The Surly Man

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"My understanding is that although Abberline believed Hutch's account straight off -probably due to his reaction to Hutch's persuasive personality-
the Statement was rapidly discredited after a bit of reflexion, and doubtlessly discussion with others."

...and a bit of investigation, Ruby! But yes, this would be the gist of things, more or less. I don´t know to what extent Hutch´s persuasive personality entered the equation, though.

"and had the Police believed in A Man, then they would have continued looking for him, I think"

Had the police believed in the statement on the whole, they would have kept looking. Fine difference - but important!

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Here we go; there is a piece of information that I have overlooked, and that clearly tells us that Hutchinson had heard of Kellys death on Sunday morning! And since nobody else have pointed it out, I´d better do it myself:

The Pall Mall Gazette, Nov 14:th:

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

Unfortunately, this does not conclusively prove that Hutchinson knew of Kellys demise when he spotted the Petticoat Lane man, since the alledged information to the police came after the incident. He may have learnt about things inbetween the sighting of the Petticoat Lane man and his meeting with the PC.
Hutchinson further says that he told one lodger about his experiences on Sunday, and that the lodger adviced him to go to the police, which he did the following day.

So it could be either way. He could have known about Kelly before he saw the man in Petticoat Lane, and in that case, it seems strange that he does not speak of any effort to catch the man. Or does he? Was his alleged contact with the PC something that followed immediately after the sighting, and as a direct result of it?
Or was Hutchinson unaware about Kellys death as he saw the man in the market, only to later find out, and contact a policeman with the information? That is impossible to tell, as it stands.

Sally asks:

"It was proven false? Or it can be proven false?"

There is no confirmation of the incident, Sally. Nor is there any information telling us that the police set out in search of the PC in question and were able to confirm/dispell Hutchinsons claim. Important to keep in mind, though, is that the snippet in the Pall Mall Gazette, containing this story, was printed on the 14:th, whereas we know that Hutchinsons story was in doubt the day before, on the 13:th, as reported in the Echo. Thus it would seem that the story about the PC was NOT what gave the story away.

The best,
Fisherman

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

[Abby Normal]

Two problems with this, Rubyretro. If the ripper injected himself to prolong the excitement he felt while murdering and mutilating, it was painfully short-lived, and showing his face seems to have effectively put paid to pushing his luck with any ‘fresh’ excitement from future ripping experiences.

If, on the other hand, the ripper injected himself as Hutch the innocent witness through fear of otherwise becoming a suspect, you said it yourself: what did he have to fear - in 1888? Finding Lewis’s lurker would have been a needle-in-a-haystack job if he was sufficiently determined not to be found; proving he was the man she saw would have been pretty much impossible; proving that he was not only the man but went on to enter Kelly’s room and do the deed would have been out of the question. The only really worrying scenario from the ripper’s point of view would be if he thought the police could be suppressing a full and accurate description of him with a previous victim or near another murder scene. But as you say, he’d be in a position to judge the likelihood. If he considered it a real possibility he would hardly have offered himself up as a perfect match; if not he had no need to offer himself up as anything.

So we are back to the sheer bravado motive, which comes with the distinct downside of early retirement or making damn sure he’s not seen next time. Seems he took the former path and had to sacrifice ripping for all of fifteen minutes of fame as a mere witness. What a twit.

And Fisherman is right about the many possibilities of losing anyone spotted in Petticoat Lane, from that day to this. 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?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
Both hutch and lewis were friends of Mary kelly. Hutch more than likely saw sarah lewis see him waiting there. he may have thought that she could have recognized him, perhaps even know his name. Perhaps then It was a calculated risk to go to the police therefore as a potential witness instead of waiting to be found by the police as a potential suspect.

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.

I think any normal person (especially after exhibiting the intense curiosity with A-man the night he saw him with MK) would have a very strong reaction if he thought he saw him again a day after the murder and done everything in their power to make sure it was him, follow him/find out where he lived, get a good look at him etc. Heck If it was me i would have tackled him on the street and yelled I have the ripper.

