The Surly Man

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“For it IS a fact that it is not until we work from the premise that he did not know of Kellys death until Sunday morning that Hutchinsons actions become a logical sequence.”

But this takes us straight back to “If my Auntie had bollocks, she’d be my uncle” territory, which is an fun analogy that illustrates perfectly the dangers of trying to support an outlandish conclusion on the basis that X or Y equally outlandish factors must first be true to get to that conclusion.

“We must not surmise that people read the papers aloud to him, Ben.”

We don’t need to surmise any such thing. We need only observe that Hutchinson would almost certainly have woken up to discussion of the Dorset Street murder before he could realistically have travelled any great distance, and that even in the vastly implausible scenario that he did manage to avoid it, it’s further inconceivable that he failed to make any further inquiries into the matter when he obtained news of another East End murder in whatever travelling destination you want him to have ventured to. But yes, we’ve exhausted this avenue enough now. I’m surprised that you can give some of these suggestions any credence, but we must agree to disagree.

“Though you are of course correct that he would never have been much of a suspect, since the police at an early stage found that he would reasonably have been innocent of any such accusation.”

Well, this is rather off-topic and was discussed in extensive detail on the other thread, but unless we posit the imaginary existence of a mysterious, fill-in-the-blank, lost to history “alibi”, the above is obviously not true. The reality of the situation is that Hutchinson was either never suspected, or was briefly suspected but nothing came of it in the absence of proof either way.

If you want to drop Hutchinson from the list of possible suspects, then you must try harder than “maybe this zero-evidence event happened?”

That this really was discussed very recently elsewhere.

“Tell me why it follows from this that he FIRST spoke to the PC...?”

I’m not suggesting it did, necessarily. Whatever order you accept, the suggestion is implausible, as I sought to demonstrate in my terrifically funny invented dialogues. But, of course, the implausibility value for both claims pale in comparison to the suggestion that Hutchinson found himself in Petticoat Lane, on Sunday 11th November, still oblivious to the Kelly murder.

There’s just a few too many “outside possibilities”, “what ifs” and “maybes” going on around here lately.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"But this takes us straight back to “If my Auntie had bollocks, she’d be my uncle” territory, which is an fun analogy that illustrates perfectly the dangers of trying to support an outlandish conclusion on the basis that X or Y equally outlandish factors must first be true to get to that conclusion."

Us?

"We need only observe that Hutchinson would almost certainly have..."

ALMOST certainly. Again. When will you realize that almost certainly means "not certain"?

"yes, we’ve exhausted this avenue enough now."

We have, Ben.

"unless we posit the imaginary existence of a mysterious, fill-in-the-blank, lost to history “alibi”, the above is obviously not true. "

Wrong. Until we find the "alibi" you speak of it is unprovable, not untrue.

"If you want to drop Hutchinson from the list of possible suspects, then you must try harder than “maybe this zero-evidence event happened?”

I have. Itīs in the article - if Don takes pity on me and publishes it. Hold your breath, Ben.

"here’s just a few too many “outside possibilities”, “what ifs” and “maybes” going on around here lately."

Myself, I am more concerned about the "outlandishes", the "implausibles" and the "ALMOST certainlies". I find they stand in the way of a better understanding of what happened to George Hutchinson.

As for now, I will give my posting a rest. We are going round in circles (in Avignon, even!), and I have no further wish to reiterate the same points over and over again. So bear with me if you ask for an answer from my side and are temporarily deprived of it!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Fisherman,

Before you go, I feel compelled to ask – and I really am only asking – did you read my posts mentioning that I had a Hutchinson-related article in the pipeline and then decide to write a “counter” article in response to arguments you guess I’ll be making?

Not a criticism or an accusation in the slightest (since it wouldn't be a "bad" thing).

Just interested.

All the best,
Ben

[DVV]

The suggestion that Hutch wouldn't have been aware of the murder until Sunday morning is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.

Amitiés all

edit : more than my pitiful English !

[Fisherman]

Ben asks:

"Before you go, I feel compelled to ask – and I really am only asking – did you read my posts mentioning that I had a Hutchinson-related article in the pipeline and then decide to write a “counter” article in response to arguments you guess I’ll be making?
Not a criticism or an accusation in the slightest (since it wouldn't be a "bad" thing).
Just interested."

No problems, Ben. Iīm happy to answer you! No, my article has nothing at all to do with yours. This is it: some weeks back, I made a mistake at my computer, causing my copies of the Examiner to get lost. And so I wrote to Don Souden and asked him if he could send them over again. He generously agreed to do that, and added that I owed him one, and that he would not mind if I payed my debt in the shape of an article. I then replied that I was very much tied up, and had no useful idea for an article at that stage, which was a good description of things.
Then, a fortnight after that or so, I was reading through the Hutchinson material (I had just ordered and received a couple of books) for the umpteenth time, when something caught my eye. And it is that something that forms the ground on which the article is built.

