The Surly Man

[Fisherman]

David:

"It's then safe to assume that Hutch said nothing about Petticoat Lane to Abberline on Monday evening."

It´s nothing of the sort, David. What if Hutchinson felt that he had been mistaken on the man´s identity in Petticoat Lane? "I fancied I saw him on Sunday morning in Petticoat Lane, but was not certain" may well have been clad in other words at the Abberline interrogation. Let´s for theorie´s sake ponder the possibility that Hutchinson told Abberline that "on Sunday morning I went to Petticoat Lane, and actually, I for a second thought I caught a glimpse of the man there, but I realized that it was just my fantasy playing a trick on me".
Such a suggestion - and, of course, numerous others along similar lines - would tally eminently with what Hutch told the papers.
It may have been something that Hutch did not mention as the police report was written, since it would have carried no significance whatsoever. On the other hand, he may very well have told Abberline this - and scores of other unrecorded things! - at the consecutive interrgation.

So it anything but safe to conclude that Abberline was not told this, just as it is anything but safe to assume that the sighting was an invention.
Likewise, it may well be that Hutch never DID tell the police about it, as he may have felt uneasy to share such an unrelevant thing with a man of Abberline´s apparent importance, whereas he may have shared it with the more accomodating gents of the press at a later stage.

At any rate, I feel pretty confident that this detail plays no significant role in the Hutchinson drama. But that does not mean that I am going to swallow any rash suggestions about it being a proven lie! It is nothing even near such a thing, David, as you will doubtlessly realize.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

It may have been something that Hutch did not mention as the police report was written, since it would have carried no significance whatsoever.

Certainly not, Fish, for the relevant point in Hutch statement is that the man can be identified, hence Abberline's "He can identify the man".

So it anything but safe to conclude that Abberline was not told this, just as it is anything but safe to assume that the sighting was an invention.

That Abberline wasn't told this is pretty sure, I'm afraid, for reasons given above.

At any rate, I feel pretty confident that this detail plays no significant role in the Hutchinson drama.

Quite the reverse, imo, the problem with Hutch has always been his reliability. Honest witness or not, that is the question - and will ever be.

G'night !
David

[Fisherman]

David:

"the relevant point in Hutch statement is that the man can be identified, hence Abberline's "He can identify the man"."

Ehhh...? And what does this have to do with whether Hutchinson told Abberline about the Petticoat Lane incident or not - especially if he felt that the men were probably not one and the same? So far, it´s a point totally lost on me, I must say.

The best, David!
Fisherman

[DVV]

Well, Fish,"the man can be identified"........and this would have nothing to do with the Sunday encounter ? (have I to add : in which Hutch seems to have, perhaps, "identified" the suspect ???)

Must be time to go to bed with a good book for me ! ("The Poet and the Lunatics"....highly recommended btw).

Good night again Fish

[Ben]

Hi Sally,

You’ve raised some interesting points here, and I agree that Hutchinson’s apparent lack of concern over the whole Astrakhan affair is striking.

“(Hutchinson) is clearly suspicious of the man to the extent that he hangs around waiting for him to come out for 45 minutes – yet by his own account it never occurs to him that the man could be a killer. What then, does he suspect him of, exactly?”

Indeed. I rather suspect that Hutchinson had cornered himself in a position whereby he couldn’t realistically claim to have suspected the Astrakhan man of being the killer at the time of the initial sighting whilst at the same time admit to have done nothing but loiter, since it would beg the question; why didn’t he alert the nearest policeman? Clearly, if Hutchinson’s intention was to validate his presence opposite the crime scene – where he was useless as a preventative measure in the event of Asrakhan man getting slashy – he couldn’t also claim that his motivation for doing so was a suspicion that the Astrakhan man could be “the murderer”.

“Abberline penned his missive of approval in the afternoon? That would be before Hutchinson came in though... wouldn't it?”

