focus of Lewis' inquest testimony, which we know full well it wasn’t. It also fails miserably as a comparison because Reynolds was the actual victim of a crime, which doesn’t compare in the slightest to Lewis. Lewis never stated that she would be able to recognise the man again, as Ruby points out. The Kelly inquest was not a trial, and nobody was going to be sent to jail at the end of it.

We know for certain that Lewis was taken seriously by the police at least a week after her sworn-evidence was provided at the inquest. It was compared to the appearance of a Birmingham suspect, thus proving that she was taken seriously as a witness thereafter. Anyone who disputes this is delusional, lying, or both. The idea that Lewis was a bad witness was only dreamed up a few weeks ago once it was recognised by a few distinctly pro-Hutchinson theorists that to discredit her evidence would ensure that the obvious correlation between her wideawake man and Hutchinson is enervated. Hideous luck for the proponents of that abominable trash, but very fortunate for the truth.

Suffice to say, this mission has been an abysmal, catastrophic failure, since her description of the wideawake man’s activities correlate so closely with those of Hutchinson at the same time and same location. In other words, Hutchinson was the man seen by Lewis, thus cementing the former to the very location he alleged to be standing at 2:30am on 9th November, and for the very same reason.

If people want examples of “witnesses” who were discredited for divergent and suspiciously altering testimony, they can look no further than George Hutchinson. This is the most disgusting aspect to this anti-Lewis agenda (which, thank phuck, is being peddled by just one person - yep, the usual one!). All these crap, hastily googled examples from other cases that involve altered testimony can be leveled with far more justification at Hutchinson and his three-day late, non-inquest, discredited account. In attempting to demolish Lewis, all the hapless Lewis-bashers are doing is drawing even more attention to the problems associated with Hutchinson's testimony, which makes Lewis' appear positively squeaky clean.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Just mere supposition with nothing to support the assertion."

It may have passed you by unnoticed, Ruby - I think it MUST have - but I have listed legal writings, Swanson´s wordings and a legal case parallel to Lewis´. That actually was what I used to support my assertion. If you are too blind or - shall we say - unperceptive, to realize this, then you may need to look for another hobby.

By the bye - is not Avignon that town where the bridge never reaches to the other side of the river...? Thought so!

"You see a parallel -I don't."

I´m sad to hear that. But not in any fashion surprised. It was to be expected.

I mean, after all, why would a scared person, who initially only got a quick glance at somebody and admitted to not being able to describe the person/s seen, only to thereafter change course and furnish a nice description, in ANY fashion be ANY sort of parallel to Lewis?
I mean, it´s preposterous to even suggest such a thing, is it not?

Ruby, get out as fast as you can - all you do is to very clearly show that you are totally ignorant of these matters and that you can tell a turkey from it´s twin by claiming that they are not even the same kind of animal.

"No she didn't. She never claimed to be able to identify him again."

Let´s be honest, Ruby - that was not what I said, was it? So why try and make it look like that? It is not a very decent thing to do. I SAID that Lewis - just like Casey Reynolds - experienced a magical recollection of somebody she had formerly been totally unable to describe. That IS the same thing, whether you like it or not -and whether you change the subject or not.

"Just your opinion, because it happens to help your theories. Nothing to substantiate it."

Casey Reynolds - remember? Donald Sutherland - remember? The law book - remember? All the cases where people have been thrown out of court for changing their testimony - remember?
This, Ruby, is how research is conducted. We do not have any records about what happened to Lewis after the inquest or how her testimony was received. But that does not mean that we are at a loss to understand it! What we CAN do, even in cities where the bridges do not reach the other side, is to take a look at the normal procedure surrounding similar cases.
And guess what, Ruby? We immediately find that people who change their testimony are looked upon as potential dangers to justice, either mistaken or liars, as it were!

Can you believe that?

Or, let´s make it even simpler: Do you understand and acknowledge this? Has it come across yet? Or do you claim the opposite - that the legal system do not regard changed testimonies as in any respect doubtful or suspicious?

Is this what you think? Is that the depths from which I must haul you up? I pray not!

I actually think that you - and a couple of other posters - have realized that this is how it goes: Changed testimony - damaged credibility. Changed - damaged. Click-clack. Easy mechanism, impossible to miss.

So! When acknowledging this, you are of course immediately faced with the risk of having to admit that Lewis was a completely worthless witness.

Dear me, what to do? Wait a second ... Of course! We can always claim - in spite of the fact that Sarah Lewis changed seven out of nine parameters in her testimony, adding seven ingredients that were not even THERE from the outset - we can ( and in fact, we MUST) claim that Sarah Lewis´ testimony was not changed at all in any significant manner, that the changes that were made were ridiculously diminutive, so small that it takes a magnifying glass to spot them!

