The Surly Man

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Hi Rubyretro,
If it was a question of Reward , and Astracan was of pure invention, how did our friend Hutch hope to obtain it., you cannot get a conviction against someone that does not exist

.

That is precisely the point I'm making, Richard !

Had A Man really existed, and had Hutch been telling the truth about Petticoat Lane, then I suggest that he would have made far bigger efforts to get to a Police Station (in the City !), a lot sooner, and have made darn sure that he followed the man in Petticoat Lane.

To Me, the fact that this reward seems not to have motivated him also helps point to the fact that he knew that A Man didn't exist, therefore he couldn't be giving information that would lead to any arrest of the murderer, and he had no hope of claiming the reward anyway.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Rubyretro,
If it was a question of Reward , and Astracan was of pure invention, how did our friend Hutch hope to obtain it., you cannot get a conviction against someone that does not exist.
I believe [ as you know] that Topping was our witness, aged 22 years, we seem to forget how young Mary Kelly was , and I have always believed ,that as there was only around three years age difference between them, she may well have known Hutchinson quite well , and he v-versa.
I am still mystified why Topping is not accepted as the most likely candidate, surely the mention of a payment of five weeks manual wages by a rare publication[ not seen in a english newspaper] which is equal to the sum allegedly given to GWTH that of one hundred shillings is a major find.
Has any other person with the surname Hutchinson ever come forward, apart from Topping claiming to be the witness, not only that, with knowledge of a payment , which originated from a rare publication.
Answer NO.
Radio and book folks some 18 years apart, from the same source Reg Hutchinson , proven son of Topping...case closed.
Regards Richard.

[Rubyretro]

He admits that he was reluctant to involve himself initially, and who can blame him, he would have put himself in the position of being a suspect which would not be ideal, also he would place himself in danger of being attacked on the streets by east end inhabitants, even after being released. not to mention the possibility that the killler may sought to silence him..

The City Police had offered to Ģ500 -with the Lord Mayor offering to stump up another Ģ500- on October 1st, for information leading to the capture of the killer.

There would be no point in offering a reward if no one knew about it, so this reward must have been publicised ( must !!).

This sum would have been like winning the lotto to a man in Hutch's position in life...so yes, I am astonished at any reluctance on Hutch's part to come forward with such a detailed description of the most likely suspect, whom moreover he thought lived in the neighbourhood and would recognise anywhere.

I am terribly surprised that, with such an incentive, he would have been so offhand about his market spotting and need to take advice from a fellow lodger about what to do.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Fisherman.
I am guilty of 'assuming'
As he implies that it was suggested to him that he should report the incident, I 'Assumed' that he was up that point, reluctant to involve himself.
My post was to suggest, that any PC on any beat throughtout that autumn, may have been a target for many a person suggesting knowledge, and that being the case no desk sergeant would have thrown the book at one of the officers not personally reporting every encounter. as long as they informed the carrier of such alleged information they should report it to their local police station.
Which may well have happened in this case, and when Hutch told an associate of the home , it was then suggested that he should do precisely that.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"He admits that he was reluctant to involve himself initially"

He does? Where and how? Are you referring to his statement that he chose speaking to a PC over going to the police station?

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
It would in my opinion, be out of the question that GH had no idea of the murder of Mary within 12-24 hours of the body being discovered.
He admits that he was reluctant to involve himself initially, and who can blame him, he would have put himself in the position of being a suspect which would not be ideal, also he would place himself in danger of being attacked on the streets by east end inhabitants, even after being released. not to mention the possibility that the killler may sought to silence him..
We all know that, during the weeks of the murders, many people were arrested claiming on the streets that they were the perpretrator, and I would suggest that many a patrolling PC would have had someone claiming to know something, or seen something, and I would suggest those officers woulld have dismissed them with ' Go to the station and report in then'.
That scenerio would fit Hutchinsons claim, that he it was suggested to him by associates at the home that he should report his sighting.
Which he did.. albeit on the monday evening.
No mention of Topping folks ... hard to be disciplined.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Ben!

One more point on your writing: ”Surely the inference is that “his meeting with the PC” (snort!) came as a consequence of “the sighting of the Petticoat Lane man”.”

