Choosing which witnesses to believe

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Exactly so Fisherman. And what does that tell us? That it was unremarkable."

It was, yes - but that has no bearing on the question whether the police invested faith in it or not. Please read my answer to Ben, and you will see why.

"You appear to place considerable importance on Lewis 'changing' her testimony ..."

Yes. If you know of any judicial area where it is considered of no interest that a witness alters his or her testimony, I would be interested to share in that knowledge.

" ... as if this makes her an unreliable witness."

Well, believe it or not, Sally, but that is exactly how these things work. Changing your testimony is normally the exact same thing as opening it up to suspicion. But the term "suspicion" does not necessarily reflect poorly on the witness, it is meant in a wider sense: a suspicion that the testimony may be incorrect, if you will.

There will be degrees in this, of course. First saying "Yes, I saw mr Bellybottom strangle the woman", and then saying "What? Mr Bellybottom? No, no, I cannot possibly have said such a thing. I saw nothing", is a bit more damning than first saying "I cannot describe him" and then suddenly describe the make of hat, the colour of it, bodily stature and length and give a rather detailed version of what the man did, deducting that he was waiting for somebody to come out of Millers Court. Admittedly so! But it alters not that the police must have asked themselves WHY and HOW this change came about, and it will undoubtedly have entered their minds that it could have been a fabrication, conscious or not. Just like WE can see the discrepancy, so THEY would have. And no matter if the Victorian police thought such a thing unremarkable - the standards by which they worked would have been different from todays standards - WE both know, Sally, you and I, what todays policing has to say about changed testimonies. And that´s what applies here.

"In reality, though, you'd be hard pressed to find a witness who didn't expand on an initial police statement at the Kelly inquest - most, if not all of the inquest testimony contains detail not present in the initial police statement.Does this mean that all the witnesses giving police statements on 9th November can be deemed unreliable, do you think?"

Not at all - but that does not have anything to do with the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that Ben claims that it was clear that nobody had anything to object about Lewis and her testimony, and that is something we cannot know. She may have been correct and honest. And so may the other witnesses have been. I cannot see why I, by pointing out that we have nothing at all to tell us that the police believed in Lewis, should in any way be inferring that all the other witnesses must have been wrong ...? You are going to have to help me out on that one, Sally.

"Sarah Lewis was obviously unsure about what she'd seen when she gave her initial police statement..."

Yes, she was - and therefore that uncertainty is what applies.

"subsequently, further details emerged..."

But this is exactly what we cannot know, Sally. Subsequently she CLAIMED something else than she did initially, and neither you nor I can tell why. There are numerous possibilities:

1. She actually had a correct reminiscence and was able to give a correct picture, much more detailed than the first one,
or
2. She tried very hard to please the inqusitive police, and subconsciously formed a picture of the person she had seen,
or
3. She wanted to be the star of the day at the inquest, and cooked up a description,
or
4. She disliked the police, perhaps being a prostitute herself and thus harassed by them, and decided to lead them wrong,
or
5. Any other perspective that may apply here.

These are all potential truths. One of them probably applies. We cannot weigh them against each other with any certainty at all. All we can tell is that we simply don´t know. Plus we can tell that the fact that Lewis was called to the inquest has no bearing on what choice we should make here.

"Tempting as it may be to tar Lewis with a Hutchinson-exonerating 'dodgy-witness' brush, I'm afraid I think you're overstating the case somewhat."