Well, Ruby - the very best of luck with that! But the bridge, you know, the bridge ... it will never reach the other side.

Then again, why would YOU care? Sur le pont, d´Avignon, on y danse, on y danse ...

Fisherman

PS: "Moreover, witnesses who change their testimony from the time of discovery to the time of trial almost always damage their credibility, unless there is a very compelling reason for the change.”
”Dispute resolution and expert evidence”, chapter 14, page 156."

Goodnight, Ruby ...

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

I will offer one more case to show why Sarah Lewis

would certainly have been doubted after the inquest

.

Just mere supposition with nothing to support the assertion.

So, what have we got here? Exactly - we have a man that ends up in a very stressed situation and gets a quick glance at his assailants, just like Lewis did, albeit she was not attacked.

She wasn't attacked and that's primordial. I agree that she would have felt stress -like any woman walking along a dark dodgy street and seeing a lone man lurking, especially with murders having been committed in the area. It's not at all the same level of stress.

. [QUOTE]

Once again, we see the parallel:[/QUOTE

You see a parallel -I don't.

And Lewis? Equally correct: Since she did the exact same thing - experienced a magical recollection of her man,

No she didn't. She never claimed to be able to identify him again.

she was in all probability also buried six feet deep as a witness.

Just your opinion, because it happens to help your theories. Nothing to substantiate it.

[Fisherman]

I will offer one more case to show why Sarah Lewis would certainly have been doubted after the inquest. This is a very useful parallel case, concerning Casey Reynolds, a white american man who was alledgedly attacked and shot by three afro-americans back in 1966. As far as I can make out, Reynolds was a man of good reputation, and as everybody will know, black men have traditionally been treated harshly by the American legal system. Anyway, Casey Reynolds was attacked and shot while changing a tire on his car, alongside his wife. It all happened quickly, and Reynolds only got a quick glance on his assailants. This rings a few Lewis-bells; a frightened person getting only a quick glance at somebody, right?

Okay, on we go, and now I am quoting from "Notre Dame Law Review", Vol. 86 Nbr. 2, March 2011:

" In the two weeks that followed, Reynolds was only able to vaguely describe his attackers and unable to identify them from a series of mugshots. Three months later, Reynolds was called to the police station, where he was presented with a lineup of six men. Reynolds suddenly remembered, immediately identifying Stephens and Coleman as his assailants.

At trial, Reynolds was asked to the take the stand and testify regarding the events of that tragic evening. During his testimony he indicated that, despite the short duration of the events, he could clearly identify the two shooters. He sat in the witness box and told his story to a jury of his peers entrusted with the task of determining whether or not he was telling the truth. How, though, can a jury be certain that he was right? Our criminal system requires the jury to find the accused "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," but even such a high standard of culpability cannot ensure that the jury is right every time. When the freedom of two men is at stake, is Reynolds's accuracy not crucial? Only Casey Reynolds, his wife, and his three assailants knew exactly what happened that night, and even then each may have had a different recollection, but Reynolds was certain that he recognized the two men. It was nighttime and he had his back turned as they approached, catching a glance of them after being shot. In the course of a few seconds, his wife was threatened, and he was surely stressed. He was shot a second time. In the proceeding weeks he was unable to clearly describe his attackers. Yet, during a lineup and again at trial he picked out the two men at whom he said he "got a real good look." (4) These extreme circumstances must cast significant doubt on his ability to not only see, but also to remember, the men from that night. Situations such as this have given rise to calls for reform in the criminal justice system to ensure that innocent people are not sent to jail on the basis of inaccurate eyewitness testimony."

So, what have we got here? Exactly - we have a man that ends up in a very stressed situation and gets a quick glance at his assailants, just like Lewis did, albeit she was not attacked.

He then professes to not be able to describe other than in a very vague way. Just like Lewis did in the police report - a very vague description was what she managed, or even less, to be honest.

And then? Exactly, he suddenly remembers things and now claims that he "got a real good look", and he picks out two men at a line-up and at the following trial. Once again, we see the parallel: Lewis also had aquired a radically refreshed memory as she entered the inquest, and was suddenly able to describe her man and his behaviour and intent. Apparently she "got a real good look" at what he was doing too, otherwise she could not have been dead sure of what he was doing.

And the moral of it all? Correct: the men Casey Reynolds pointed out were exonerated. Reason? The judge and jury acknowledged the fact that Reynolds had changed his testimony. He had gone from not being able to describe his assailants other than very vaguely to suddenly being totally sure that he recognized the men, of whom he claimed to have gotten a real good look. And Lewis? Equally correct: Since she did the exact same thing - experienced a magical recollection of her man, that was NOT there from the beginning, she was in all probability also buried six feet deep as a witness.

If it could be reasoned that the 1888 police force did not know that changed testimonies were bad testimonies, it may have been another thing. But Swanson puts it beyond doubt that the police knew full well about this.