Hutchinson approached Commercial Street police station at 6.00pm on the 12th November. Abberline penned his thumbs-up report later that evening, before any checking-up could realistically have occurred. However “convinced” Abberline appeared to have been when he filed the report, this obvious lack of sufficient corroboration needs to be borne in mind, especially in light of the account’s subsequent discrediting. Moreover, the fact that Abberline expressed his "opinion" only, as opposed to “our investigations have established that…” is a further compelling indication that they had not yet taken place – at least, it ought to be considered so.

“No, see, those details are relevant. Very. Other details less so.”

The minor detail of a subsequent recognition of the same suspect on a different day is just as significant as the eyewitness’ occasional financial contributions to the victim, if not more so, in my opinion.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Fisherman, you big posting machine, you…!

“Sorry, Ben, but I actually think it completely possible.”

No need to apologise, but you can’t get degrees of "possibility". The suggestion is either possible or it isn’t. I’m amazed that you cannot see that the suggestion that Hutchinson had not heard of the latest murder two days after it occurred a few hundred yards away from his residence is incredibly outlandish, but as I explained to Sally, I cannot extort belief out of people if they wish to conclude otherwise.

Really amazing, though.

“Ever played that old game where people sitting in a ring whisper a message from ear to ear, Ben?”

I have, Fisherman, but this clearly wasn’t a game that the journalists from leading newspapers throughout the country were playing. Even the Manchester Guardian reported on the 10th November that the victim was a Mary Jane Kelly who lived at Miller’s Court, Dorset Street, Spitalfields, and nobody’s even suggested yet that Hutchinson managed to get that far between Friday and Sunday morning!

“If he could not find one single man or point to one single thing he had seen in Romford, then he would turn into a suspect in the wink of an eye.”

Says you, but I disagree. If they had reason to believe he lied about visiting Romford then the more likely and immediate assumption is that Hutchinson was simply another time-waster or publicity-seeker. Or are we going to repeat, more or less verbatim, the contents of the “…Van der Hutchinson” thread?

“And I fail to see that you can provide anything to show for that claim, Ben - the possible fact that Abberline may once have been in the position to prove it is another thing, is it not?”

“Provably” false, as distinct from proven false. I’ve already elaborated on what I meant in case my initial point was not sufficiently clear, and since you now appear to have understood my original point, there’s no longer any need for more semantic silliness. Unless?

“We only know that it did not figure in the police report, but we DO know that Abberline questioned Hutch at length - interrogated him, as it were - and we only have three meagre pages of information about it”

But if Hutchinson had related the patently bogus policeman encounter at the time of the police interview, he would surely have been discredited well in advance of the 15th November. As I mentioned previously, it was a simple expedient to track down the policeman in question had he existed, which he almost certainly didn’t.

You’re quoting a passage from an article by Stewart Evans that you don’t even agree with. While it might “resemble” what you are “talking about”, I can at least take solace in the fact that it doesn’t resemble your own personal thoughts on the subject, since you’ve already made clear in this thread that you think Hutchinson fabricated his account. A sensible decision on your behalf to be sure, since the passage you quoted doesn’t appear to acknowledge the compelling and plentiful indications that Hutchinson was discredited, and that Hutchinson’s reason for coming forward late was most emphatically not considered “good” or “cleared up”, or else the Echo would hardly have passed on the doubts "the authorities" still had over the account, which included Hutchinson’s failure to account for his delay. This was still without an adequate explanation, as reported in the Echo.

“He FIRST makes his Dorset Street sighting, THEN tells a police about it, THEN tells us that he followed that up by taking his fellow lodgers advice to go to the police station, and THEN - finally - adds that he fancied he saw the man in Petticoat Lane”

Yes, but that’s clearly not in chronological order, is it? The almost certainly bogus encounter with the policeman and the alleged second sighting on Petticoat Lane were both alleged by Hutchinson to have happened on Sunday morning. He claimed to have told a lodger about it the next day, Monday, and it’s a trifling suspicious - or should be considered so – that his decision to accept that fellow lodger’s advice just happened to coincide with the release of the inquest evidence, where Sarah Lewis had recounted a sighting of a man loitering outside, and seemingly preoccupied with, the entrance to Miller’s Court, just as Hutchinson claimed to have been doing in his three-day late, post-inquest, and ultimately discredited account.