Not at all. I am not even making a case. Ben is, though, for HE makes the case that nobody had anything to remark about Lewis. THAT - and that only - is the case made here. What I do is to prove him wrong, without attaching any label at all to Lewis, and thus not making any case at all about her. She may have been right, she may have been wrong. The problem arises when a case IS made to tell us that she MUST have been right and that the police MUST have believed in her. That, and nothing else, is the problem.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
With regard to Maxwell, I would suggest she is in a different league to Lewis.
Mrs lewis claimed to have seen a man opposite the court, which she could not identify, and which did not involve oral correspondence, or go against any medical opinion, she simply saw a man of ''military appearance'' in Dorset street, that is assumed by us to be one George Hutchinson.
Mrs Maxwell however did involve oral , and did fly in the face of medical opinion, she claims to have spoken to the victim several hours after the police doctors suggested she was dead, a claim which was checked on the very day the body was discovered, and her activities were verified.
She attended the inquest to give evidence which was in direct contrast to medical opinion, which leads to one of two possibilities.
1] The police believed her, which is a direct possibility , as initially they believed the crime was committed during daylight, therefore accepting the sighting as accurate.
2] The police did not believe her, and by having her attend the inquest hoped that the swearing of oath would iron out any desire to falsify.
However as we know, she relayed her account under oath, despite being warned [ to be careful] giving at least to me the impression that she was certain of her evidence.
This is one of the ''truth lies within the original statements'' I was referring to in a earlier post, I feel that along with G H both accounts hold the truth, although we appear not to have masterminded accurately the truth...
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

"Greatest credence has to be given to the 'initial disclosure', because that is the closest, in terms of time, to the events described. Additional detail remembered subsequently should probably have less weight placed upon it..."

Exactly.

"that in no way justifies discarding it altogether or taking a default position of 'unreliable'"

Absolutely - it MAY have been correct. But since the police KNEW that she initially was unable to say anything at all about the man, they would have come to the same conclusion as you do: leaning against the initial statement would be the better thing to do. And that initial statement undermines the credibility of the second one to some degree since they differed.

My own feeling is that the second statement was a fabrication, but that is MY take on things and I clearly declare that. It rests to some degree on the fact that I find it very hard to believe that a witness that have taken in that the person she describes was looking up a court, as if waiting for somebody to come out of it, with the initial view that she could not describe ANYTHING at all about the man.
If she saw this, then she would have perceived a gaze on behalf of the man, a bodily posture giving away some sort of intent and so on. For the life of me, I fail to see how such a thing compares with "I cannot say one single thing about the man". But that, of course, is just my take on things, Bridewell. The important thing here, though, is that you lay down the fact that initial statements are the more reliable ones, being closest to the unfolding of events.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hunter:

"Calling a witness before a coroner's inquest does not imply that witness is credible or otherwise. "

If I had read that before answering Ben and Sally, I would have saved a lot of time ...

But hey, thanks for chipping in, Hunter!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Remember that the contention here is that Sarah Lewis was lying."

It is nothing of the sort! What I am saying is that your claim that nobody had anything to remark about Lewis´testimony at the time is a totally unsubstantiable claim. That, and nothing else, is what is discussed here.

I DO think that there is a very fair chance that Lewis fabricated her story, but THAT is a very different matter, belonging to a different thread.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"she simply saw a man of ''military appearance'' in Dorset street"

The military appearance thing was offered by a journalist after Hutchinsons testimony, and not by Lewis, I´m afraid.

"This is one of the ''truth lies within the original statements'' I was referring to in a earlier post"

I realize that, Richard - me, I apply your reasoning on something totally different!

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Fisherman

Thanks. As I said, I think you're making too much of it - it is a matter of degree that lends significance to an action generally speaking, and the same applies to Lewis. Yes, she changed her testimony, technically. The significance of those changes is not great, I'm afraid - a change to slightly more general detail, but nothing so specific that it could be used to identify the man she saw. Essentially, Lewis's addition of generic detail at the inquest changed nothing. It wasn't important. Unremarkable. So she remembered that the man she saw had on a wideawake hat. And? What were the police going to do with that - conduct a search for every wideawake-hat wearing stoutish man in London? In fact, Lewis could not describe the physical appearance of the man she saw to any useful extent. She appears to have been more concerned with what he was doing - for a woman out alone in the early hours of the morning in Whitechapel that would be entirely logical and consistent with basic survival instincts.

I really don't think Lewis represents any mystery - that's why I say you make too much of it. As I said in my earlier post (and which you did not address) other witnesses added detail between the initial police statements taken on the 9th November and their inquest testimony. Does that indicate that we should suspect them of dishonesty as well? Does that make them all unreliable witnesses in your view?

