Choosing which witnesses to believe

[Rubyretro]

And you are quite free to do so! What I am doing is going by the book; she changed her testimony, and that is it. After that, you are done for as a witness, technically speaking.

I don't think that Sarah Lewis did change her testimony. The details that she
added were hardly details at all. Anybody at all making something up would have been a bit more creative, surely? The whole of Lewis's way of describing things ring true and are logical in the context. I'm certain that any unbiased Policeman, or honest Jury and Judge would recognise the fact.

I am not slagging off the other witnesses -they may have been honest but mistaken.

Perhaps Lewis was simply a person with a whole lot less artistic imagination, but an (animal -again, not mean't as an insult) instinct for body language ?

I think that as a witness, she just said what she saw very simply. It's very slender, and as such, it's the most interesting to me.

"( Oh yes, and Paul in Buck's Row )."

Thatīs about the worst guy you could pick for the witnessesīrole, Iīm afraid! The discrepancies inbetween what he and Lechmere and Mizen says sinks Paul to the bottom.

I don't think Paul embroidered either.

If you think that Lechmere/Cross was the culprit, then if there are discrepancies between Paul's testimonies and Lechmere/Cross's -then it is not Paul who is at fault.

I should think that Paul might have a fairly similar reaction to Mrs Lewis in that he might study a loitering stranger from afar for a threat of danger -only he didn't have the added fear of having someone with superior strength 'come on to him', or of being possibly raped- but I think that he was aware of being perhaps robbed or gratuitously aggressed.

Didn't Paul actually say that he felt threatened by Cross ?

What is the discrepancy between Paul & Mizen ? (I can't remember).

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"I don't think that Sarah Lewis did change her testimony."

Iīve seen that view on sale before, Ruby, but I didnīt offer a penny for it then, and nor do I do so now. "No, I cannot describe him" and "Yes, I can describe him". See the difference? Good - Sarah Lewis DID change her testimony. Over and out.

"Anybody at all making something up would have been a bit more creative, surely?"

Not necessarily, no - these things will range from "I think he was a big guy" to "He had two and a half inch whiskers". Creativity has a thousand faces. Some liars try to stay away from being too exact, since that also can have them disbelieved. And I am not saying that Lewis must have lied. She may perhaps just have wanted to help the police and subconciously formed a picture of that man. If that was the case, a very rough description may perhaps have been all her mind had on offer. You know, you think really, really hard, and then you come up with "I DID see him did I not .... Hmm, was he not sort of fat, big ...? He was, was he not ...? Yes he must have been ..." And there you are: Short, stout and with a wideawake comes along a lot more easy than any exact description.

"The whole of Lewis's way of describing things ring true and are logical in the context."

Logical? Not to me, it isnīt. My logic tells me that if you cannot describe a man on day one, you sure wonīt do any better in that context on day two. In fact, my whole criticism is grounded on the fact that it is ILLOGIC to "remember" retrospectively.

" I'm certain that any unbiased Policeman, or honest Jury and Judge would recognise the fact. "

Sorry, Ruby, but a changed testimony is always - no exceptions - a source of sound suspicion. Any policeman, any jury, any judge may sense that a witness that changes her testimony is truthful, but that does not change anything - when you practice law, you must abide by the rules, and the rules say that a changed testimony carries a lack in credibility with it. Ask around, Ruby, and you will see. Thatīs a promise.

"Perhaps Lewis was simply a person with a whole lot less artistic imagination, but an (animal -again, not mean't as an insult) instinct for body language ?"

Or perhaps she was a very bad interpreter of body language. It does not work this way, Ruby - we cannot use hunches, hopes and guesswork as useful pointers.

"I think that as a witness, she just said what she saw very simply."

And the same applies here - what you think does not affect the fact that we must look upon this as unbiased as possible, and the only reasonable outcome of such a thing is to recognize that Sarah Lewis told the police one thing and the inquest another. And no other deductions can be drawn from that fact than that this is representative of a behaviour that is regarded as lacking in credibility. If you care to search the net (using perhaps the string "changed testimon*"), you will have confirmed what I have told you. If you can find a single case where a changed testimony ā la Lewis is looked upon with confidence by a court of law, I would be happy to hear about it. And for each case you can find, I will find you a hundred cases where the opposite applies. It is textbook and schoolbook knowledge and I very much suspect that you know it: Changed testimonies are looked upon with suspicion.