Random coincidence of timing?

Probably not.

You seem to be very confused as to what you actually believe. On the one hand, you sort of semi-defend the mind-numbingly, spirit-crushingly, suicide-inducingly preposterous suggestion that Hutchinson had no idea about Kelly’s death two days after it occurred despite it being the talk of the country, on the basis that all possibilities need exploring, however disastrously implausible, and that we owe it to history to at least consider and discuss them (etc etc), but the more you go on, the more you seem to endorse these suggestions that you were previously conceding were "possible" only, not likely. Now, all of a sudden, you’re saying:

“To me, the sequence spells: He A/ did not know that Kelly was the victim of the murder”

Is this your preferred version of events, or are we in “outside possibility” Land again?

In the latter case, the only response – again - is yes, yes, yes, all very interesting, we can't dismiss it with absolute ironclad certainty, but probably not.

He had probably heard of the Kelly murder shortly after it was discovered (or committed, if he had any involvement in it).

There probably wasn’t a negligent police officer who was quietly fired for outrageous negligence, which he knew he’d be caught for, and for whom we have no record, and whose existence would be heavily at odds with the discrediting of Hutchinson's account.

“1. He may not have had knowledge about Kelly being the victim as he saw the man. We only know that he made his observation and spoke to the PC on Sunday morning, BUT WE DON´T KNOW WHAT CAME FIRST!”

But which explanation is slightly more logical (and Claire, feel free to kill me! )?

“Oh look, it’s that implausibly-well dressed Astrakhan-looking man from a couple of night’s ago who I was fascinated with, and who I’d remember easily if ever saw him again…or is it? Difficult to tell. What’s that you say? Kelly was killed on Friday morning?? Hey policeman! I know about all about the Kelly murder! Interested? Nope. Never mind. Enjoy your doughnuts”.

Or:

“Hey Policeman! I know all about the Kelly murder! Interested? Nope. Never mind. Enjoy your doughnuts. Oh look, it’s that implausibly-well dressed Astrakhan-looking man from a couple of night’s ago who I was fascinated with, and who I’d remember easily if ever saw him again…or is it? Difficult to tell. But he’s probably the murderer, so I’d better follow him and continue my fascination with him, but since I've suddenly and inexplicably lost that fascination, can I really be arsed?"

That’s right.

They’re both implausible.

Hutchinson probably lied, which is why he was almost certainly discredited. Boom. Job done. I really don’t know why such a boringly simple commonsense explanation is so fiercely resisted by some. Sorry if it seems as though I’m getting cross here, but it bothers me slightly when I seem people gradually mutating what they concede to be remote possibilities into likely explanations. I’ve already dealt with the suggestion that Abberline didn not include everything Hutchinson related to him in his report. The obvious objection to this is that Abberline clearly did recite peripheral details, and he was very unlikely to have included the detail that Hutchinson occasionally gave Kelly a few shillings while omitting the detail that he spotted the suspect again two days later.

Doesn’t ring true at all, unless the police were not informed of that detail on the 12th November, and only learned of it when reading Hutchinson's press disclosures, after which Hutchinson was discredited (which again, was almost certainly not a random coincidence of timing).

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

David:

"Well, Fish,"the man can be identified"........and this would have nothing to do with the Sunday encounter ? (have I to add : in which Hutch seems to have, perhaps, "identified" the suspect ???)"

Aha. THAT argument. Again.

