Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[Sister Hyde]

Sister Hyde:

"I seriously wonder how he got to know that!"

He just knows things, Sister. And he won´t let go of Hutchinson for anything in the world.

He ought to let go of that translation programme, though ...

The best,
Fisherman

when will people understand that the scandinavian grammar is even too simple and easy to be handled by a program? that's how I see it, once you now your vocabulary and the gender of the words, once you know when to use "på", "för" and all the adverbials and prepositions used in expressions, it becomes a piece of cake.

Anyway I hardly see Hutchinson going and snuggling up against the guy when he comes out of MJK's room... It's ok for me to do that kind of things, but not for humans!

[Rubyretro]

Blimey, this thread is getting boring...

How can you be fighting about Mrs Lewis ??

Garry wroe pointed out logically that she had to have been the originator
of her own Statement.

There is not a whiff of anything to even suggest that she was a liar, nor did anyone suggest so -until Fish found he needed to support his 'wrong night' theory by chucking out contrary evidence.

Mrs Lewis's story has a totally believable ring of truth about it.

The very sketchiness of her description also rings true, compared to Hutchinson's over embellishments.

Just where is the 'problem' ?

[Ben]

cause he was not a rich guy and who knows sometimes what you have to do in order to get some food but it would seem weird that he would be doing it every day

Absolutely, SisterHyde, with no food to purchase in the whole of the East End, he might have needed to walk 48 miles to find some.

Anyway I hardly see Hutchinson going and snuggling up against the guy when he comes out of MJK's room.

Oh, come on, you're not telling me that the man's Astrakhan fur wasn't of some temptation?

[Ben]

And don't forget Lady-Kee-Kee Keyler

Ah yes, Lesley. That's Keeeeler, which sounds almost exactly like Ga-La-Gher...apparently!

And of course, I agree entirely with your thoughts on Lewis.

All the best,
Ben

[Sister Hyde]

Absolutely, SisterHyde, with no food to purchase in the whole of Tower Hamlets, he might have needed to walk 48 miles to find some.

I just guess anyone who needs to walk 48 miles every morning on an empty stomach would move closer to the food


Oh, come on, you're not telling me that the man's Astrakhan fur wasn't of some temptation?

Oh my!! yes it sure must have been!! I would have ruined his coat kneading on the fur and drueling... but such a behaviour from Hutch would have probably resulted in him ending up in the coucou nest

[Sister Hyde]

sorry ben the reply to your first line got into the quote

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"engaging me obsessively in yet another interminable Hutchinson-discussion is obviously the priority for you here"

I think that a lenghty discussion could be held about who is obsessive here, Ben. Not that you´d learn from it, though, so I digress ...

"There’s that detestable repetition of previously challenged nonsense again"

Challenge? WHAT challenge? You are wawing a flyswatter at a T-rex, Ben. And it´s not even a very fresh and useful swatter.

"Philip Sugden was aware of this, and yet he still considers Lewis a genuine witness just as everyone else does."

Up to the inquest we are obliged to see her as a genuine witness for obvious reasons. After that, your armada of cheerers-on will thin significantly. Was it not Paul Begg, for instance, that wrote that Lewis testimony could not be taken seriously after the change of it?
You see, Ben, I am not as alone in the world as you will have it. But if one of us MUST do the walk alone, let´s pray it will be me. I can do it. I don´t need myriads of perceived devotees and hoards of thought-up followers.

"Is “balderdash” a new word that you’ve looked up in English, and are suddenly very proud of being able to use?"

Oh no - it is not new at all. It´s been around for a long, long time. Did you not know? It means, roughly, craptalk.

"Hutchinson didn’t even specify a man of “gentlemanly” appearance, so the 19th November Echo description couldn’t have applied to Hutchinson even if he did attend the inquest. "

Balderdash. He did not HAVE to say gentleman after having spoken of all the attires relating to the guy. And it was the press, not Hutchinson that spoke of a gentleman in their articles on the 19:th. Do you think it VERY odd if they drew that conclusion from a description like Hutchinsons, Ben? 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? Try selling that some place else, but not here!
What is also all-important here is that the man was described as one that portrayed gentlemanly manners. Lewis man was a horrific Ripper-in-spe, so he can easily be thrown out - but astrakhan man very gentlemanly offered Kelly his handkerchief, for example, meaning that HE fits the description. Plus he WAS seen in Kellys company, reportedly. If you think the jury is out, let me tell you they are out laughing.

"I go with Lewis’ impression, not yours."

I KNOW that, Ben. I like it. It means you will be wrong once again. Making the deduction that only people who have had the word "gentleman" used about them in a paper description, can actually pass as gentlemen is ... no, I won´t say it. But it commences with a b!

"It seems very much as though “the loiterer” was eclipsed in terms of importance by the more superficially sinister man from Bethnal Green Road."

Yeah, that sounds logical! Of course! Why would the police bother about a man that stands outside a murder site at a moment very close in time to when the victim would have died? It makes no sense.

"If Lewis wanted to parrot Cox’ evidence (for what possible reason?), she would certainly have used Cox’s “Billycock” in preference to “wideawake”, and she would certainly have referred to a blotchy face and/or carroty moustache."

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 ...

By the way, much as Cox said billycock at the inquest, how do you know that she did not say wideawake to Lewis afterwards? You just know? That´s funny, for I know of a poster on these boards who has gone out of his way to prove that the twine were interchangeable... Does that not count now, for some reason...?

"If it’s such an “obvious misconception”, why does virtually nobody agree with you then?"

How can you tell? 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. One cannot make a poll of such things - it would be like asking "WAS Churchill a politician?". It is not up for discussion, Ben.

"I realize this seems to be your cherished pursuit and main reason for so much of your time on discussions in which I participate, but you’ve never been at all successful at it. "

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. Over the years, there has been some little hint here and there that you may perhaps not be all you hope to be in this respect. Never mind, though ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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]

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

[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