The Surly Man

[Rubyretro]

"We don’t need to go down the reductio ad absurdum route here and start making analogies with tram wagons etc."

Yes, we certainly do. We need to leave each and every opportunity open that we cannot close. And that includes tram wagons and a host of other possibilities. Hutchinson may, for example, have seen the man from a window overlooking the market, something that would have diminished his possibilities to get a good look at him, and also to pursue him.
If you feel that you can draw the line for what possibilities belong to the discussion, you are quite simply wrong, Ben.

"

I know that you are a journalist, and not a politician or a lawyer, Fish..but you've missed your niche.

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

[DVV]

But yes, a fascinating fellow he certainly is!

Ben

Indeed Ben, fascinating witness, fascinating suspect.
In any case, not an ordinary witness.

Bestest, mate
David

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;155805]Ruby:

[QUOTE]"I'm sorry, but he MUST have known."

No. Simply no. We canīt tell, much as we want to.[/QUOTE

]

lets just leave any debates on the usefullness of speculation aside ; Fish, 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.

...just for fun..

Aha - they would hinder astrakhan man, but not any pursuer...? Sort of a biblical Red Sea scenario?

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.

That is also why a question like "did he disguise himself as a visible rich toff to go to the slums bent on murder , and then disguise himself as a poor 'crowd infiltrating' bloke for his innocent market shopping ?" is completely ridiculous in this context. I could not possibly know, could I?

Moreover, nor could you, Ruby.

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

[Ben]

“Then we should also accept that Hutchinson would be able to swear to the man five kilometres away on the North Pole”

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”, and 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. Indeed, his claim to have told a policeman about is further evidence that he wished to convey the impression that he was still very much “bothered” at that stage, and it isn't remotely consistent with a half-arsed failure to confirm the subsequent sighting.

“But that does not mean that any suggestion that he saw him from close range and face-on must be true, Iīm afraid. It only means what it always means - that we canīt tell”

But 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.

“Hutchinson may, for example, have seen the man from a window overlooking the market”

Not very likely, but certainly possible, and again, it wouldn’t qualify as a real impediment to acquiring a better look. Again, I’m not speaking in terms of possible versus impossible, but rather what I consider to be probable as opposed to vastly improbable, and the suggestion that Hutchinson didn’t know about the murder two days after it was committed ventures into as yet unprobed realms of improbability. Like you, I tend to reject “certainties” where they are not warranted, but on the basis of the evidence and the current evidence, I feel tremendously comfortable sticking with my unproven "impression" that Hutchinson fabricated the Petticoat Lane sighting.

“...except the fact that Hutchinson only came forward three days after the murder, that is”

That’s not evidence that Hutchinson didn’t know about the murder, though, because that’s a nigh on impossible explanation for his delay, which leaves us with the more credible explanations for his failure to come forward earlier. My favourite is that he realised he’d been seen by Sarah Lewis, and it’s my favourite because his decision to end this "delay" just so happened to coincide with the termination of the inquest, where Lewis provided this evidence.

But yes, a fascinating fellow he certainly is!

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Nothing in the world, ever, points to this."

...except the fact that Hutchinson only came forward three days after the murder, that is. To you, that spells evil, to me, well, history is full of examples of people who have come forward to testify about crimes AFTER they have realized that they have something to offer. Not before.

I am not judging or weighing such a suggestion. But I am pointing out that it belongs here, and that anybody trying to prove that he had the knowledge will have a very hard time finding the proof to clinch it. Try yourself, and you will see!

To discuss it eternally, though - no. The point is made, and it belongs here.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"But “anywhere” means “anywhere”, surely? And “anywhere” also encompasses longer distances at different locations, such as Petticoat Lane from further away."