Right, then. The same answer applies: No matter if you have told somebody that you can swear to the person X anywhere, it still applies that the quality of the look you get at the person you are trying to identify decides your chances to fulfil that promise. And there is nothing strange in saying: I could swear to that man anywhere - in fact, I thought I saw him yesterday, but I could not be certain. This does not tell us that there is something fishy going on, but instead that the quality of the second sighting did not allow for the positive identification which would have followed if a good look had been afforded.

"The Poet and the Lunatics"?? By whom? And about what poet?

The best, David!
Fisherman

[Sally]

Hi Ben

Hutchinson approached Commercial Street police station at 6.00pm on the 12th November. Abberline penned his thumbs-up report later that evening, before any checking-up could realistically have occurred. However “convinced” Abberline appeared to have been when he filed the report, this obvious lack of sufficient corroboration needs to be borne in mind, especially in light of the account’s subsequent discrediting. Moreover, the fact that Abberline expressed his "opinion" only, as opposed to “our investigations have established that…” is a further compelling indication that they had not yet taken place – at least, it ought to be considered so.

Don't agree. I don't think there's a compelling indication. Perhaps we must agree to differ.

The minor detail of a subsequent recognition of the same suspect on a different day is just as significant as the eyewitness’ occasional financial contributions to the victim, if not more so, in my opinion.

Yes, alright - but all details are not equal, are they? And of course, we have the great benefit of hindsight. We are in a retrospective position, unlike the police of the day.

But I like your post, on the whole.

Kind regards

Sally

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"No need to apologise, but you can’t get degrees of "possibility". The suggestion is either possible or it isn’t. I’m amazed that you cannot see that the suggestion that Hutchinson had not heard of the latest murder two days after it occurred a few hundred yards away from his residence is incredibly outlandish, but as I explained to Sally, I cannot extort belief out of people if they wish to conclude otherwise."

I can´t get degrees of possibility? So things can not be possible, but only just, as opposed to very obviously possible?

Aha.

Anyways, in this case the call is extremely easy to make. Possible.

Ehrm, what about "outlandish", by the way: can we get degrees of that? Is it not either outlandish or not outlandish? I ask since you call my stance "incredibly outlandish".
But why quibble over that? The call is just as easy - it is neither outlandish nor incredibly outlandish, and you do not know that Hutchinson kept close to his residence them two days, do you? That is just a guess on your behalf, correct?

"I have, Fisherman, but this clearly wasn’t a game that the journalists from leading newspapers throughout the country were playing. Even the Manchester Guardian reported on the 10th November that the victim was a Mary Jane Kelly who lived at Miller’s Court, Dorset Street, Spitalfields, and nobody’s even suggested yet that Hutchinson managed to get that far between Friday and Sunday morning!"

The papers got most of the information basically correct, and if he read them, then yes, he would have known. But how do we know that he did? Is it outlandish to assume he may not have? Is it outlandish to remind you that he was out of work, and so spending money on newspapers may not have been a top priority of his. Even if the Victoria home had papers, who knows if he read them? He may have gotten up Friday morning, unaware of what had happened, and left in search of a job without ever reading any paper. Or is that outlandish to suggest too? And if he did not read the papers, then what source would he have? Exactly - the gossip in the streets. And that´s where my analogy applies very much!

"If they had reason to believe he lied about visiting Romford then the more likely and immediate assumption is that Hutchinson was simply another time-waster or publicity-seeker."

In November, Ben, people were sent down for four weeks of hard labour for stating that they were the Ripper. The police authorities had lost their patience with people wasting their time, and they took steps to stop it.
Hutchinson convinced Abberline that he was present at the murder site on Friday morning. If it after that could be shown that he had been lying about that, it would be "incredibly outlandish" to suppose that the police would not very thoroughly subject Hutchinson to further interrogation and turn every stone in sight upside down in search for his real reason to be at the murder site. If they then came to the conclusion that he had fooled them and hindered the investigation, he would have spent a hurtful part of his future doing hard labour, courtesy of the state.