As for your article, I have not strayed very far into the land of Ripper-related Jew-castigation, and you will be far ahead of me. That part is not my angle - it is not even touched upon in my article.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Thanks for that, Fish.

Just to clarify, my thoughts regarding "Ripper-related Jew-castigation" are only briefly touched upon in my article.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Aha. Well, since I do not know what you write about, I of course am not in the position to say for sure that we do not write about the same thing. Itīs that thing about possibilities again, sod it! Letīs just say that I would be very, very surprised if we are both dealing with "my" topic!

Hmmm, youīve got me quite curious now!

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

Hi All,

Catching up with this thread, it suddenly gave me an idea. Yes, Ben, a 'what-if', to add to your perpetual 'what if... Hutch's motivation to come forward was all tied up with being guilty of MJK's murder?'

So - what if we are looking at this the wrong way round, and when Hutch first hears about this latest murder he is actually still down in Romford trying to earn himself a few bob and not doing too well? He wonders to himself if there is some way he might make himself more useful back in Whitechapel, where it's all kicking off again, possibly even get some paid work as a result. So a rough plan of action begins to form in his mind, and by late afternoon on the Monday he is all set to make himself very useful indeed, as an enterprising witness.

Abberline and co only had to learn from one person during the subsequent enquiries that Hutch was in Romford until a day or two after the murder, or had only checked into the Victoria Home, say, on the Saturday night, after an absence of two or three nights accounted for by his job-hunting trip to Essex, and his Surly Man would bite the dust. If Hutch then found himself in trouble, would we necessarily know about it?

One thing's for sure - if the police still thought Hutch could have been hanging round that court until three o'clock on the Friday morning, but no longer believed that Surly Man was there too, they would not simply have sent their former star 'witness' packing with an "Oh well, boys will be boys".

Love,

Caz
X

[Rubyretro]

Ive been wondering another thing, after the discussion on the 'eddowes...direction of death ?' thread.

What if the Police, after deciding that A Man was a fiction, came to the conclusion that their most credible witness to date was Lawende ? If Hutch did not correspond to Lawende's discription at all, that might have been enough to stop them checking out Hutch as rigorously as they should have.

[richardnunweek]

Hi all,
We are all guilty of behaving like headless chickens , just because Hutchinson did not [ as far as we know ] engulf all the London police intrests for a long period of time, does not mean that his story was discredited, simply using the real mcCoys[ Toppings] alleged words ' Nothing came of it ' should explain.
A search occured which resulted in Nothing, no sightings / no arrest.
That hardly makes the witness a fraudster, a Liar,stalker, pimp., or a maniac.
But that list is pointed Towards the witness, known as Hutchinson, without even identifying him...
Question,
Does anyone on Casebook believe Reg hutchinsons father GWTH, was any of the above descriptions?
He is the only one to have labled himself, as THAT man, since the crimes were commmited, so please let common sense prevail.
I feel my beliefs fall on rocky ground.. why do I have so much faith?
Because for the reasons that are well versed on Casebook.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

Your suggestion would be a reasonable one were it not for the unusual and striking coincidence of Hutchinson’s decision to contact the police coming hot on the heels of the termination of the inquest, where Sarah Lewis had provided her evidence of a man standing opposite Miller’s Court an hour or so before the generally accepted time of Kelly’s murder, and with an apparent interest in that court. It would also fail to the account for the striking similarity between Lewis’ description of the man and Hutchinson’s account of his own actions and movements.

Whatever ultimate motivation Hutchinson had for coming forward, it’s clear that his decision to do so was prompted by Sarah Lewis’ evidence, which, in turn, would indicate that he was the man in the wideawake seen by Lewis. Unless, of course, we choose to believe that he falsely assumed his identity, which is not a conclusion I can agree with for reasons I provided here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=146615&postcount=30

Second paragraph down.

“One thing's for sure - if the police still thought Hutch could have been hanging round that court until three o'clock on the Friday morning, but no longer believed that Surly Man was there too, they would not simply have sent their former star 'witness' packing with an "Oh well, boys will be boys".”

I couldn’t agree more, which is why the safer explanation is that the police discredited Hutchinson as a time-waster and came to believe, accordingly, that he was not outside the crime scene when he claimed to be there. But as the Packer and Violenia demonstrate very well, this “discrediting” almost certainly came about on the basis of a police opinion only, and not as a result of proof having being secured either way. The alternative, of course, is that Hutchinson was still considered to have been “hanging round that court” but lied about surly man and his reasons for being there. In which case, you raise the salient question yourself:

“If Hutch then found himself in trouble, would we necessarily know about it?”

That's just it. Probably not. But this also doesn't mean that this hypothetical "trouble" was ever converted into proof of guilt/innocence.

Hi Richard,

“just because Hutchinson did not [ as far as we know ] engulf all the London police intrests for a long period of time, does not mean that his story was discredited”

Nobody is suggesting that the discrediting of Hutchinson had anything to do with his failure to “engulf” police interest. It was reported in The Star newspaper that the account was "discredited", and we know that this discrediting had already been set in motion two days earlier when The Echo reported that a “very reduced importance” had already been attached to the account because of the doubts “the authorities” were having with it.