..that has no bearing on the question whether the police invested faith in it or not.

Which we cannot know for a fact, so why speculate? There is no indication whatever that the police did not invest faith in Lewis' testimony.

WE both know, Sally, you and I, what todays policing has to say about changed testimonies. And that´s what applies here.

We do? What I know, Fisherman, is that a witness to a crime is asked to come back to the police if they remember anything else. That is commonplace practice, and as such a 'changed' testimony by a witness need carry no suspicion whatever. If a suspect changes their testimony then of course, they will look even more suspicious. Lewis was witness, and not a suspect, incidentally.

The issue at hand is that Ben claims that it was clear that nobody had anything to object about Lewis and her testimony

Oh dear. Pesky Ben. So if you contend that there was objection contra Ben, where is your evidence?

I am not even making a case. Ben is, though, for HE makes the case that nobody had anything to remark about Lewis. THAT - and that only - is the case made here. What I do is to prove him wrong

Really? But you say -

I have never seen much of any contemporary assesment of the value of Lewis´evidence. I can´t recall one single contemporary word in defence for it, and there is very little contemporary criticism of it it.

Surely that indicates that in all probability, nobody had anything to remark about Lewis?

No?

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"As I said, I think you're making too much of it"

Ah - you did not read my post. Okay, here goes again - I am making nothing at all of it. This whole exchange is about what BEN makes of things. He makes it a "clear" thing that Lewis testimony was not questioned back in 1888, and I very much question that any such thing can be deducted. Therefore, what I think about Lewis testimony is not up for grabs here. If it had been my intention to discuss that particular matter, I would have done so on a different thread.

"There is no indication whatever that the police did not invest faith in Lewis' testimony. "

And there is no indication whatever that the police DID invest faith in her. And that is the snag. No indication of distrust is not the same as no distrust. But surely, Sally, you know this?

"If a suspect changes their testimony then of course, they will look even more suspicious. Lewis was witness, and not a suspect, incidentally."

And still the same thing applies: changed testimony = lessened value. And if you wish to be sarcastic, I can use the same weapon against you: witnesses sometimes are knit to the suspects - incidentally. Naïvety, Sally, is sometimes a hard thing to avoid.

"So if you contend that there was objection contra Ben, where is your evidence? "

I don´t contend any such thing. You know, Sally, sometimes discussing with you is like dipping your head into a barrel of eels. Please try to restrict yourself to the arguments I make, instead of the ones I don´t make. I am not saying that Lewis was distrusted - I am saying that since we don´t know either way, we need to refrain from claiming that Lewis was never looked upon with suspicion back in 1888.

"Surely that indicates that in all probability, nobody had anything to remark about Lewis? "

No. The only thing it indicates is that we don´t know what people thought as they did not bother to tell us. And no news does not equal good news, I´m afraid. It may just as well indicate that after the inquest, the investigators realized that the investigation was better served by leaving Lewis aside.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi Fisherman.
Sorry schoolboy error.., lets just say, she saw a man she could not describe., with the rest of my post intact..
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

Fisherman

Ah - you did not read my post. Okay, here goes again - I am making nothing at all of it. This whole exchange is about what BEN makes of things. He makes it a "clear" thing that Lewis testimony was not questioned back in 1888, and I very much question that any such thing can be deducted. Therefore, what I think about Lewis testimony is not up for grabs here. If it had been my intention to discuss that particular matter, I would have done so on a different thread.

Of course I read your post Fisherman. Every single word - always.

But I'm afraid we must disagree, for a change. 'This whole exchange' is very much about what you think of Lewis - if not, then you'd have no reason to respond to Ben's dastardly argument, would you? Unless you have radically altered your view lately (not impossible) then you think Lewis lied. That's your perogative, of course.

My point is that I don't see any evidence for that and in addition, that the changes to her testimony are insignificant. I expect that might be why we see no particular comment on Lewis - damning or otherwise. Unremarkable.