[Rubyretro]

But I do know that Abberline believed Hutchinsons story, and find it very hard to believe that he would not have asked about the delay. And if he thought that Hutchinson lied about it, he would not have believed the rest of the story, would he?

My understanding is that although Abberline believed Hutch's account straight off -probably due to his reaction to Hutch's persuasive personality-
the Statement was rapidly discredited after a bit of reflexion, and doubtlessly discussion with others.

We don't know for what concrete reasons the account was discredited. At any rate it was , and had the Police believed in A Man, then they would have continued looking for him, I think.

[Fisherman]

Here we go; there is a piece of information that I have overlooked, and that clearly tells us that Hutchinson had heard of Kellys death on Sunday morning! And since nobody else have pointed it out, I´d better do it myself:

The Pall Mall Gazette, Nov 14:th:

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

Unfortunately, this does not conclusively prove that Hutchinson knew of Kellys demise when he spotted the Petticoat Lane man, since the alledged information to the police came after the incident. He may have learnt about things inbetween the sighting of the Petticoat Lane man and his meeting with the PC.
Hutchinson further says that he told one lodger about his experiences on Sunday, and that the lodger adviced him to go to the police, which he did the following day.

So it could be either way. He could have known about Kelly before he saw the man in Petticoat Lane, and in that case, it seems strange that he does not speak of any effort to catch the man. Or does he? Was his alleged contact with the PC something that followed immediately after the sighting, and as a direct result of it?
Or was Hutchinson unaware about Kellys death as he saw the man in the market, only to later find out, and contact a policeman with the information? That is impossible to tell, as it stands.

Sally asks:

"It was proven false? Or it can be proven false?"

There is no confirmation of the incident, Sally. Nor is there any information telling us that the police set out in search of the PC in question and were able to confirm/dispell Hutchinsons claim. Important to keep in mind, though, is that the snippet in the Pall Mall Gazette, containing this story, was printed on the 14:th, whereas we know that Hutchinsons story was in doubt the day before, on the 13:th, as reported in the Echo. Thus it would seem that the story about the PC was NOT what gave the story away.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"This is just threatening to become tiresome."

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

"Why not spend your posting time arguing the case for something you actually believe to be true?"

I have a very good answer to that one, actually. But I will keep it to myself for the moment being, since I do not want to jump the gun on what I hope is an upcoming article in the Casebook Examiner. So you shall have to bear with me for the moment being, and trust me when I say that I have good reasons to argue this case.

"It is screamingly and overwhelmingly likely that a person on Petticoat Lane noticing somebody else on Petticoat Lane could easily take steps to confirm that sighting"

I prefer to do without the screaming, so I will just point out that this does not necessarily hold true - you have heard of people disappearing in crowds, I´m sure.
To this we must add the question of an incentive, Ben - for if Hutchinson was not informed about Kelly on Sunday morning, he would have no reason at all to verify the identity.

"Hutchinson’s statement was discredited – there’s our first clue in our quest to determine whether or nor this alleged Petticoat Lane sighting was anything other than super-added fabrication to an already fabricated account."

The statement in itself was discredited - not necessarily the Petticoat Lane sighting, or the astrakhan man sighting. Something in the statement was found to be malfunctional, absolutely. But until we pinpoint that something, we are left with guesswork.

"We only have Hutchinson’s claim that he had anything to do with Romford."

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, if Hutchinson made some sort of contact with somebody on his way there. But yes, you are correct - we cannot be sure of it.

"the Echo article makes very clear that the authorities were still wondering why he delayed coming forward. That was on 13th November, after his first audience with Abberline, so he can’t have been satisfied with his explanation for not coming forward earlier."

Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward earlier. That is what the Echo article asks. And maybe there is no more behind that question than the disagreement that you and me are having. Maybe Hutch said that he had not heard of the murder, and maybe the police reasoned that he would have. Or maybe the journalist that wrote the article enterprised a guess. I don´t know. But I do know that Abberline believed Hutchinsons story, and find it very hard to believe that he would not have asked about the delay. And if he thought that Hutchinson lied about it, he would not have believed the rest of the story, would he? My suggestion is that the Echo is chancing a guess here.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"it is safe to assume that he would have been sleeping (or wanting to sleep) on Friday. It is almost inconceivable to imagine that he would be up for another long trek on foot."