You don’t discredit a witness because it doesn’t immediately lead to the apprehension of the offender, so your “nothing came of it” explanation clearly does not apply here. “Nothing came” of other witness sightings, but at least one of them was still used in identity attempts years after the murders, and it certainly wasn’t reported as having been “discredited”.

“Does anyone on Casebook believe Reg hutchinsons father GWTH, was any of the above descriptions? He is the only one to have labled himself, as THAT man, since the crimes were commmited, so please let common sense prevail.”

But common sense is clearly not “prevailing” in your case, or else you’d realise that those of us who don’t believe that Toppy was the witness in question cannot possibly be accusing him (Toppy) of being a “fraudster, a Liar,stalker, pimp., or a maniac”

As for the real Hutchinson, I don’t think he was a pimp either.

Hi Ruby,

While Lawende’s gave a fairly detailed description of the man’s clothing, the features were far more vaguely described. In terms of age and height, there’s no disparity with either Lewis’ wideawake-man description or the press sketches of Hutchinson

All the best,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hello Ben,
I trust you accept, that the only person that 'albeit' via his sons account that has ever been named as the witness George Hutchinson, is one George William Topping Hutchinson.
I cannot[ with much regret] verify a radio account in the mid seventies, but the same acount we can verify as being in the publication The Ripper and the Royals in 1992.
That account was credited to the son of Topping, the late Reg Hutchinson. thus it is a fair assumption that the account on air, was either made by him , or spoken by someone.
It was not therefore, invented by the author, in a publication that many discount.
The mention of a payment was made in both accounts, the mention of a toff appearance was mentioned in both accounts, and a general reference to the credibity of the witness was made in both accounts.
There is no doubt that both references refered to Topping
The Wheeling report, in my view is a major bonus in the hands of the defence lawyer[ ie myself]
I accept that it proberly originated from a rumour base, however as Topping mentioned it, complete with a relevant sum allegedly paid, for him not to have been the original, he would have had to adopt the identity of the real Hutchinson, complete with knowledge, of his 'FULL' statement, and armed with that , and the payment 'Rumour' spend the rest of his life using his own surname with also the right christian name incidently, in a clever ploy to gain a audience down the boozer on a saturday night.
Does anyone on Casebook consider this likely?
I am not trying to paint Hutchinson completly guiltless, he may indeed have had his own secrets,he may well have been loitering around in the hope that he could doss down in room 13 until 6am, and wandered off when that appeared unlikely.
Let The prosecution commense.
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Ben,
I trust you accept, that the only person that 'albeit' via his sons account that has ever been named as the witness George Hutchinson, is one George William Topping Hutchinson.
I cannot[ with much regret] verify a radio account in the mid seventies, but the same acount we can verify as being in the publication The Ripper and the Royals in 1992.
That account was credited to the son of Topping, the late Reg Hutchinson. thus it is a fair assumption that the account on air, was either made by him , or spoken by someone.
It was not therefore, invented by the author, in a publication that many discount.
The mention of a payment was made in both accounts, the mention of a toff appearance was mentioned in both accounts, and a general reference to the credibity of the witness was made in both accounts.
There is no doubt that both references refered to Topping
The Wheeling report, in my view is a major bonus in the hands of the defence lawyer[ ie myself]
I accept that it proberly originated from a rumour base, however as Topping mentioned it, complete with a relevant sum allegedly paid, for him not to have been the original, he would have had to adopt the identity of the real Hutchinson, complete with knowledge, of his 'FULL' statement, and armed with that , and the payment 'Rumour' spend the rest of his life using his own surname with also the right christian name incidently, in a clever ploy to gain a audience down the boozer on a saturday night.
Does anyone on Casebook consider this likely?
I am not trying to paint Hutchinson completly guiltless, he may indeed have had his own secrets,he may well have been loitering around in the hope that he could doss down in room 13 until 6am, and wandered off when that appeared unlikely.
Let The prosecution commense.
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

sorry double posted

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Whatever ultimate motivation Hutchinson had for coming forward, it’s clear that his decision to do so was prompted by Sarah Lewis’ evidence, which, in turn, would indicate that he was the man in the wideawake seen by Lewis."

It is nowhere clear at all, Ben - although it of course is a viable suggestion. But when you try and convert what may very well be a mere coincidence into an ironclad fact, and then move on to draw further conclusions from it, you are not on terra firma, Iīm afraid.

There is the possibility that Hutchinson came forward as a result of Lewisīstatement at the inquest, but it is no more than that. My own guess is that this was not so. It is also viable to suggest that Hutchinson and the loiterer were one and the same, but such a suggestion does not even border on being any fact. Once again, my own feeling is that the two were not identical.

Donīt you think, by the way, that coming forward so very, very close in time to the ending of the inquest procedures would have seemed extremely coincidental to Abberline too? Why take that risk? Why not leave a day or two, cooling it down?

The best,
Fisherman