"I don't think Paul embroidered either."

If you look at his inquest testimony and what he told the papers, and then compare it to what Mizen said, you will see what I mean. Paul cannot have been the dominant guy AND a passive bystander at the same time.

"What is the discrepancy between Paul & Mizen ? (I can't remember)."

Oh! Right, here goes: Mizen was quite clear on the fact that it was Lechmere who spoke to him and told him what had happened, whereas Paul was equally clear in his paper interview that HE had been the one doing the talking. He related the event as if Lechmere had not even been there after Browns Stable Yard!

"Didn't Paul actually say that he felt threatened by Cross ?"

Not exactly. He said that he was aware that there were gangs about in the area, and that he gave Lechmere a wide berth for that reason. And that does not necessarily translate into him feeling threatened - it may just as well be looked upon as a purely practical measure on his behalf to avoid Lechmere.
But that is typically Paul, if you ask me - he would not say that he was frightened, although he knew that it could be shown that he had tried to avoid Lechmere. My own take is that he WAS unsettled by Lechmereīs presence, and quite possibly scared by it too.

All the best, Ruby!
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

And yet interestingly, Jon, when Bob Hinton spoke to several police officers about Hutchinson's description, they discarded it without exception as fiction.

I suggested people who require an eye for detail as part of their job, a detective, private investigator, etc. I don't know what you mean by police officers.
Not only that but take for example someone who has OCD, I can use my own eldest daughter as an example. She can tell you everything about what you are wearing on her first meeting you, or details of any room she passes through, every ornament, every picture on the wall.

People with OCD can have a highly developed attention to detail. I know what she's like, but we see the funny side of it.
I don't believe that you have never experienced anyone with a highly developed attention to detail. You're essentially telling me that something which is common knowledge around the world is, in your 'world', impossible.
What Hutchinson claimed to see is not impossible, far from it.

The Astrakhan man, in any case, is an unsubtle amalgamation of all the "scary" physical attributes that press and public had conjured up. It's akin to someone saying they saw the Loch Ness Monster - green, slimy, with three humps, wearing a tartan scarf and chewing a thistle.

Just seems to me Ben that you are stuck in the same rut you were in when we last chewed over this.

Of course there was. It was in the interest of deflecting suspicion in the direction of a convenient bogeyman that his efforts were undoubtedly directed, ...etc. ..etc.

Look Ben, all he needed was to give a basic description, not the depth of detail, as I said, and to which you lost focus of, there was nothing to be gained by Hutchinson providing such depth of detail, where; 5' 6'', moustache, dark complexion, black coat, dark trousers, carried a parcel, etc. would have done nicely if he only wished to suggest he saw someone who really wasn't there.

So at 2:30am on a miserable November night, you think he had "nothing better to do" than stand in the street and fixate on the entrance to Miller's Court? Wow. And no, sorry, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that this was a remotely "common pastime".

Then I can see you have a lot of reading ahead of you.
What was Mrs Mortimer doing in Berner St.?

It was also an element that a lot of transparently bogus, discredited "witnesses" threw in to lend perceived gravitas to their woefully implausible "I saw Jack" tales. There is no reason to think the real killer ever owned such an item, let alone carried the tools of his trade in one.

Exactly, ....which demonstrates the basic flaw in your argument.
"Jack" was never associated with a "black bag" by witnesses, so, consequently there was never any reason for a witness to invent a "Jack" with a bag. Lewis said a "bag", Hutch said a "parcel", what are you saying, that a parcel was part of "Jack"s caricature, or the bag?

You've bought into some bogus argument that people on the street had some music-hall concept of what "Jack" looked like - they didn't!
That is all a modern fiction which evolved long after Mary Kelly's murder.

No, but they were the witnesses who survived the filtering-out process that wisely discarded the nonsense touted by Mrs. Kennedy and chums.

There was no filtering out.

I don't need to. I'm using precisely the same arguments and objections that did the trick very nicely when these points were first raised. I'm simply countering repetition with repetition.

Thats what I thought, stuck in the same old rut.

First thing you might like to do is read up on the social conditions in the backstreets of the East end. Specifically where we read about people who have no work, no food, no money just standing in doorways, passagways, on street corners, sat on footpaths in all weather, essentially doing nothing because they had nothing to do. They sit, lean or stand just watching other people, being nosey because they are just plain bored.