There we are, in a nutshell. You think there is something worth remarking on regarding Lewis 'changed' testimonry, I don't. Ergo, I think you make too much of it. Simple.

And there is no indication whatever that the police DID invest faith in her. And that is the snag. No indication of distrust is not the same as no distrust. But surely, Sally, you know this?

No, Fisherman, that isn't a 'snag'. It's a total absence of evidence. As such, any contention that Lewis was, or may have been, considered untrustworthy is mere baseless speculation.

And still the same thing applies: changed testimony = lessened value. And if you wish to be sarcastic, I can use the same weapon against you: witnesses sometimes are knit to the suspects - incidentally. Naïvety, Sally, is sometimes a hard thing to avoid.

Eh? Not sure I follow there, Fisherman. Who said anything about weapons?

Changed testimony doesn't necessarily equal 'lessened value'. It depends on the circumstances.

I don´t contend any such thing. You know, Sally, sometimes discussing with you is like dipping your head into a barrel of eels.

Really? I'm flattered.

Please try to restrict yourself to the arguments I make, instead of the ones I don´t make. I am not saying that Lewis was distrusted - I am saying that since we don´t know either way, we need to refrain from claiming that Lewis was never looked upon with suspicion back in 1888.

Really? You're not saying Lewis was mistrusted? You got me there Fisherman, I thought that you considered her entirely untrustworthy. Still... to address your point -

If we don't know either way, as you say, then perhaps we also need to refrain from casting the finger of suspicion at Lewis as well?

No. The only thing it indicates is that we don´t know what people thought as they did not bother to tell us. And no news does not equal good news, I´m afraid. It may just as well indicate that after the inquest, the investigators realized that the investigation was better served by leaving Lewis aside.

We don't. We don't know, because of course, we can't go back in time and ask them. Comparatively, however, we can make an educated guess - and that is to say that if Lewis had been considered an unreliable witness at all it would have found its way into the press. It doesn't.

The best,
Fisherman[/QUOTE]

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I think Sally has covered all angles very admirably here. It does become tiresome to see you both avoid my gentle caution against further endless repetition (wasn't your memory jogged by those threads I provided links to?), and claim that you've "proven" me wrong.

The police were more or less certain that Maxwell provided INCORRECT information, and STILL she was called! And that owed to the fact that the police were not able to decisively prove that she was intentionally misleading or lying.

It did not owe to any such "fact". The fact that she was called to the inquest assures us that the police did not suspect her of lying or being intentionally misleading. The fact that she was called to the inquest despite her evidence differing so markedly from that provided by the other witnesses is a strong indication that she created a strongly favourable impression. Yes, she may have been "incorrect", just as Sarah Lewis' Bethnal Green Road encounter might have been irrelevant, but that doesn't mean for one moment that the police or anyone her doubted the honesty of either witness.

It is all very simple once you get the hang of it.

Please don't patronise me, Fisherman. It is you who fails to get the "hang of it". You seem to be suggesting that the police suspected Maxwell lying, but called her to the inquest anyway (just in case she wasn't?!), whereas the reverse was almost certainly the case. The witnesses who were suspected of lying were those who were conspicuously absent from the inquest; the press informants who gave crap accounts around the 10th November, and who sank without trace very shortly thereafter.

The "change" in Lewis' testimony was entirely understandable given the circumstances. Her initial statement was taken on the morning of a very sleepless night after a particularly harrowing discovery of a mutilated corpse not ten yards from where she slept. Despite what nonsense modern commentators might dream up from nowhere these days, it is quite clear that the police were not so heartless as to appreciate this. It is entirely plausible that she should remember additional details after the initial shock, as every police officer or detective worthy of that title will appreciate. Her value is not "lessened" - not in the slightest. This was an idea of yours that went down like a lead balloon last year, and which you now make worse by dredging up again. The only reason you cast doubt on her testimony is because you wish to downplay the likelihood that Hutchinson was the man she saw in a wideawake hat. And why? To lend gravitas to your "wrong night" hypothesis.