Have a look at the article. In it, the logical sequence of seeing the man in Petticoat Lane and then contacting the police, is not there. It goes the other way around – first he tells us that he spoke to a police about what he had seen, and THEN he speaks of the sighting in Petticoat Lane:

”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. I told one of the lodgers here about it on Monday, and he advised me to go to police station, which I did at night. The man carried a small parcel in his hand about eight inches long, and it had a strap around it. He had it tightly grasped in his left hand. It looked as though it was covered with dark American cloth. He carried in his right hand, which he left upon the woman's shoulder, a pair of brown kid gloves. One thing I noticed, and that was that he walked very softly. I believe that he lives in the neighbourhood, and I fancied that I saw him in Petticoat lane on Sunday morning, but I was not certain.”

On balance, I do not think that the inference here is that he spoke to the PC as a result of having seen the man in Petticoat Lane. This would seem to implicate that he instead spoke to the policeman as a result of his sighting of astrakhan man, does it not? Thatīs where the linguistic coupling in the article lies, at least.
And if so, I think that the argument that Hutch may not have known about Kellys death until Sunday is very much strengthened; he seems eager to cooperate with the authorities, he speaks to a PC and hopes that this will help, but when nothing comes from it, he takes his fellow lodgers advice to go to the police station and hammer the message home. If this is how it went down, then his apparent willingness to inform the police about what he had seen in Millerīs court came about two full days after the murder, and that speaks very much of Hutchinson not having realized the importance of his sighting until that stage. Ergo, we are once again faced with a scenario in which he may in fact not have known that Mary Kelly was the latest victim of the Ripper!

It is a strange business, Iīll say that much!

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Daily News, 14th November

Ben

Fisherman!

Many thanks for your views. I had actually the report in The Daily News in mind, more than any, which contains a particularly full report of Hutchinson's press statement.

Here he says:

I told one policeman on Sunday morning what I had seen, but did not go to the police station

In the next sentence he says:

I told one of the lodgers here about it yesterday, and he advised me to go to the police station, which I did last night

At the end of this statement, talking about standing on the corner of Dorset Street on the morning of the 9th, he then says:

One policeman went by the Commercial street end of Dorset street while I was standing there, but not one came down Dorset street.

And then:

I saw one man go into a lodging house in Dorset street, but no one else. I have been looking for the man all day.

So, there are four details of his story there that could have easily been checked out - the conversation with the policeman on Sunday; the conversation with the fellow lodger before Hutchinson went to the police station; the policman walking past Dorset Street (the time being roughly speaking, recoverable); and the man entering the lodging house on Dorset Street.

None of these details made it into his statement to the police. Does this mean he made them up? Or could it be that they are absent because they were not directly associated with his alleged sighting of Surly Man and Kelly?

How do we know he didn't speak to the police about all of these events? We don't. The short answer is, we don't.

Abberline was convinced by Hutchinson's story, at least to begin with. How do we know that Hutchinson didn't tell the police exactly what he told the press? How do we know those details were not verified? How do we know that it was one of the reasons Abberline decided he was a plausible witness? I don't think for a moment that his police statement constituted the only conversation he had with the police. I have given a police statement - albeit not in 1888 (not that old!) and it didn't work like tthat. A lot of details were exchanged with the police which didn't make it into my final statement. The police would have had to decide, then as now, what was relevant. I did not make a press statement. However, the police did, and what came out in the press contained details of my conversation with them which were not in my statement.

We don't know how much the police knew - but I bet it was more than we see on Hutchinson's statement.

The notion that Hutchinson did not speak to a policeman on Sunday morning - presumably if he did, it was after he 'fancied' seeing Surly Man again in Petticoat Lane - is not well supported. There is no evidence - either way. We don't know that a policeman wasn't hauled over the coals for failing to report his conversation with Hutchinson. We don't know what Hutchinson said, because it isn't reported. Maybe (for example) he wasn't clear. Maybe the policeman didn't take him seriously. His subsequent conversation with the lodger perhaps hints at this - as he (if his story was true) apparently felt the need to discuss the Surly Man episode further.