Hmm, Ruby - I am not always very fond of what you suggest as being "safe". Of course, he would reasonably have been tired, but he could have slept in the morning, and left for another job on Friday afternoon. And that does not necessarily have to have involved a "long trek on foot". It could have been any distance, and he could have hiked, for example.

"It is just loony to suggest that no one would mention MJK's murder on the Saturday."

It is! But it is a lot less looney to open up for the possibility that the version that reached Hutchinsons ears may have been a version that seemed to exclude Kelly as the victim. And it´s not like we can be sure that he read any papers, is it?

"Just how wrong would it have to be, before he asked any questions ?
The surviving newspaper reports got things globally right as to the victims name and address."

Ruby, once and for all, we do notknow where Hutch was, we do not know if he had access to papers, we do not know whether the people surrounding him spoke of the killing, and we do not know - if these people DID speak of it (and yes, there is a good chance that they did) - to what extent they were correctly informed. Furthermore, if they read the papers and Hutchinson did not, he may only have heard that a woman had been killed by the Ripper in the East End. We simply do not know, and no matter how much we would like for it to be a certainty that Hutchinson had access to relevant information, we cannot conclude it. End of story, I´m afraid!

Just to be clear here: I think that the suggestion that he would have gotten the news is a better one than the suggestion that he would not. But that does not mean that I am in any way certain, and nor can anybody else be.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Maybe he WAS a twit, though Caz.

Maybe he went for immediate gratification rather than being a long term planner..?

Planner, or Spanner?

[Sally]

Ben

Then we’re confronted with the lack of any indication that he delivered this news to the police, then there’s the provably false claim to have alerted a policeman about the Commercial Street encounter

It was proven false? Or it can be proven false? I am unaware of this - a gap in my knowledge, doubtless. Could you enlighten me please?

There are several details of Hutchinson's statement to the press which could have been, and presumably were, checked for veracity. If one of those details was demonstrably false, then I think that has significance.

[Rubyretro]

What a twit.

Maybe he WAS a twit, though Caz.

Maybe he went for immediate gratification rather than being a long term planner..?

[caz]

It is apparently a trait of some serial killers to want to prolong the excitement that they felt during a murder by involving themselves in the investigation -thus keeping the killing 'fresh' in their minds.

Actually, what did he have to fear ? There were no DNA tests, he may have known nothing of fingerprinting, and there were no CCT cameras. In Ripper Lore there are witnesses to some murders -but only JTR would have been left to know if that was true, at the time ; maybe there weren't...

...or only (unwittingly) Mrs Lewis..

Two problems with this, Rubyretro. If the ripper injected himself to prolong the excitement he felt while murdering and mutilating, it was painfully short-lived, and showing his face seems to have effectively put paid to pushing his luck with any ‘fresh’ excitement from future ripping experiences.

If, on the other hand, the ripper injected himself as Hutch the innocent witness through fear of otherwise becoming a suspect, you said it yourself: what did he have to fear - in 1888? Finding Lewis’s lurker would have been a needle-in-a-haystack job if he was sufficiently determined not to be found; proving he was the man she saw would have been pretty much impossible; proving that he was not only the man but went on to enter Kelly’s room and do the deed would have been out of the question. The only really worrying scenario from the ripper’s point of view would be if he thought the police could be suppressing a full and accurate description of him with a previous victim or near another murder scene. But as you say, he’d be in a position to judge the likelihood. If he considered it a real possibility he would hardly have offered himself up as a perfect match; if not he had no need to offer himself up as anything.

So we are back to the sheer bravado motive, which comes with the distinct downside of early retirement or making damn sure he’s not seen next time. Seems he took the former path and had to sacrifice ripping for all of fifteen minutes of fame as a mere witness. What a twit.

And Fisherman is right about the many possibilities of losing anyone spotted in Petticoat Lane, from that day to this. 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?

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Fisherman,

This is just threatening to become tiresome.