Hutchinson, with no money, nowhere to stay, was just plain bored and perhaps just a little ticked off that he didn't have 6d on him that night.
Who knows, maybe he planned to mug that character when he emerged from Millers Court?, we'll never know.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Hi,
Why do the majority of us, stick rigidly to the opinion that all witnesses are unreliable?
My opinion is instead of dismissing , we should try to make sense of what we have, because the truth is more likely to be amongst all the original statements, then entering the world of conspiracy, albeit some are good fun.
Poor old George H, a witness who has been disbelieved from the very depths of Casebook...and I still wonder why?
Regards Richard.

Richard.
I tend to think the majority remain silent on the matter, it is a vocal minority who choose to deride certain witnesses. Which witness depends on the arguement being offered.
Obviously we do not carte blanche accept every word they say as unquestionable, but in the same vein we also do not dismiss their words just because they bore witness to something that goes against certain preconcepted notions held by some.

Every witness must be judged on their own merits, and you are right, we should make every attempt to understand what they said, which can be challenging when their words have only been preserved 2nd hand, or in paraphrase.

Don't fear for Hutchinson, he will survive. Principally because the clearer thinkers will eventually realize that all the charges against him are frivolous, based on nothing, just smoke & mirrors.
He could have been a lot of things, but could-have's don't amount to anything without something tangible to back it up. Ripperology is littered with the bones of "could-have"-type theories.

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

We all seem to have our own opinions of which witnesses are credible and which are "BS men" (or BS women!). I'm curious as to what methods we all use to make this determination.

Eh bien, I'm asking myself two questions :

1: who saw the ripper ?

2: among those who saw the ripper, who made a truthful account ?

[Rubyretro]

"I don't think that Sarah Lewis did change her testimony."

Iīve seen that view on sale before, Ruby, but I didnīt offer a penny for it then, and nor do I do so now. "No, I cannot describe him" and "Yes, I can describe him". See the difference? Good - Sarah Lewis DID change her testimony. Over and out.

Well we will have to agree to differ : I don't think that she radically changed her testimony (she added a shape with a hat -not something that she might think constituted a description in the first place). You do. It's pointless to start the same long argument again.

"Anybody at all making something up would have been a bit more creative, surely?"

Not necessarily, no - these things will range from "I think he was a big guy" to "He had two and a half inch whiskers". Creativity has a thousand faces.

I think that someone who is creative sees an image in their mind. Something a bit more than "I think he was a big guy" -that smells a whole lot more of reality. Anyone could notice in the dark that a bloke was big, the length of whiskers is a picturesque detail indicative of creative visualisation. So I stand by my original thought -'not tall but stout' rings true as a description by someone who has not got a creative imagination.

Logical? Not to me, it isnīt. My logic tells me that if you cannot describe a man on day one, you sure wonīt do any better in that context on day two.

We have been over this before Fish, I'm sure, ad nauseum :

Day 1. " can you describe the man ?"
"No"
Day 2. " can you describe the man ?"
"No. I only saw him from a distance, in the dark"
"well, was he tall ?"
"No"
"was he thin ?"
"No"
" So...stout ?"
" more that -yes"
" Did he have a hat on ?"
"yes. A wideawake like almost everyone else"
" Did he have whiskers ?"
" I told you -I can't describe him"

Or perhaps she was a very bad interpreter of body language.

If she wasn't aware of body language, then she wouldn't have mentioned it.
Again it rings true that she would have badly wanted to know if that man looked like a threat to her before approaching him.

"I think that as a witness, she just said what she saw very simply."

And the same applies here - what you think does not affect the fact that we must look upon this as unbiased as possible

I am obliged to use the term "I think" when posting, since it would be impossible to state my opinion as fact, hence you you can say that what "I think" is unimportant. However you too are only giving your own opinion on the reliability of Mrs Lewis as a witness. You cannot possibly state as a fact that she was lying. You cannot state as fact
that her statement went from nothing to something very different and that this would be for any nefarious reason. You should use "I think" more often !

, and the only reasonable outcome of such a thing is to recognize that Sarah Lewis told the police one thing and the inquest another. And no other deductions can be drawn from that fact than that this is representative of a behaviour that is regarded as lacking in credibility

.
I beg to differ -the very slight difference in her testimony was in no way
lacking in credibility, as far as I'm concerned. Rather the simplicity of it convinces me.