And really, nothing more needs to be added. Changed testimony - damaged credibility. And that applied even if you were a white stand-up citizen back in the racially infected USA of the sixties. The legal principle that changed testimonies are selfdiscrediting prevailed.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"That pretty much illustrates what I was saying.."

No, Rubyretro, it does not "pretty much" illustrate what you were saying. It instead illustrates EXACTLY and PRECISELY what I was saying - that people who change their testimonies in a legal context like for example a trial, are also people who, and I quote word by word: "almost always damage their credibility".

So you see, the text I provided strengthened MY argument, not yours.

Changed testimony - damaged credibility.

Change - damage.

See the mechanism?

"Any differences in what Mrs Lewis said were so negligable as to be unimportant."

The differences are differences on ALL counts but two -she saw a man (1) outside Crossinghams (2). The other seven points: the dark clothes (3), the dark colour of the hat (4), the style of the hat (5), the height of the man (6), the body structure (7), the fact that he watched the court (8) and the addition that he seemingly waited for someone to come out (9), ALL represent CHANGES as relating to the former testimony. And to make things worse, they are not even small changes like size ten shoes-size twelve shoes, brown hat-black hat etcetera - they are HUGE changes, totally new, former unitroduced elements!
Unless you are blind intellectually, logically and morally, you will realize this. And if it is the other way around, you are simply wasting my time.

"They would even point to the fact that she hadn't learn't her story off by heart."

And there we have the full-blown ludicrous misconception that all learnt-by-heart descriptions must be elaborate. Like Hutchinson´s perhaps? So that, in fact, we can conclude that the more details a description contains, the more credible it becomes that the witness is a mad killer?

Can´t you see what you are saying here, Ruby? Don´t you consider the implications before you press the "send" button? Is it so hard to realize that arguments like these are predestined to be laughed off the boards?

Go back to the drawing board, Ruby. And stay there until you learn to count to nine. Before that, you apparently have nothing at all to offer on this thread that will be of any value to anybody else than the ones who are already your mathematical equals.

Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

In an examination for discovery, as the lawyer asks questions and the witness answers them, a court reporter makes a transcript of those questions and answers for use at trial as evidence. If evidence given by a witness at trial is contradictory or inconsistent with the answers given in the examination for discovery, the transcript can be used to impeach (or contradict) that witness. The primary purpose of an examination for discovery is to allow both parties to assess all the evidence before the trial in order to reduce the likelihood of surprises. Although the element of surprise can never be completely eliminated, this procedure helps to reduce the number. Moreover, witnesses who change their testimony from the time of discovery to the time of trial almost always damage their credibility, unless there is a very compelling reason for the change.”
”Dispute resolution and expert evidence”, chapter 14, page 156.

Fisherman

That pretty much illustrates what I was saying..

Any differences in what Mrs Lewis said were so negligable as to be unimportant.

They would even point to the fact that she hadn't learn't her story off by heart.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Oh, so you’re the T-Rex in this whole equation, are you? "

No, Ben. No, no, no - the FACT that Lewis changed her testimony and would have been regarded as a bad witness is the T-rex. Your argument (Ehm ..I don´t think she changed her testimony ... Did she? Really ...? No, I disagree...) is the flyswatter.

I have no need for self-inflation, Ben. If you always use your own thinking as a starting point, you will always misread me.

The rest of your post is repetitive nonsense, and best remedied by another flash of this:

"Moreover, witnesses who change their testimony from the time of discovery to the time of trial almost always damage their credibility, unless there is a very compelling reason for the change.”
”Dispute resolution and expert evidence”, chapter 14, page 156."

Fisherman
More koala than T-rex

[Ben]

”You are wawing a flyswatter at a T-rex, Ben.”

Oh, so you’re the T-Rex in this whole equation, are you? It’s a fascinating commentary on your own self-perception, but it’s not what the rest of the world sees, unfortunately.

Paul and I participated in two of Jonathan Menges’ excellent podcasts a year or two ago that addressed the Kelly murder, and at no stage did he have anything bad to say about Sarah Lewis, despite all witnesses being covered extensively from my recollection. If he still considered Lewis a witness not worth paying attention to at the time writing “The Facts”, he would obviously have included this detail therein, but he didn’t. I realise that nobody requires hoards of “devotees” to advance a theory, but extent to which “Lying Lewis” was rejected must have given you occasion to pause and ponder, if not totally reassess the idea (which I would personally advise).

“Balderdash. He did not HAVE to say gentleman after having spoken of all the attires relating to the guy.”

Well no, he wouldn’t have done, because there was nothing about the man’s appearance and mannerisms that suggested a gentleman, according to Hutchinson. Dressing in an ostentatious, opulent fashion does not a gentleman make as everyone realises. The overwhelming impression conveyed is that of a flashy wannabe, and not anyone of gentlemanly breeding or manners.