If you don’t believe Hutchinson was anywhere near Miller’s Court, and that the Astrakhan man was therefore a complete invention, then surely it’s a waste of your time arguing at such incredible length in an entrenched position in what amounts to pure devil’s advocacy? Why not spend your posting time arguing the case for something you actually believe to be true?

I’ve already explained why your North Pole analogy fails to apply here. If the subject of the sighting was stationed many miles away on the North Pole, it naturally follows that the spotter cannot immediately seek to improve his sighting by moving to a better vantage point. In Petticoat Lane, this wasn’t remotely the case. If a spotter stationed somewhere on Petticoat Lane wasn’t certain if he recognised an individual from two days ago, he could have made certain, easily. No, it isn’t remotely likely that the sighting took place from several hundred yards away – that’s obviously outlandish. Firstly, the likely crowding in the streets was unlikely to have allowed for such visual range, and secondly, you’re not likely to recognise any physical particular about a man several hundred yards away. It is screamingly and overwhelmingly likely that a person on Petticoat Lane noticing somebody else on Petticoat Lane could easily take steps to confirm that sighting (or otherwise).

I really don’t like this unsuccessful nitpicking in the service of an argument that you don’t even subscribe to. Hutchinson’s statement was discredited – there’s our first clue in our quest to determine whether or nor this alleged Petticoat Lane sighting was anything other than super-added fabrication to an already fabricated account. Then we’re confronted with the lack of any indication that he delivered this news to the police, then there’s the provably false claim to have alerted a policeman about the Commercial Street encounter, and then there’s the observation, noted by Garry and several others – myself included – that his claim to swear to the man “anywhere” is inconsistent with his later professed uncertainty over this mysterious second sighting.

“Given that insight, it stands to reason that the Petticoat Lane sighting was not of the kind of quality that allowed for a positive confirmation.”

And I continue to reject that in the strongest possible terms. It only “stands to reason” if there were some impenetrable obstacle on Petticoat Lane that permanently thwarted Hutchinson’s efforts to seek a positive confirmation. It’s difficult to envisage such an obstacle even if we really go to town on those dreadful fill-in-the-blanks. Given Hutchinson’s fascination with the individual two night’s previously, it is scarcely credible to accept that he would not have taken his curiosity just as far, if not more so. Certainly if the crowds were so dense that Hutchinson was obliged to elbow through them, it is hardly likely that he spotted the man again from a great distance away.

“Likewise, as I have stated, we have no certainty that Hutchinson knew on Sunday morning that Mary Kelly had been killed!”

Fisherman, I’d sooner believe that Sir William Gull murdered Kelly than accept that Hutchinson – or anyone living in London at the time – did not know by Sunday of Kelly’s murder. You can think what you like, but I regard the suggestion as unutterably outlandish and scarcely possible. I mean, I’m normally against the Thought Police on principle, but they may be forced to intervene here.

“We know precious little about Hutchinsons movements inbetween the very early Friday morning and Sunday morning.”

Yes, but we can venture a guess that they didn’t consist of temporary isolation from any human contact for two or three days.

“We DO know that he went to Romford and back again before that”

No, we don’t.

You're trying to support what Hutchinson says with...what Hutchinson says.

We only have Hutchinson’s claim that he had anything to do with Romford. If he lied about that, there’s obviously no reason to suppose that he had any work-seeking motivation behind that non-existent visit. That aside, he didn’t need to be stationed at the Victoria Home or even stay in London between Friday and Sunday in order to learn about the latest murder. He just needed some form of human contact and be stationed in a vaguely urbanized environment. It wouldn’t matter if the version was garbled – providing the Miller’s Court location and the name Mary Kelly were mentioned, this would obviously cast his mind back to the events of Friday night, and he would certainly seek clarification. Also, remember that Hutchinson claimed to have returned to the Victoria Home as soon as it opened “in the morning”, so it’s a very safe bet that he was still there (or at the very least in the East End) when word of the murder did the public rounds.

“What would he do in such a situation? Exactly, he would put two and two together, and come up with the insight that he may well have seen Jack the Ripper. After that, he goes to the police. Such a scenario appeals quite a lot to me, I must say.”