If you believe that, yes. Then we should also accept that Hutchinson would be able to swear to the man five kilometres away on the North Pole, peering over the flat polar landscape, since that must have been what Hutchinson suggested: That no matter the conditions, the distance and the time offered to make the observation, he would unhestítatingly be able to point the man out.
Donīt you think, Ben, that this is to be a bit harsh on him? Donīt you think that what he really meant was that he would be able to pinpoint the man IF HE WAS OFFERED A PROPER LOOK? Is that not what most of mean whan we say that we could swear to a person anywhere?

"Since several others here have made the same observation, I don’t think we can be accused of being “unrealistic” en masse."

Of course not - as shown by the very reasonable example mentioned above. Ehrm ...!

"Then I would have expected him to either specify as much in his statement, or better still, take steps to get a better, i.e. frontal view of the man whose behaviour and appearance of two night’s previously had been such a fascination to him, and who he would now consider the most likely suspect for the murder of his three-year acquaintance."

Unfortunately, although you would have wished for it, he took no steps at all to explain from what angle and distance he saw the man. But that does not mean that any suggestion that he saw him from close range and face-on must be true, Iīm afraid. It only means what it always means - that we canīt tell.

"We don’t need to go down the reductio ad absurdum route here and start making analogies with tram wagons etc."

Yes, we certainly do. We need to leave each and every opportunity open that we cannot close. And that includes tram wagons and a host of other possibilities. Hutchinson may, for example, have seen the man from a window overlooking the market, something that would have diminished his possibilities to get a good look at him, and also to pursue him.
If you feel that you can draw the line for what possibilities belong to the discussion, you are quite simply wrong, Ben.

"Anyway, without wishing to sound rude, what’s your dog in this hunt, exactly? I was under the impression that you considered Hutchinson a liar who wasn’t even there when he thought he was, and that his account was rightly discarded?"

Yes, my stance is that Hutchinson was not telling the truth, and that he was not there on the night of Kellys murder. But that is not a certainty, Ben. It is, as you say, an impression. And I donīt regard impressions as truth, which means that I am quite prepared to discuss other possibilities. And when we discuss the Petticoat Lane man, we must adjust to the evidence at hand and admit that:
A/ We do not know how he was dressed.
B/ We do not know from what distance and angle Hutchinson saw him.
C/ We do not even know that Hutchinson was aware that Mary Kelly was the latest Ripper victim as he saw him in the market on Sunday morning, do we?

These factors are all open to discussion, and just like you, I do not wish for a rude discussion. Hutchinson is a fascinating fellow, whichever way we look at him, and much fun to discuss. Thatīs my dog in this hunt. A chihuahua, sort of.

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

[Defective Detective]

I've heard the argument that Hutchinson was lying and either just totally bullshitting the police or trying to cover his involvement in the murder. Both are pretty believable. Just as believable to me is the possibility that Hutchinson saw everything he said he did, but left out his motivation for spying on Kelly and her client: that he wanted to rob the man. And if that's the case, if Hutchinson saw who he claimed he saw and told the police everything he did, it would reinforce in my mind Severin Klosowski's candidacy for the identity of Jack the Ripper. He's the only possible suspect that comes close to fitting Hutchinson's description, imo.

[Ben]

“you must realize that a good deal points to Hutchinson not being aware that Kelly had been killed on Sunday morning?”

What??

Nothing in the world, ever, points to this.

Even if he missed the papers, which were free at the Victoria Home, the chances of him failing to pick up the gossip in the streets of any town of city (let alone the East End itself where he lived and presumably worked) are effectively zero. Slightly astonished that anyone could even begin to argue otherwise.

With respect here, there’s open-mindedness and there’s borderline impossible suggestions.

Look, we can argue this issue to eternity (and I probably will, if necessary), but the point is that Hutchinson’s account was discredited, and his suspect was certainly not considered a likely candidate in the ripper murders. Any attempt, therefore, to try and spot a ray of truth in one of the more dubious aspects of an already dubious and discredited account seems like a futile exercise to me. One need only recall that this claim to have recognised the man again is followed by an additional claim that cannot possibly be true, unless we accept vast police negligence as an acceptable alternative explanation. He claimed to have told a policeman about the Miller’s Court encounter, and we’re expected to believe that this policeman took no further action.