Lewis clearly felt the opposite of the man she saw, which is why she referred to him as a “gentleman”, albeit a rather spooky gentleman in this case. You are in absolutely no position to refute her personal impression of the man’s appearance and manners. A gentleman can cause alarm by his behaviour very easily, perhaps even as a result of his outward and visible gentility, which would not have been commonplace in that district.

“WOuld it be filthy, preposterous nonsense if they read about thick goldchains, seal stones, horseshoe pins, spats, kid gloves and astrakhan trimmings and deducted that they were dealing with the description of a gentleman?”

It would be rather odd if they took such liberties, based solely on dress, if Hutchinson didn’t specify “gentleman”, but this rather misses the point. “The filthy, preposterous nonsense” is the suggestion that the gentlemanly description from 19th November referred to Hutchinson and not Lewis. The description in question originated from the inquest, we're told, informing us immediately that it cannot have been Hutchinson who supplied it. The Echo, who provided this report, knew full well that Hutchinson did not attend the inquest. Again, Lewis was the only witness who mentioned “gentleman” specifically, and she DID attend the inquest. Hence, the witness whose evidence was being compared to a Birmingham suspect could only have been Lewis.

“Let´s see here, you think that Hutch did not mention Lewis because it would have made it soooo obvious that he had come forward because he knew of her testimony - but Lewis would of course describe the blotchy face and the carroty moustache of her loiterer. Hmmm, good thinking”

Thanks. I thought so. But in addition to failing, as usual, to provide the slightest scrap of evidence that Lewis stole from Cox’s evidence, you also don’t even suggest a plausible reason for this hypothetical copying. For what possible reason would Lewis borrow from Cox’s description in describing a suspect she didn’t even care about in comparison to the Bethnal Green Road man (who incidentally looks nothing like any other inquest description)? If we’re realistic about this, you ought to realise that the Miller’s Court witnesses would have had precious little opportunity to discuss their evidence with each other prior to giving their statements.

It is also possible that wideawake and blotchy were the same person, thus accounting for the similarity between the Lewis and Cox descriptions.

“The interesting quiz that was concocted on the boards related to the question "Did Lewis lie?". Such a thing is controversial. It is NOT controversial, however, that she DID change her testimony radically.”

Both of them are controversial, Fisherman, thanks to your inclusion of that silly “radical” adjective. I think it’s been demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that whatever change occurred, it was irrefutably not “radical”.

“Maybe, Ben, you should not ask your own good self about this. It may come as a surprise to you, but there is some reason to believe that you perhaps cannot see this issue clearly.”

I’m afraid that’s just another very bad excuse for doing what you cherish most, which is attempting at every opportunity to engage me in relentless, long-winded debate, which isn't a long-term sustainable strategy against me. If that isn’t why you joined the message board, it shouldn’t be primarily what keeps you here.

[Fisherman]

In an examination for discovery, as the lawyer asks questions and the witness answers them, a court reporter makes a transcript of those questions and answers for use at trial as evidence. If evidence given by a witness at trial is contradictory or inconsistent with the answers given in the examination for discovery, the transcript can be used to impeach (or contradict) that witness. The primary purpose of an examination for discovery is to allow both parties to assess all the evidence before the trial in order to reduce the likelihood of surprises. Although the element of surprise can never be completely eliminated, this procedure helps to reduce the number. Moreover, witnesses who change their testimony from the time of discovery to the time of trial almost always damage their credibility, unless there is a very compelling reason for the change.”
”Dispute resolution and expert evidence”, chapter 14, page 156.

Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Ruby:

"Just where is the 'problem' ?"

You have to read the thread to get the hang of that, Ruby. Thing is, even if you do, chances are that you STILL will not see the relevance of questioning the value of Lewis´evidence. That, Ruby, is how it goes - but it depends on who you ask!

Maybe that is why this discussion exists? People don´t agree, sort of?

The best,
Fisherman

As it happens, I do read the thread, whilst not replying.

I certainly see the relevance of questioning Lewis' evidence to you and your theory.

It's obviously very important to you to discredit Lewis's statement to try and
demolish any theory that Hutchinson was the man Lewis saw on the night of Kelly's death, and any theory that Hutchinson went to the Police to
anticipate being identified by Lewis (damage limitation).

It seems evident that Lewis was honest -at least we have nothing to indicate the contrary.

Like a tricksy lawyer, you can argue your point. We mustn't forget that O. J. Simpson was originally 'got off the hook' in his murder trial by tricksy lawyers in the face of the blindingly obvious.

You may try and bamboozle everyone with long tedious posts, but Mrs Lewis
still stands as telling the honest truth, as she personally witnessed, on the night of Kelly's murder.