Let it go now, please. Agree to disagree etc.

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"'This whole exchange' is very much about what you think of Lewis - if not, then you'd have no reason to respond to Ben's dastardly argument, would you? "

What I "think" about Lewis, Sally, is something I would not market as facts. What Ben thinks about her, though, was marketed exactly like that. He reasoned that it was "clear" that nobody had any reason to doubt her at the time, and that is and reamins - like I say - totally and utterly without substantiation. Mere guesswork!

Therefore I at least am able to see the difference inbetween a discussion where we speak about our hunches, and one where we lay down the facts. And if you are unable to do so, I fail to see how I can do much about it.

"You think there is something worth remarking on regarding Lewis 'changed' testimonry"

I think there is POTENTIALLY something worth remarking on regarding Lewis 'changed' testimony, Sally. And that is a very important distinction that I get the feeling that you are either missing or unwilling to take on board.
I will show you where it takes you:

"You're not saying Lewis was mistrusted? You got me there Fisherman, I thought that you considered her entirely untrustworthy."

See? What I personally think is just that: something I think, and that may be right or wrong. Technically speaking, though, it is a fact - and not just something that I think - that we cannot establish that Lewis was trusted by the police and that nobody had anything to remark about her testimony. Once again, if I had been discussing my personal views on Lewis´testimony, I would have done so on the appropriate thread.

You mix things up very badly, Sally, although it should be easy enough to avoid it.

"We don't know, because of course, we can't go back in time and ask them."

Hooray! Score!

"Comparatively, however, we can make an educated guess - and that is to say that if Lewis had been considered an unreliable witness at all it would have found its way into the press."

That all boils down to the levels of education adhering to the different judges. And MY educated guess is that you are wrong. Lewis is - although she potentially saw the killer, judging by her testimony - left with no interest at all, more or less, by the press. If they had been very much impressed by her testimony, I´d say THAT would have gone into their articles.
Furthermore, if the very obvious potential corroboration with Hutchinson´s story had truly been there, then THAT would have resulted in a field day for the press! But no single article and no single policeman speak of it.

I am told that this was because the police and press were nitwits, unable to pick up on this very obvious detail. My take, however, is that they were nothing of the sort, and that the silence relating to Lewis´story and Hutchinson´s ditto after the initial enthusiasm visavi the latter, owes to the fact that all involved parties KNEW that there was nothing in it.

And believe me, Sally, THAT is at the very least as "educated" a guess as yours...

But I am going no further into this, and I will conduct no further debate with you over it. The picture is as clear as it needs to be, as far as I´m concerned. Once we pull our heads out of that barrel of eels, that is ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben!

The bad news for you is that I don´t take advice from you. Ever.

The good news is that I HAVE let it go. See my post to Sally.

Fisherman

[Ben]

it is quite clear that the police were not so heartless as to appreciate this.

...as to fail to appreciate this, I meant.

While I'm here, briefly, and since the issue has also come up again (why?), I'll reiterate that Hutchinson was more than likely the man in the wideawake seen by Sarah Lewis. There is no realistic alternative, in my opinion, aside from extraordinary "coincidence". The link did not appear to have made at the time, or else at the very least it would have been noted in the newspapers, and the press had ample time and opportunity to register the connection before the police could conceivably have noticed it, investigated it, and ruled it out. This is hardly surprising, as many high-profile and high-pressured police investigations are littered with examples of details being overlooked and investigative focus being sustained in the wrong direction. In this case, it is apparent that the wideawake man was eclipsed somewhat in significance by the other man in Lewis' account - the Bethnal Green Road botherer, since he was described as having accosted women, as the ripper would presumably have done.

Regards,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

Blimey, we are not back on all this tack again are we ?

Fisherman, you are clever and slippery, but arguing that an obvious black is white is a wasted cast of your line.

Sally and Ben have the logical argument based on the stated facts of the case
surrounding Mrs Lewis.