Regards

Sally

[Fisherman]

Sally!

When Ben writes:

"Hutchinson’s claim to have encountered a policeman on the Sunday following the murder is provably false, yes. Policemen in those days patrolled a meticulously delineated beat. If Hutchinson had informed Abberline about this encounter, the policeman in question would have been tracked down, identified, and hauled over the coals for failing to report an incident of the potential magnitude described by Hutchinson. That this never happened is a compelling indication that this alleged policeman encounter never occurred."

... I can only urge you to realize that the detail in question moves from "provably false" in the beginning, to an "indication" at the end. And, of course, we can always ask the question how Ben can be so sure that the policeman never was hauled over them coals. Is there any report telling us that the police ommited to do so? I think not. Do the papers tell us this? No. So what we need to do, if we want to accept Benīs suggestion, is to regard the abscence of any proof as proof for abscence ot the incident. Awkward, if you ask me.

Ben also writes:

"Fisherman seems to think that the police would have read about the claim involving the mysterious policeman, but decided to take no action, despite Hutchinson's press account being tantamount to a claim that a policeman whitheld crucial information relating to the murder well in advance of Hutchinson himself coming forward in person."

... but what Fisherman will tell you, is that what he actually thinks (when you want to know what I think, donīt ask Ben - ask me!), is that when the issue of the meeting with the PC came up, the police had already lost interest in Hutchinson and his story, and therefore they would have very little reason to spend any effort at all looking for the PC in question. At that stage, they were strongly feeling that the story held no water, and they would have been looking for confirmation of this. That, at least, is how I see things.
If this had not been the case, they would certainly have looked for the PC, and they would have grilled him if they found him, yes. But thatīs another story.

Finally, Ben writes:
"He also cites the Pall Mall Gazette of 14th November as evidence that the disappearing PC had nothing to do with the discredting of Hutchinson, whereas I suggest that certain newspapers simply took longer to catch up with the latest developments. Besides which, the interview related by the PMG (in which Hutchinson provided his account to "a reporter") clearly took place on the day before the publication of the article, i.e. the 13th November, when the "policeman/Petticoat Lane" claims were not in mainstream public circulation."

...and that would have been of very little consequence to the issue, since the police had already realized that they in all probability needed to ditch Hutchinson BEFORE they got wind of the Petticoat Lane drama via the Gazette. Itīs the timeline that matters here.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I would, Fish, but I’m afraid my obsessive Hutchinson zealotry has just started to kick in big time, so Hutch-avoidance is easier said than done."

Tell me something else I already knew!

"whatever side of the fence you straddle on the Hutchinson-as-killer/liar issue, the notion that he was oblivious to the news of Kelly’s death is just not credible."

I hear you, Ben. And I have no problems to see the relevance in what you are saying. But hereīs the thing;
If Hutchinson was in the vicinity, sleeping at the Victoria home and spending his days on the streets, then yes, it would be extremely strange if he had not heard of the murder. It would in fact be nigh on impossible.
But the longer we move him away from Commercial Street, the larger the chance will be that he did not get the news. Even so, though, it was the talk of the town, and spending a day in Chelsea would probably also result in him being told about the killing. The same would apply to Oxford and Pittenweem, but - and this is important - in a falling scale (and no, I am not suggesting that Hutch WAS in Pittenweem...!).
More importantly, I think that the further the news travelled from Dorset Street, the more it would get garbled, and therefore there was always the chance that Hutch had heard of a Ripper killing on Friday - but even the newspapers got things wrong, and therefore he may not have associated the news with Kelly. Like I said before, if he had gotten the news that the victim was a woman with a small boy child, then that would not have had him worried about Kelly.
All in all, the most probable thing to believe is that he did get word of things - but there is no way we can prove it, and the outside possibility remains that he did not. We do not know what he did on most of the Friday and on the Saturday, and until we do, we cannot tell to what extent he was able to take part of the news from Millerīs court. Itīs simple logic, and we owe it to history to afford every participant in this story the benefit of a doubt.

"But it was the Astrakhan man that clearly wasn’t considered a credible ripper candidate, and realistically, the police could hardly have discredited the statement itself whilst continuing to invest belief in the veracity of the Astrakhan man sighting."