As for Hutchinson's likely motivation for fabricating a subsequent Petticoat Lane encounter, my personal guess is that the street's strong Jewish associations had a good deal to do with it. In the case of the mysterious policeman, this was undoubtedly Hutchinson's attempt to explain his failure to alert the police earlier; "Oh, but I did".

[Ben]

Wow, and here we are again in what threatens to become another long debate over Hutchinson. Excellent.

Hi Fisherman,

There’s really no “flaw” in my suggestion.

“Hutchinson said that he could swear to the man anywhere, yes. And that would mean that if he was offered the possibility to take a good look at this man, he could identify him.”

But “anywhere” means “anywhere”, surely? And “anywhere” also encompasses longer distances at different locations, such as Petticoat Lane from further away. If Hutchinson had claimed to be able to swear to the man at an organized identity parade or at unusually close quarters that would be another matter. As it stands, he clearly undermined his original claim to swear the man anywhere by making Petticoat Lane an odd exception; a point not lost on Garry Wroe who observed in Person or Persons Unknown:

“Additional incongruities arise once the subject of the Jewish dandy is broached. “I could swear to the man anywhere,” says Hutchinson. But then, “I fancy that I saw him in Petticoat Lane on Sunday morning, but I was not certain.” Consequently we have on the one hand Hutchinson’s singularly detailed police description, whilst on the other a surprising degree of hesitancy regarding the Petticoat Lane sighting. Here was a suspect whose appearance evokes images of the archetypal music hall bogyman, an individual who would have stood out in a crowd of hundreds. Yet two days after initially encountering him, Hutchinson experienced uncertainty over a possible second sighting. Quite simply, this does not ring true.”

Since several others here have made the same observation, I don’t think we can be accused of being “unrealistic” en masse.

“What if he saw a man of the same height, wearing spats, astrakhan coat and all, FROM THE BACK?”

Then I would have expected him to either specify as much in his statement, or better still, take steps to get a better, i.e. frontal view of the man whose behaviour and appearance of two night’s previously had been such a fascination to him, and who he would now consider the most likely suspect for the murder of his three-year acquaintance.

We don’t need to go down the reductio ad absurdum route here and start making analogies with tram wagons etc. The obvious point is that Hutchinson clearly had an opportunity to improve upon his alleged second sighting, and his failure to do so is just an inexplicable as his sudden “uncertainty over a possible second sighting” after swearing to the man anywhere. If I thought I saw someone who looked like a family member in a crowd, I’d certainly pursue the matter, and if I thought I recognized someone who had just murdered a person I’d known for three years (someone I had clearly been fascinated with two days ago), I’d certainly take steps to make sure.

Anyway, without wishing to sound rude, what’s your dog in this hunt, exactly? I was under the impression that you considered Hutchinson a liar who wasn’t even there when he claimed to be, and that his account was rightly discarded?

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"I'm sorry, but he MUST have known."

No. Simply no. We canīt tell, much as we want to.

"Are you seriously suggesting that he was so devoid of imagination and curiosity as to not ask her name, seeing that he had been in Miller's Court himself at the time of the murder ?"

Iīm not suggesting things at all, Ruby. You are. Iīm having a hard time dispelling them.

You are quite satisfied to think that he knew about the killing, and that he knew about the name of the victim - and yet, he did nothing for three days. He did not go to the police and tell them that he could have seen the Ripper for three days, and he did not tell the papers that he did all he could to catch that probable killer in Petticoat Lane. He just sat tight, and the police were apparently happy to accept whatever explanation he had to offer.

Surely, Ruby, if you have any interest at all to reach an understanding of what happened back then, you must realize that a good deal points to Hutchinson not being aware that Kelly had been killed on Sunday morning? No matter that you personally think that he must have known all about it.

"if he obviously (and I'm sorry, I will use the word obviously) knew of Mary's murder, and the vignette with A Man was a reality- was he so dumb that he didn't immediately suspect A Man of being the killer?"