If you care to search the net (using perhaps the string "changed testimon*"), you will have confirmed what I have told you. If you can find a single case where a changed testimony ā la Lewis is looked upon with confidence by a court of law, I would be happy to hear about it. And for each case you can find, I will find you a hundred cases where the opposite applies

.

Hmmn...On one hand I can't be bothered to make this pointless search...but on the other hand, if you have to search for a "hundred cases" for each of mine, then the temptation to waste your time is calling me...still, I have to go to work tomorrow (day off today)...

And for that reason, I won't engage myself in searches on Paul after midnight...

[Wickerman]

:

The fact is, if you don't have a very good reason to remember someone when you meet them, then you have only a hazy image. So what hope for a random stranger passed in the street for a matter of seconds ?

Interesting that you adequately describe the differences between Lewis's fleeting glimpse of "Widewake", whom she had no reason to remember, as compared to Hutchinson's description of "Astrakhan" whom gave him cause to remember.
Which makes your final backhander all the more puzzling..

ps...In the light of the above, it is evident that Hutch's description of Astro Man is laughable.

Hutchinson certainly conformed to the "fact" you previously layed out..

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

I suggested people who require an eye for detail as part of their job, a detective, private investigator, etc. I don't know what you mean by police officers.

It's quite simple, Jon. I was merely reminding all who needed to be reminded (or rather, who have the time to waste arguing that which has already been argued extremely unsuccessfully on other threads) that Bob Hinton interviewed a number of police officers on the subject, and all rejected Hutchinson's account as fiction. Is it likely that Hutchinson was secretly a private investigator with OCD, or is it more reasonable to assume that he lied in his contemporaneously discredited account? It amounts to clutching, very desperately and very pointlessly, at straws to cite OCD as an explanation for the implausible extent of detail in Hutchinson's account. Unfortunately, a great many more people lie every day than there are sufferers of OCD.

I've already explained that the memorization of details is not the problem here, since he couldn't even have seen all that he alleged to have memorized at that time and in those conditions. It is ludicrous for people to keep dredging up "Rain-man" and citing extreme cases in an attempt to claim that Hutchinson was one of those rare, super-special people. Are such far-fetched explanations really more enticing than bog-standard lying on Hutchinson's part? Is the conclusion that he invented this absurd, discredited pantomime villain really something we must resist at all costs? Well it might be for those who are titillated by the possibility of the ripper being a well-dressed toff, but I'd hope the vast majority aren't quite so ill-discerning.

Look Ben, all he needed was to give a basic description, not the depth of detail

Perhaps you just ignored my rebuttal to this non-argument which utterly demolished its validity? I'll try again: other proven liars have used an excess of detail where they had the opportunity to be brief in their bogus "witness" descriptions. I even cited an example of an actual killer whose attempt to inject himself into the investigation consisted of an overly detailed account that was initially attributed to photographic memory. If Hutchinson wished to deflect suspicion in a false direction and away from himself, it made sense to describe someone very different (to himself) and incorporate as many bogus sensationalist physical "ripper" attributes as possible, which is precisely what he did do.

What was Mrs Mortimer doing in Berner St.?

Standing outside her own home, which she could have retreated into at any time, quite unlike Hutchinson at Crossingham's.

"Jack" was never associated with a "black bag" by witnesses

Yes he was.

Before it was discovered that he was Leon Goldstein, the black bag man from Berner Street was every inch a "ripper" suspect. Also, remember all those nonsensical press "witness" accounts that you occasionally attempt to revive as gospel? Sarah Roney and chums from the 10th November press reports? What was to prevent Hutchinson from reading these and deciding to incorporate them into his own, equally bogus, and equally discredited account? And bag versus parcel - do we really need to concern ourselves with that distinction? We know a genuine witness described a suspect with a "parcel", so Hutchinson had inspiration aplenty for his black bag/parcel/package.

Specifically where we read about people who have no work, no food, no money just standing in doorways, passagways, on street corners, sat on footpaths in all weather, essentially doing nothing because they had nothing to do.

I call your bluff.

Where do "we read about" such things?

Hutchinson claimed to have walked all the way from Romford, which was around 13 miles in miserable conditions in the small hours, despite being well aware that he couldn't access his usual lodgings when he returned home at 2.00am. I'd love to hear anything that supports the contention that this sort of behaviour constituted a "common pastime".

You've bought into some bogus argument that people on the street had some music-hall concept of what "Jack" looked like - they didn't!

