The Surly Man

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“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, I´m afraid”

It’s a strong probability, as far as I’m concerned, since the chances of it being a random unrelated coincidence are so incredibly slim. In that respect, it’s most assuredly “clear” – or should be considered so – but that doesn’t mean that I’ve ever insisted upon it as an “ironclad fact”. You're welcome to make guesses to the contrary, but with sincere respect, I’d consider it just as outlandish as some of the other guesses advanced, to my very great surprise and mild disappointment, on this thread.

“Don´t 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?”

Impossible to determine at this remove in time, but since the account was discredited, it cannot be ruled out that this coincidence was noted.

“Why take that risk? Why not leave a day or two, cooling it down?”

I don’t know, but it seems incredibly likely that he did “risk” it, or else we’d be forced to accept the “random coincidence” explanation that I personally find hideously implausible. Anyway, it’s important to remember why “The Maybrick diary was genuine because there’s no way a forger would be so stupid as to disavow any pretense at emulating the real James’ handwriting”…is such a bad argument.

All the best,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

Ben -Lawende saw a man with a "fair" moustache, "medium build", "appearance of a sailor" and with a red handkerchief tied round his neck. He was, by inference, when taking Harris and Levy's attitude into consideration, 'aggressive looking'. He was supposedly about 5'7"".

I don't know about you, but I would imagine a 'sailor', with a red triangular tied scarf, having a peaked cap ? I don't imagine this description including a wideawake/billycock.

If I look at Mrs Lewis's description, she definitely says 'not tall, but STOUT',
and wearing a Wideawake hat.

If I look at the engraving of Hutch -well he is wearing a 'billycock', looks
'well built', doesn't look 'fair', doesn't have a handkerchief tied around his neck, and is wearing an overcoat; I don't need to make any real effort to place him in the shoes of W Man -he fits easily.

I don't, personally, think that Lawende saw the killer of Eddowes -I think that Mrs Lewis DID though..and I think that she was the only one (that came forward); and that was why she ws so important in his mind.

Infact there is nothing to say that Abberline didn't ask Lawende's opinion
on the suspectworthyness of Hutch, when he threw out A Man as a viable suspect -and he got a "zero'.

Fish -I dont know why the Police discounted Hutch. If they were still taking Lawende very very seriously then maybe it amounted to Hutch = Wideawake (cross referenced to Mrs Lewis), "we don't believe that he was the Ripper
because he came forward, doesn't fit our profile, wasn't in town when other murders were commited, and he simply knew the woman and was hanging about hoping for sex and maybe somewhere to shelter/sleep for free.
Therefore we don't need to look for W Man -we've already interviewed him and discounted him".

[Ben]

Interesting thoughts, Ruby, although I'm personally of the opinion that both Lewis and Lawende saw the murderer - the only marked difference being the headgear, and it's likely that all but the most impoverished vagrants in the district had the means to purchase or borrow more than one hat. One of the clearest sketches of Hutchinson was recreated in Stewart Evans' "Letters From Hell", where he is depicted very clearly as having a light or fair moustache. Note also that possible ripper victim Ada Wilson's attacker was described as being 5"6' and wearing a "wideawake".

Hi Richard,

Since this isn’t a Toppy thread, I hope you won’t have any objections if we return to the original premise of the thread once I’ve addressed your points.

“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.”

It depends what you mean. There have been several “named” candidates for the identity of the man who signed the statement, as you well know, but if you only mean “named” in the sense that they were brought to the attention of the public via family members, then yes, that leaves us with Toppy. Unfortunately, this assumes a greatly reduced significance when we recall that the nature of the publication in which that particular “naming” came to light is such that grave doubts must (and have) been entertained over its authenticity.

The radio show is still regrettably impermissible as evidence, incidentally, since we only have your word for it that it ever existed. This isn’t an attack on your integrity – it’s just the way things work, and rightly so. It’s worth pointing out, however, that a researcher who has contacted Toppy’s descendants has expressed his opinion here that the radio show almost certainly never took place, at least not as you remember it.