No, Ruby - which is why we have very good reason to believe that he may NOT have known all the details of the murder - including the identity of the victim. Try looking at it from the other angle, Ruby - it helps!

"what could he risk by making a mistake?"

Why, Ruby, would he even give chase, if he did not even know that Mary was the victim? If all the astrakhan man was guilty of was being astrakhan man? Once again, look at all possibilities, Ruby!

"Certainly there are very many people in the pics of Petticoat"

Ah - progress!

"people that would slow up the progress of A Man walking through the market unawares, and would help -rather than hinder- someone tracking them."

Aha - they would hinder astrakhan man, but not any pursuer...? Sort of a biblical Red Sea scenario?

"I don't buy that A Man could 'melt into a crowd'"

There are lots of thing you donīt buy, Ruby. And you are welcome to your wiew, long as you realize that other people - for some reason - donīt share it.

"If you think that A Man was 'dressing down' in the market -well , why would he hide his wealth, in daylight, with a high police presence in the area, -yet go to Millers Court after midnight with his coat flapping open to expose a gold watch ?? How many overcoats and watches would he own, anyway ?"

I donīt "think" that he "dressed down". I am pointing out the very obvious fact that Friday and Sunday were two days apart and that he COULD have changed his clothing, totally or to some extent. I do not deal in "feeling sure" that he did so, I wonīt tell you that I "know" that he did or that he "must" have done - I am merely pointing to the fact that when you assess evidence, you need to keep an open mind on the parts where you cannot make a fact-based decision in either way. I firmly believe that this is a far, far better and more honest approach to things, than it would be to make claims about things that I cannot possibly know the full truth about. That is how I approach things like these, and it is not likely to change in the near future.

That is also why a question like "did he disguise himself as a visible rich toff to go to the slums bent on murder , and then disguise himself as a poor 'crowd infiltrating' bloke for his innocent market shopping ?" is completely ridiculous in this context. I could not possibly know, could I?

Moreover, nor could you, Ruby.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

What if that owed to him not having heard about it until then, for reasons we cannot establish? That, of course, would be to read the evidence in another way than your preferred one - the "must-have" version, if you like.
Consider it, Ruby. You "must" actually, if you want to be open-minded.

[QUOTE]

Take a look at what happens if Hutchinson was still unaware of the Kelly slaying. Or if he knew somebody had been slain, but had no idea it was Kelly. How nefarious does the story come across then?

I'm not ashamed of the word 'must' in this context. I was going to change 'must' to 'almost certainly', but the word is 'must' alright.
We have a man living within a stone's throw of the room where the latest in a series of murders took place -murders which were being reported all over the world, not just in London , or in the locality- and this one was exceptional in it's savagery.
We know that Police had to cordon off the road, and we know that crowds gathered at the sites of these murders.
Mary was a very local girl to Hutch, whom he must have known by sight (even if he was lying about knowing her), and he lodged in the same place as her boyfriend's brother and her ex. The whole of the Victoria must have been talking about it.
The shopkeepers must have been full of it (did this man not eat ?), pubs
must have been full of it, newspaper vendors calling on the street...was this man deaf and blind ?
I'm sorry, but he MUST have known.

Even (supposing) that he didn't know the woman's name..and I suggest that it was being bandied about...he would surely know that the murder was that of a prostitute, in Miller's Court. Are you seriously suggesting that he was so devoid of imagination and curiosity as to not ask her name, seeing that he had been in Miller's Court himself at the time of the murder ?

He certainly painted himself as a curious man.

So, if he obviously (and I'm sorry, I will use the word obviously) knew of Mary's murder, and the vignette with A Man was a reality- was he so dumb that he didn't immediately suspect A Man of being the killer ? Well, why not ?
A Man would seem an absolutely obvious suspect to me.

So when there was even the CHANCE that the man he saw in Petticoat Market was the same man, why didn't he follow him and try and find a Policeman ?