No, I think you'll find the image of the ripper as a surly, sinister Jew was very widely circulated in 1888, as was that of a doctor with a black bag.

Don't fear for Hutchinson, he will survive.

He hasn't.

Sorry, Jon, but popular perception - in case you hadn't noticed - isn't hugely favourable to Hutchinson at the present time, and I'm doubtful in the extreme that you or Richard or anyone else is going to do very much about that. Sarah Lewis, on the other hand, is considered a genuine inquest-attending witness. We had rather pointless discussion last year in which a number of posters adopted a brand-new "anti-Lewis" stance, which predictably proved to be a car-crash of an argument in terms of how well in went down with the readers. In a subsequent poll, it was something like 17 out 18 voters who supported Lewis as a credible witness, which of course she is. Lewis was interviewed by the police, on the strength of which she was called to the inquest (further underscoring the faith that had already been invested in her), and thereafter it became clear that the police were still considering suspects on the strength of her evidence. A clean bill of health for Lewis, then - permanently so.

Cheers,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Well we will have to agree to differ : I don't think that she radically changed her testimony (she added a shape with a hat -not something that she might think constituted a description in the first place).

But was that all, Ruby? Are you truly reiterating ALL Lewis said? Are you not forgetting that she ALSO said the man was "not tall" and that he was "stout". She was also able to give the colour of the hat as black and the model as a wideawake.

For some reason, you are reducing this to Lewis just saying there was a "shape" in place. But that was what she said in her police testimony - since "a shape" equals pretty exactly what she said THEN - that she could NOT describe that person - he would have been just a "shape" to her.
But lo and behold, what happens? She suddenly "remembers" that the "shape" was that of a not very tall man, who was stout and who wore a black wideawake. That means that she made out even the fashion and colour of the hat, Ruby. AND she added his pattern of behavior too!
Letīs stick with the facts, and donīt speak about Lewis only talking of "a shape" - she did no such thing.

"It's pointless to start the same long argument again."

Only as long as you alter what Lewis DID say, Ruby. Once you take on board that there WAS a major difference inbetween police report and inquest testimony, it seizes to be pointless.

"I think that someone who is creative sees an image in their mind. Something a bit more than "I think he was a big guy"

Ever heard the expression LESS creative? Ruby, I know that some people will elaborate a lot, but others just wonīt. I think what we need to do is to realize that the police would NOT have said "u-huh" when Lewis started speaking of a man outside Crossinghams - thus at a time and place that potentially fingered him as a murder suspect. Donīt you think it would be reasonable to suggest that the police would have asked Lewis repeatedly about the man: "And you are sure that you can remember nothing, mrs Lewis?", sort of - they were desperate for a clue, and here it was, illuding them just the same.
All that pressure they would have put on Lewis, all them questions about the man they would have asked - donīt you think that this may have caused Lewis to make a real effort to remember at least SOMETHING?
And given that she HAD said "I cannot describe a single thing", do you really think she would go from there to a very elaborate and precise description? Six foot five, brown suit with a hole on the left knee, black leather shoes with brown laces ...?
Of course not.

"If she wasn't aware of body language, then she wouldn't have mentioned it."

Take a look at all the men who have MISINTERPRETED "body language" and ended up in jail, doing time for rape, Ruby. We ALL try to "read" body language, but not all of us are very good at it. So, you see, Lewis may have been right and Lewis may have been wrong. Making a guess does not equal making a good guess.

"You cannot possibly state as a fact that she was lying."

Which is why I never do that.

"You cannot state as fact that her statement went from nothing to something very different and that this would be for any nefarious reason."

Which is why I never do that either. But I CAN state as an unshakable fact that the two statements she made differed very much! Which is what I do. I can also state as a fact that such a thing generally renders the testimony less valuable, sometimes so much as to negate itīs value totally.

"On one hand I can't be bothered to make this pointless search...but on the other hand, if you have to search for a "hundred cases" for each of mine, then the temptation to waste your time is calling me...still, I have to go to work tomorrow (day off today)..."

Do it the simple way then. Ask yourself the question "Will changing a testimony have a positive or negative impact on a court of law, generally speaking".
Once you have the answer to that riddle, it will truly be pointless to do that search.