What we need, Ben, and what we have always needed, is an explanation to why Hutchinsons story was discredited that allows for the police not to blame Hutchinson for having given them incorrect information. And such an explanation is at hand out there, mark my words! Otherwise, we would never have ended up with a scenario where the misinformant was allowed to walk.

"“Provably” false, as distinct from proven false."

Thanks for that, Ben. We would not want to give the wrong impression to Sally, would we? It also should be added, of course, that if we work from your scenario, where Abberline identifies the PC that walked the beat where Hutch said he contacted a policeman, we are still faced with the very clear possibility that this PC may have had the audacity to lie and say, "Sorry, sir, but I´ve never seen the fellow before" even if he DID recognize Hutch. Let´s keep in mind that his own job would be on the line, more or less. And if he lied in that case, then just how "provably false" would Hutch´s claim be? Not at all, I should say. You see, your argument works from the assumption that everybody would tell the truth, but to be realistic about things, you don´t even think that Hutchinson did, so ...

"But if Hutchinson had related the patently bogus policeman encounter at the time of the police interview, he would surely have been discredited well in advance of the 15th November."

He probably WAS, Ben. Already when the Echo hinted at it on the 13:th, the police would be looking for positive confirmation of a downfall they felt very certain about. That´s my take on things, at least.

"I can at least take solace in the fact that it doesn’t resemble your own personal thoughts on the subject, since you’ve already made clear in this thread that you think Hutchinson fabricated his account."

I´m sorry, Ben, but no - this is not true. What I am saying, is that I firmly believe that Hutchinson did not tell the truth about Friday morning. What I am NOT saying, though, is that he fabricated it or lied about it. He may have done so, to a smaller or larger extent, but I am in no way recommending the stance that he MUST have.
This all is very much connected to my article, and I will not go further into it as it stands, for obvious reasons. In due time, I hope that you will be able to take part of my reasoning. I fully understand if my reasoning seems odd at this stage, but I´m afraid you shall have to bear with me for the moment being. Sorry about that!

"that’s clearly not in chronological order, is it? The almost certainly bogus encounter with the policeman and the alleged second sighting on Petticoat Lane were both alleged by Hutchinson to have happened on Sunday morning."

It IS in chronological order, Ben. It is also in the same order as the article has it. The two Sunday morning details - the sighting of the man and Hutch´s contacting the PC - are not related to each other, if I´m correct. And that provides a strong reason for my argument that he had not heard of Marys death until then (though he may have been very well aware that a murder as such had taken place), since we can see full activity on his behalf AFTER that stage in time, but no activity at all BEFORE it. When, on Sunday morning, he found out that the victim was Kelly, he immediately found a PC and told him "but that was the day I saw her with this astrakhan-wearing man - he may have been the killer!" And then he went to Petticoat Lane market, and it was small wonder that he suddenly believed he saw the man again, since his mind would have been totally set on him.

That´s how I read it, Ben. And frankly, if it´s the other way around, why did not the articles portray this? Why do they not say "I fancied I saw the man in the market, and thus I found myself a PC". Why is there no report of the PC giving chase? Why do the papers instead say: "I was out on Monday night until three o'clock looking for him. I could swear to the man anywhere. I told one policeman on Sunday morning what I had seen, but did not go to the police station" and only a good deal of lines afterwards speak of the Petticoat Lane encounter? Because the PC information obviously came about as a result of the astrakhan man sighting, and not the sighting in Petticoat Lane, Ben. That´s why. And very chronological it is too!

"Hutchinson probably lied, which is why he was almost certainly discredited. Boom. Job done."

But do we want to do the job sloppily, Ben? We would, if we went down this alley. Hutchinson probably didn´t lie (though he may have), and the discrediting owed to something else. I think I know exactly what, and if I am correct, it´s time to go looking for other suspects than George Hutchinson.
No "boom" on my behalf, though, and no exclamations of a job done. That will have to wait. I want to listen to other people´s wiew on my suggestion first. In due time...!

the best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

he FIRST makes his Dorset Street sighting, THEN tells a police about it, THEN tells us that he followed that up by taking his fellow lodgers advice to go to the police station, and THEN - finally - adds that he fancied he saw the man in Petticoat Lane, but was not certain of it.