OK most people don't bother the Police with things that they're not sure about. We will leave aside for a minute a natural human desire to want to catch the murderer before he kills another human being, a maybe desire to have the kudos of being responsible for bringing a notorious killer to justice...the 'reward' (surely publicised, otherwise there would be no point to it) would be a huge motivation in itself ; it was a fantastic amount of money
for a precarious living East End man -what could he risk by making a mistake ??...I just do not buy that it was 'timidity at 'not bothering' the Police !

Certainly there are very many people in the pics of Petticoat -people that would slow up the progress of A Man walking through the market unawares, and would help -rather than hinder- someone tracking them.

I don't buy that A Man could 'melt into a crowd' , since his coat, jewellery,
spats etc show him as someone 'well off, and the majority of people in the place were not well off. As a shopkeeper (and having worked street markets, with friends that still do !), I KNOW that street traders eye up everyone that comes along and sum up whether they are potential customers..even if you momentarily 'lost' the man, you could ask a stall holder 'where did he go?' and
they would tell you..

If you think that A Man was 'dressing down' in the market -well , why would he hide his wealth, in daylight, with a high police presence in the area, -yet go to Millers Court after midnight with his coat flapping open to expose a gold watch ?? How many overcoats and watches would he own, anyway ?

Or did he disguise himself as a visible rich toff to go to the slums bent on murder , and then disguise himself as a poor 'crowd infiltrating' bloke for his innocent market shopping ?

[Fisherman]

A few samples:

http://aliciapatterson.org/APF001971/Downie/Downie11/Downie02.jpg

Thatīs 1972, the first year I went to the Petticoat Lane market

http://www.age-exchange.org.uk/projects/past/ryee/TH_images/16_petticoatlane7.jpg

...and 1961 …

http://www.ourwardfamily.com/1800s/A_London_Street_-_Petticoat_lane_1.JPG

...and at the end of the 19:th century.

How about it, Ruby – is there no way that people could disappear in these crowds? And did they all come about since there were cameras around...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"but given the opportunity of maybe catching a notorious serial killer, who had killed a woman with whom you were on friendly terms, and claiming a huge amount of reward money, you would still be able to follow a man through the busy market, until such time as you saw a Policeman."

A/ Actually, Ruby, the density of the crowd in a market is not affected by single persons differing convictions - it remains the same no matter how many killers you think you see. The same applies for the propensity of people disappearing in crowds - no matter how intent you are on keeping an eye on somebody, there is only so much you can do about it.

B/ We STILL donīt know if Hutchinson at this stage thought of astrakhan man as the killer of Kelly. Actually, if he did, I would expect him to tell the newspapers about efforts on his behalf not to loose him out of sight or to call the police to the place. But no such thing is mentioned. Interestingly, this tells the two of us different things. It tells me that he may either not have known at that stage that Kelly had been killed two days earlier, or he may have been in a situation where he realized that he would not be able to follow the man, or, finally, he may have decided on the spot that it probably was not astrakhan man after all: "I fancied I saw him, but I was not certain".
You, on the other hand, read a lot of sinister things into this. And it is all governed by your chosen wiew that Hutchinson was Kellys killer. Therefore, he MUST have been able to identify astrakhan man, therefore you are SURE that he mentioned Petticoat Lane since it was a predominantly Jewish market and therefore, Hutchinson could NEVER have been in a position where he was unable to follow and capture the man. It all MUST have been the way you think, because... because... eh, otherwise... you may be wrong? No?

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

The people are packed in 'like sardines' because there is a camera there filming them -a huge novelty event- and some toffs evidently arranging the filming !!

True, Ruby.

But there are other photos looking down on the street from the surrounding buildings which show the extent of the crowding.

Jon

[Jon Guy]

Exactly, Jon - not the best of surroundings to perform witness identifications, I should think...

That`s how I see it, Fisherman.

...and easily lost in the crowd, I would imagine..

Jon