There is an explanation coming up to that particular issue, but not just yet, Iīm afraid. What I can say, though, is that my firm conviction is that it was NOT the description of Astrakhan man that made the police discard Hutch!

"Well, unless he lied about it, in which case it would have been extremely difficult to achieve."

Absolutely. But in such a case, my guess is that if Hutch could not produce any contact or evidence confirming that he had been to Romford, then that would have made the police turn him into a suspect.

"That’s not to say that Abberline didn’t quiz Hutchinson along these lines, but as the article makes clear, by the 13th November the “authorities” were clearly dissatisfied with whatever explanation he provided"

But why would Abberline first merrily accept the reason Hutch gave for coming forward that late - and then suddenly decide NOT to accept it? It makes no sense, unless something came up that effectively disproved Hutchīs suggestion. And in that case, we would move back to square one, and Hutch would turn into a liar and thus a suspect.

"Surely the inference is that “his meeting with the PC” (snort!) came as a consequence of “the sighting of the Petticoat Lane man”."

A very reasonable suggestion - but no certainty. We have no knowledge of the time span involved inbetween the two details, and therefore there remains a possibility that he first saw and recognized the man (something that seemed to spark only an off-hand interest in him), then found out about Kellys death from one or many of the marketers, and only thereafter realized that he needed to speak to the police.
Now, please observe that I am not suggesting any percentages of credibility on this suggestion. The only thing of which I am certain is that if the latter applies, it suddenly rushes up to 100 per cent truth!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

Fancy seeing you here.

I hope you won't object to a few observations regarding your post to Ruby.

“and showing his face seems to have effectively put paid to pushing his luck with any ‘fresh’ excitement from future ripping experiences.”

Well no, not really. It’s only fair to point out that we don’t know how many victims, if any, the ripper claimed after Mary Kelly, nor do we know whether or not the thrill of getting one over on his pursuers superceded, temporarily or otherwise, the thrill of claiming a victim.

“Finding Lewis’s lurker would have been a needle-in-a-haystack job if he was sufficiently determined not to be found”

…Which wasn’t something either the ripper or Hutchinson could have known, especially given the suppression of previous witness descriptions from the latest inquest into the death of a ripper-attributed victim, and if he lived in close proximity to one of the murder locations and was spotted outside one at a time critical to a murder, he had even less reliance on the assumption that he represented a “needle in a haystack” to the investigating authorities. I certainly disagree that he was ever in a position to “judge the likelihood” of the police suppressing Lewis’ description as they had done with Lawende’s. It would be difficult to encounter a “perfect match” for any of the descriptions on record, but a sighting is very different. A witness may well be able to recognise an individual subsequently without necessarily being able to “describe” him very well, and I’d be amazed if this was a distinction lost on Hutchinson, Jack the Ripper, or anyone else.

“How could anyone be sure if they merely fancied they saw someone from a distance before the figure disappeared down a side street or into a doorway?”

Easily, by following them down that side street or into that doorway.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

“Well, Ben, feel free to avoid it, then!”

I would, Fish, but I’m afraid my obsessive Hutchinson zealotry has just started to kick in big time, so Hutch-avoidance is easier said than done.

Seriously though, whatever side of the fence you straddle on the Hutchinson-as-killer/liar issue, the notion that he was oblivious to the news of Kelly’s death is just not credible. I don’t want to use any more exclamatory pseudo-humourous terminology to highlight the sheer implausibility of such a suggestion (because it gets unfunny after a while, and because I know how pissed-off I’d get if anyone resorted to the same debating strategy against me), but finally, in all serious circumspection, and for the record, the idea that Hutchinson did not know anything about the demise of Mary Kelly by Sunday 11th November 1888 is very, very, very implausible, bordering on impossible.

“The statement in itself was discredited - not necessarily the Petticoat Lane sighting, or the astrakhan man sighting.”

But it was the Astrakhan man that clearly wasn’t considered a credible ripper candidate, and realistically, the police could hardly have discredited the statement itself whilst continuing to invest belief in the veracity of the Astrakhan man sighting.