To me, the sequence spells:

He A/ did not know that Kelly was the victim of the murder, and therefore he had no reason to do anything at all from the outset. He then B/ found out that Mary was the murdered woman, and therefore he C/ told the police that he had seen her with a man on Friday morning. This did not result in anything as far as he could tell, and in order not to let it slip away, he D/ went to the police station to reiterate his story.

This sequence is in line with the wording in the articles. The one thing it does not account for is E/ that he fancied he saw the man in Petticoat Lane on Sunday morning. And at that point, his story seems to portray an uninterest, but I think we may identify two different explantions to this:
1. He may not have had knowledge about Kelly being the victim as he saw the man. We only know that he made his observation and spoke to the PC on Sunday morning, BUT WE DON´T KNOW WHAT CAME FIRST!
2. He may have decided on the spot that he was mistaken on the identity. It may well be quite telling that he does not sa that "I fancy I saw him in Petticoat Lane" but instead "I FANCIED I saw ...". This may implicate that this fancy was something he accounted for as a passing stage.

Any which way, if this is what went down, then suddenly Hutchinson´s alledged uninterest is completely dissolved! Instead we get a picture of a man that seems quite concerned to bring his message over to the police - once he knew what had happened in Miller´s court.

The one interpretation the articles do not suggest is that he fancied he saw the Petticoat Lane man, and contacted a PC as the result of this. The timeline in his story travels in a directly opposing direction, and the PC is knit to the Dorset Street sighting.

the best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman

Your logical reasoning is quite correct, taking his statement to the press in sequence. This is a perfectly reasonable stance to take, since it comes from the evidence. I do not see a direct correlation between Hutchinson's speaking to the Sunday Policeman and his 'fancy' that he saw Surly Man on the same day. B does not necessarily follow A. It comes across rather more as if he threw his fancied sighting in as an afterthought, wouldn't you say?

I think he does come across as rather strange, I feel bound to say. Perhaps you are right, and he was concerned - it's just that he translates today as being, well - I have to say unconcerned. I was looking for another word, but I think I have to stick with that one.

The fact remains, unassailable, that he didn't come forward for three days. You posit the theory that he hadn't realised Kelly had been murdered.

I have to concede that it is technically possible. I would see it as unlikely though. As we know, there were men staying at the Victoria Home who knew Kelly. Barnett certainly knew that she was dead. Even if he hadn't acquired this knowledge via the papers - possible - then I have difficulty in accepting that he hadn't heard by word of mouth. He lived in the immediate locality, and according to him, knew Kelly 'very well' - for three years.

I'm almost with Ruby here, in that he 'must' have known, although I realise we can argue on a technicality - I'd rate it as implausible though.

Could he have been out of the area? Would it have been less likely that he'd have heard if he was? I have to say yes, slightly. But we have no evidence at all that he was. If he was at the Victoria Home on Friday morning, and there on Sunday, that only really leaves him Saturday and a bit to go elsewhere. He couldn't have gone so far as all that. We could go down a path of possibilities here, but I think they'd be slight ones.

I'd continue, but sadly it's time for work

But well argued, Fisherman.

Regards

Sally

[DVV]

Morning Fish

Aha. THAT argument. Again.

Yes. And that argument is obviously valid (although I won't hammer it anymore).

the quality of the look you

Aha. THAT argument. Again.
You should at least note that the quality of this look was good enough to warn a bobby (if Hutch is to be believed).

"The Poet and the Lunatics"?? By whom? And about what poet?

By my dear dear dear Chesterton, my dear. The fictional poet is called Gabriel Gale - as a distant echo of Gabriel Syme - "The Man who was Thursday".