It’s a catastrophe of an explanation, Fisherman, which is disappointing because you can do a lot better. Hutchinson may have wanted the police to embrace that version of events, but fortunately, it does not appear that they did, since the Echo article makes very clear that the authorities were still wondering why he delayed coming forward. That was on 13th November, after his first audience with Abberline, so he can’t have been satisfied with his explanation for not coming forward earlier.

All the best,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE][QUOTE]

I don´t know, Ben. We know precious little about Hutchinsons movements inbetween the very early Friday morning and Sunday morning. We DO know that he went to Romford and back again before that, and it seems a reasonable suggestion that he did this in search of work. I fail to see why he could not have gone on a similar mission on Friday/Saturday.

He would have been totally shagged out, Fish.
Considering that after walking back from Romford (a trot of 6 hours or so), he was forced (according to him) to spend the night on the streets, it is safe to assume that he would have been sleeping (or wanting to sleep) on Friday. It is almost inconceivable to imagine that he would be up for another long trek on foot.
He was, after himself , in Petticoat Lane Market on Sunday morning, which leaves him Saturday to have worked ; he might well have done (although he may have had Mary's earnings to tide him over of course), but I don't think that time allows him to have gone out of London in the intervening period.
It is just loony to suggest that no one would mention MJK's murder on the Saturday.

I suggest that people would be talking about the murder well outside the immediate vicinity -and if he HAD (incredibly) been in some far flung isolated spot between Saturday and Sunday, then this would be written in the Police/Press reports.

Moreover, if he did get word of it, it may well have been in a garbled version. For exemple, it was stated in articles that the victim had a young son. If Hutchinson got word of that, to him it would mean that it could not have been Mary. Verbal versions may well have gotten it all just as wrong, if not more, both in the address and the description of the victim.

Just how wrong would it have to be, before he asked any questions ?
The surviving newspaper reports got things globally right as to the victims name and address.
Just the words Dorset Street, Miller's Court, would have been enough to put up flags, in view of his
suspicious sighting on Thursday night.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"I'm throwing down the gauntlet to you to invent a BELIEVABLE scenario explaining how Hutch could not of known that a women had been murdered in Miller's Court."

Then read my post to Ben, Ruby.

"because somone wandering at a normal pace, browsing etc would make a slow progress in a crowd. On the otherhand, someone wanting to catch up, would clock the obstacles in advance and dodge around them instinctively and keep looking right and left not to pass the person."

Once again, read my post to Ben!

"You could address the argument though, instead of circumventing it with rhetoric."

You are placing words in my mouth, implicating that I have suggested that astrakhan man may have dressed down for the market and up for the slum. I called it ridiculous to even speculate about it, since we have nothing at all to go on in this context. That is addressing the issue, Ruby.
Or is it a guess on my behalf you are looking for? If so, you can have it: I don´t know. Nor do you.

"This is the sort of slippery nonsense that has got MP and advocats a bad name."

If it can be ruled out that Hutchinson saw the Petticoat Lane man under conditions that made it impossible for him to positively identify him, then you may have a point.
If it cannot be ruled out, then I submit that the kind of allegation you are making here, is based on an assumption on your behalf that is the same sort of nonsense that have gotten innocent people behind bars.

The very best, Ruby!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Nah, Fish, there’s that reductio ad absurdum again, and not remotely applicable in this case as I explained in my last post. If the man was five kilometres away on the North Pole, he would not have been in an immediate position to affect the situation and acquire a better look at the individual, as he most assuredly would have been in the Petticoat Lane scenario. He was clearly in a position to obtain a “proper look”"

Actually, Ben, I think the more absurd thing here is your demand that Hutchinson must be able to swear to the man he saw, no matter of angle or distance. The reason I took the argument all the way to the North Pole, was that I am interested in the boundaries you apply here - for they seem non-existent to me.
Now, Petticoat Lane - you´ve been there, have you not? Then you will know that it contains a very considerable length of the street (or streets, to be more exact). That means that Hutchinson and the man may have been hundreds of yards apart as he saw him, at least theoretically. And at any rate, the distance may have been such that no positive identification was even remotely possible. The same thing may well have applied if Hutchinson only caught a fleeting glimpse, perhaps from an awkward angle at that; there are many, many possibilities that would have meant that no positive identification was possible to make. So your saying that "He was clearly in a position to obtain a “proper look”" may be totally wrong, Ben. I think you will have to admit that, as we both know that none of the parametres distance, angle and crowd obscuring can be even guessed at. They could range from a yard to hudreds of them, from face-on to a look from behind and so on.