While we are on that subject, I would like to offer my best suggestion for describing what a good witness is all about: consistency. Of all the parameters we may investigate, consistency is by far the best quality in a witness. And what the police are doing when they are over and over asking a suspect to give his or her version of events, is looking for deviations inbetween the stories. As long as the suspect is consistent, he is in the clear. But when he suddenly changes his testimony and describe things differently at each take, he goes down the drain.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Lets be honest Hutchinson's account was considered strange more or less from the start[ 1888], and its not since Casebook that suspicion has reared, although Bob Hinton's fascinating book certainly enhanced that view.
I have always held the opinion, that despite such a vivid account voiced by GH, his sighting was a accurate one, and whilst the wrong day is possible, it is unlikely.
I give you a similar scenario.[fictitious]
My name is Richard Nunweek, I live with my aunt in Reigate, I had been to see a friend who lives several miles away, had been on a drink , and spent out . and I had to walk back, reaching my aunts around 2am, she is elderly , and as I stupidly forgot my key, decided to wait until morning before disturbing her.
I decided to walk about, maybe to find a secluded place to shelter, as it was a damp evening, and whilst doing this, I passed a corner where I saw a guy standing around, but as it didn't perturb me, carried on, soon after meeting a woman I knew, who was slightly intoxicated, but she was known in the locals and I had known her about three years.
She said ''Nunners'' can you lend me a fiver, I am broke?
I replied sorry 'I am the same as you'
She walked away towards the man on the corner, I watched her encounter the guy, they talked for a moment, then laughed, and walked back towards me.
As they passed I had a good look at this man,and realised that he was dressed in fancy evening wear,bow tie the lot, he was wearing a overcoat [ undone] and looked rather well dressed for standing around on a street corner, I was wearing a donkey jacket and jeans, and he was not the type of bloke that I would associate with Mary[the woman's name] .
I looked at the guy , who returned with a stern expression, although no words were spoken, and I decided to follow on behind , just being curious .
About two hundred yards on they stopped, and spoke, they both kissed, and then walked into a block of flats , which I assumed was known to one of them.
I was not concerned for her safety, I was not remotely associating this with recent fatal attacks in the area, I was just being curious/nosey.
I became aware of the death of this woman over the weekend, and felt I should come forward.
The man was carrying a parcel of some type.
The above is similar to that, which Hutchinson would have encountered , and I can see no reason to dis -believe Richard Nunweek witness.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

I didnīt realize that you were a killer, Richard. The poor woman!

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi Fisherman,
With all the talk of murder, and the gruesome photographs, its a wonder we all[ at least one hopes] remain sane.
Seriously.. I was just giving an example of how a chance encounter, with no interior motives, can lead to a situation, such as Hutchinson experienced.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

I know that, Richard. And you are completely sane, take it from me! I just wanted to offer my support for your take on George Hutchinson, and chose a perhaps slightly drastic way to do it.

In essence, I very much agree with you, so much so, in fact, that I am entertaining an idea of having your sentence "Instead of dismissing, we should try to make sense of what we have, because the truth is ... likely to be amongst all the original statements" guilded and framed and hung on my living room wall. As far as I can tell, nobody has said it better, Richard!

The best,
Fisherman

[curious4]

Hi All,

Hutch would definitely not be the best example of a 'bad witness', since he may not have been lying. Two definite bad witnesses would be Eduardo Violenia in the Chapman case and Matthew Packer in the Stride case. Both proved liars.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hello,

Sorry, must have missed something. What was the PROOF that Packer was lying?

C4

[Ben]

It's pointless to start that same long argument again.

Exactly, Lesley.

This is precisely what I tried to caution Jon against a few posts ago. If I see people wasting their own time with futile repetition of previous arguments, I simply enter certain words or phrases into keyword search, locate the previous argument and simply reproduce my response:

It is ludicrous 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 evidence to a far greater extent in his three-day late, discredited statement.

Clearly nobody back then had any problem with the minor discrepancies between her police statement and inquest evidence. Clearly nobody back then had any problem with her impression that the wideawake man was monitoring the entrance to Miler's Court. Clearly nobody back then considered a black hat a “detailed description”, and so on. On the contrary, we know 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 establishing that she was taken seriously as a witness thereafter. 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, as Lewis would have been in the morning of 9th November after a harrowing discovery and a sleepless night.

She said the man was “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.

We can forget the idea that the police exerted any particular pressure on Lewis to provide details of the wideawake man's appearance, since the evidence is that they were far more interested - initially, at least - in the more spooky looking individual from Bethnal Green Road.

Here are some big exciting threads on the Lewis-lying proposal.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5932

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5484

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5705