“That is true! Of course, the police would have tried to verify it, and such a thing would reasonably not have been too hard to achieve”

Well, unless he lied about it, in which case it would have been extremely difficult to achieve.

“Or maybe the journalist that wrote the article enterprised a guess.”

Ooh, no. Recall the wording of the article “Why, ask the authorities…” This wasn’t idle speculation on the part of the journalist. They were clearly relaying doubts that the police were harbouring over the veracity of Hutchinson’s accounts, and those doubts were clearly concerned with his failure to come forward earlier. That’s not to say that Abberline didn’t quiz Hutchinson along these lines, but as the article makes clear, by the 13th November the “authorities” were clearly dissatisfied with whatever explanation he provided (if any).

“He may have learnt about things inbetween the sighting of the Petticoat Lane man and his meeting with the PC.”

Wait a minute. Surely the inference is that “his meeting with the PC” (snort!) came as a consequence of “the sighting of the Petticoat Lane man”. As for the claim to have told a lodger about the incident (a detail mysteriously absent from the police account) I still consider it beyond coincidence that his decision to embrace this fellow lodger’s advice just happened to coincide with the end of the inquest, at which Sarah Lewis’ “I saw someone opposite Millers Court” evidence became public knowledge.

Hi Sally,

Hutchinson’s claim to have encountered a policeman on the Sunday following the murder is provably false, yes. Policemen in those days patrolled a meticulously delineated beat. If Hutchinson had informed Abberline about this encounter, the policeman in question would have been tracked down, identified, and hauled over the coals for failing to report an incident of the potential magnitude described by Hutchinson. That this never happened is a compelling indication that this alleged policeman encounter never occurred. It was one of the very few aspects of Hutchinson’s account that the police could check up on with ease, and it may explain why Hutchinson only reported this detail (and the Petticoat Lane episode) to the press and not the police. In the latter case, Abberline had only to ask Hutchinson when and where he encountered this policeman, and the game would be up. Not so with the press, who could not have cornered him so easily on such details.

Fisherman seems to think that the police would have read about the claim involving the mysterious policeman, but decided to take no action, despite Hutchinson's press account being tantamount to a claim that a policeman whitheld crucial information relating to the murder well in advance of Hutchinson himself coming forward in person. He also cites the Pall Mall Gazette of 14th November as evidence that the disappearing PC had nothing to do with the discredting of Hutchinson, whereas I suggest that certain newspapers simply took longer to catch up with the latest developments. Besides which, the interview related by the PMG (in which Hutchinson provided his account to "a reporter") clearly took place on the day before the publication of the article, i.e. the 13th November, when the "policeman/Petticoat Lane" claims were not in mainstream public circulation.

So yes, this would constitute a good example of a “demonstrably false” detail which assumes “significance”, accordingly.

All the best,
Ben

[Edward]

Fisherman,

This is just threatening to become tiresome.

All the best,
Ben

Too late, Fish, it already is tiresome ...

Edward

[Edward]

For whom was Hutchinson looking out?

... but Edward, just who was Hutch looking out for? hhmm?.

Scorpio -
I'm just saying that if Hutchinson was a look out for MJK's murderer, it would give us a possible explanation about why his description of 'Surly Man' was so detailed (Hutchinson made up 'SM' to give a non-incriminating reason why he was loitering outside of the court). It may also explain why Hutchinson didn't pursue 'SM' when he (perhaps) spotted him again ... ('SM' was fictional). It coud also give us a reason why Hutchinson was standing in the rain for such a long time on a cold night.

I'm not stating that Hutchinson was a lookout, only that if he was, it could explain a number of the issues that are being debated.

Edward

[Fisherman]

Abby:

"I disagree with you and Fish on petticoat lane. There was no- I tried to follow him-or I thought i saw him, but he disapeared. Just a very casual-I thought I saw him again, but wasn't sure."

Then we donīt disagree - this is how I see it too. And then I ask myself WHY it was casual.

"Very comendable of you to do that, you would make a very ethical prosecutor : )"

Well, well - who would have thought it? Thanks, Abby!

The best,
Fisherman