"given his previous fascination with the man before he had learned of the murder, it seems unthinkable that this should dilute to a “maybe it’s him, but I won’t bother checking” afterwards"

But that has got nothing to do with any diluting, Ben - it all lies in the conditions afforded by the specific situation. Even if he knew the man down to the birthmarks, what good did it do if the conditions of the sighting did not allow him to check for them?
I think that Hutchinsons assertion that he could swear to the man anywhere tells us that he was very, very sure that he would recognize him if given a proper look. Given that insight, it stands to reason that the Petticoat Lane sighting was not of the kind of quality that allowed for a positive confirmation. And that would reasonably have meant that Hutch did NOT get as good a look as he needed to be sure.

"what we can tell is that there was very unlikely to have been any insurmountable obstacle on Petticoat Lane that could have prevented him from getting a better look at the man if he really cared."

Depends, I should say. If he caught a glimpse from a distance, and then lost track of the man, there was only so much he could do. You can elbow your way through the crowds, but when you get to the point where you saw the man, and cannot see him anymore - well, then that´s pretty much it, isn´t it?
Likewise, as I have stated, we have no certainty that Hutchinson knew on Sunday morning that Mary Kelly had been killed! And if he did not know this, well then it makes a huge difference, does it not? Why would he take any interest in the man in such a case? It would just have been the odd "Hmm, wasn´t that...?" and then the "I fancied I saw him in Petticoat Lane on Sunday morning..." Nothing too strange about that!

"the suggestion that Hutchinson didn’t know about the murder two days after it was committed ventures into as yet unprobed realms of improbability"

I don´t know, Ben. We know precious little about Hutchinsons movements inbetween the very early Friday morning and Sunday morning. We DO know that he went to Romford and back again before that, and it seems a reasonable suggestion that he did this in search of work. I fail to see why he could not have gone on a similar mission on Friday/Saturday. He was reportedly out of work, and any opportunity must have been tempting. As far as I know, we cannot place him in the Victoria home on the night of Friday-Saturday, so maybe he was not in the vicinity of the murder at that stage. And if so, who´s to say that he got word of the murder where he was?
Moreover, if he did get word of it, it may well have been in a garbled version. For exemple, it was stated in articles that the victim had a young son. If Hutchinson got word of that, to him it would mean that it could not have been Mary. Verbal versions may well have gotten it all just as wrong, if not more, both in the address and the description of the victim.
And then he is back home on Sunday morning, he goes to the market, and somewhere along the line the day after, he picks up on the fact that Kelly was the victim on the 9:th.
What would he do in such a situation? Exactly, he would put two and two together, and come up with the insight that he may well have seen Jack the Ripper. After that, he goes to the police.

Such a scenario appeals quite a lot to me, I must say. I really don´t see it as much of a stretch. And it would explain a good deal!

Abberline must have asked old George why he did not come forward until three days after the slaying. He would have gotten an answer, and we know full well that he accepted that answer. And if it was not along either the lines "I was unable to pop over due to circumstance X" or "I simply did not realize that it was Mary until earlier today", I fail to see what it could have been. Any sharpwitted suggestions are welcomed though, Ben!

"That’s not evidence that Hutchinson didn’t know about the murder, though, because that’s a nigh on impossible explanation for his delay"

Of course it is no such evidence, Ben! Nor did I suggest that. What I say is that there is no evidence EITHER WAY. And I really don´t think that it is anywhere even near impossible that Hutch was at least misinformed about the killing. Lots of people would have gotten things wrong, owing to the mixed versions of the newspapers and the djungle telegraph.

The best,
Fisherman