Amitiés
David

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Your logical reasoning is quite correct, taking his statement to the press in sequence. This is a perfectly reasonable stance to take, since it comes from the evidence."

Thanks, Sally!

"I do not see a direct correlation between Hutchinson's speaking to the Sunday Policeman and his 'fancy' that he saw Surly Man on the same day. B does not necessarily follow A. It comes across rather more as if he threw his fancied sighting in as an afterthought, wouldn't you say?"

Very much agreed - it´s thrown in as an aside, more or less, which is why I think the reasonable assumption to make is that he probably decided against the man being identical with astrakhan man after all.

" You posit the theory that he hadn't realised Kelly had been murdered. I have to concede that it is technically possible. I would see it as unlikely though. As we know, there were men staying at the Victoria Home who knew Kelly. Barnett certainly knew that she was dead. Even if he hadn't acquired this knowledge via the papers - possible - then I have difficulty in accepting that he hadn't heard by word of mouth. He lived in the immediate locality, and according to him, knew Kelly 'very well' - for three years."

I agree totally with you - the initial stance one must hold is that it would reasonably be unlikely.
But then there is the evidence - and the lack of it.
The cause of action that Hutch takes seems to imply to me that he fulfilled his duties as a citizen impeccably, starting from Sunday morning. He set out by talking to a policeman about his sighting in Dorset street, and then he goes to the police station the next day, after not having been contacted by the police (one must surmise that the PC asked him about his name and address). This all is a very commandable behaviour, is it not? Points to a responsible and dutiful man. But what about Friday and Saturday, then? Why was he seemingly a totally indifferent man at that stage? Why did he wait to report his sighting to the PC for two full days, if he knew that he would probably have seen the Ripper?
You know my answer to that question by now, Sally: Because he did NOT know it until Sunday morning. If we see it this way, the inconsistency of Hutchinsons behaviour dissolves into thin air, and we get an explanation to the unconcern you see in him.
As for the lack of evidence I spoke of, it concerns the time period between his waking up at the Victoria home on Friday, and his speaking to the PC on Sunday morning - for much as it is tempting to speculate that he stayed in the Victoria home on Friday and Saturday night too, spending the days speaking with his fellow Eastenders about the gruesome killing in Millers court and reading the papers, we have absolutely no evidence telling us that this was so.
He could have been virtually anywhere. And that means that he could have been subjected to virtually any level of Ripper-information. Of course, this is a silly thing to suggest, but just to clarify my stance: what if he went down to the Thames and found himself a boat and went to sea for two solitary days of fishing? Set aside the ridiculous element involved in such a suggestion and see what I am talking about, Sally - we have no idea about what information flow he was reached by for two full days, and that insight is vital to ponder before we try and fix the level of credibility of him not having found out about Mary Kellys death during that period. That´s all I will say.

The best, Sally!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David:

"You should at least note that the quality of this look was good enough to warn a bobby (if Hutch is to be believed)."

Nope - he spoke to that bobby about the astrakhan man. It is unrelated to the Petticoat Lane issue. The papers bear this out.

Chesterton? Never read him, I´m afraid.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

From my earlier post to Ben:

"In November, Ben, people were sent down for four weeks of hard labour for stating that they were the Ripper."

This is not correct. It was fourteen days, not four weeks. Sorry about that detail! It still applies, though, that things like these received very harsh sentences in November of 1888.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Nope - he spoke to that bobby about the astrakhan man. It is unrelated to the Petticoat Lane issue. The papers bear this out.

"I told one policeman on Sunday morning what I had seen but did not go to the police station. (...) I believe that he lives in the neighbourhood, and I fancied that I saw him in Petticoat Lane on Sunday morning."

What a sequence of events, Fish !!
The Sunday mornings of this guy are even more fantastic than his Friday nights.

Chesterton? Never read him, I´m afraid.

Lucky you ! the best is ahead !

Amitiés
David