The Wheeling report, in my view is a major bonus in the hands of the defence lawyer[ ie myself]

But it makes useful birdcage lining in the hands of everybody else, one would hope, since it does not remotely corroborate any Reg-submitted claim that appeared in the Ripper and the Royals. I’ve explained why. You’ve already acknowledged the existence of a likely “rumour base”, so presumably you would appreciate the extent to which stories involving police and informants are commonly linked to the issue of “pay-offs”, and that it should not, therefore, come as any surprise that two independent and decidedly dodgy sources should have come up with the entirely false idea of a substantial payment in connection with Hutchinson?

I don’t know why you keep insisting that Toppy would have needed access to Hutchinson’s “full account” if he wanted to assume his identity. That obviously wasn’t the case. The R&R Reginald account contained only the claim that his father knew one of the victims and was interviewed by the police. No additional knowledge of the actual content on the statement was evinced by the Fairclough-Reginald interview.

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
No mention of Topping honest.
The argument here is, Why did GH present himself to the police on the monday night?
Many believe that he had something to hide, and knowing from the inquest[ obviously in attendence] that he had been seen, albeit without being named, decided that he would invent a good reason for being opposite Millers court...best be safe then sorry er..
So of to Commercial street station he goes.
Not convincing at least to yours truely , and many others to boot.
firstly it has been suggested that he attended the inquest, which would have primarily been to find out if a loiterer was mentioned .
Was he seen that was paramount to his security .
Hs worst fear came about , he was seen , but no name was mentioned.
But he was so paranoid that he may be reconized by Mrs Lewis at some later date, [ even though by being at the inquest, she could have spotted him there] he decides best play safe.
Not convincing.
Clearly by entering police hands on the monday evening , he would have had no evidence of soiled clothing , bloodstains, on clothes he was wearing, or at his lodgings, he would have known that by presenting himself at the murder scene at an appropiate time, he would have been checked out ..big time.
That being the case, if attending the inquest, he would have known he could not be identified by name, and even if sometime in the future Mrs Lewis had spotted him, which led to a apprehension, he could simply say 'that wasnt me', and with no evidence of ''murder' that would be that.
What would Casebook members do in that situation.?
I would take my chances , by presenting myself to the police, I would be certain that they could not find any trace of evidence on me, and or anywhere else that could be traced, and linked to me.
All I would be doing is drawing attention to myself.
So taking that into account, carry on as normal, grow a beard / change clothing fashion, loose weight, the odds are you will never be identified, and if by chance you were , say 'It was,nt me Guv'
I should add that I am suggesting in this post that Hutch was guilty of naughties, which I consider as you know ..not the case.
Regards Richard.

[Rubyretro]

Ben - I think that before finger printing, DNA testing, and CTT cameras, alot more emphasis was put on 'witness statements', although we now know how mistaken those can be.

I can't believe that Hutch would have risked coming forward and being confronted with Lawende pointing his finger and saying 'yes ! that's the man I saw !! '. As you have pointed out yourself, Hutch could not know how much Lawende had really seen and the police had supressed. still, reading back over the 'eddowes.... direction of death ?' thread, it seems really logical that Lawende did NOT see the Ripper and Eddowes at all.

I think that it is very possible that an East End Man might own more than one hat ?....but an overcoat ? Hutch is wearing one I think ( I haven't checked, I confess) in the Press drawing -what would he do with his coat ? Why wouldn't you naturally wear one, if you owned one, and it was a late autumn night in London ? If Hutch had owned one, and had asked someone to keep it for him coinciding with Kate's murder, could he risk that person coming forward volunteering the information if Lawende accused him ? : I don't think so.

A Billycock/Wideawake coincides with Mrs Lewis's W Man, and an overcoat
naturally fits it. It also fits with Mrs Long ( I'm so sorry, Wolf, but I did say that I was going to eat Humble Pie over Cadosche and the bump on the fence ).

N.B. Mrs Long said 'foreign looking' from the back -something that she could not possibly have ascertained-but which Hutch has chosen to draw out with his ridiculous description of A Man, above Lawende's description. Hutch appears to want to disarm Lewis and Long, but not Lawende or Schwartz
at all.

By the way, I don't think that Lawende NOT seeing JTR has any bearing on Hutch/anti-semite connection at all : Mitre Square is STILL in proximity to the synagogue/jewish club night, Liz was still murdered in front of a jewish club, the apron piece found under the GSG was still in a predominately jewish
habitation, and Hutch -as witness- still took pains to implicate a false jewish suspect.

[Ben]

“Not convincing at least to yours truely , and many others to boot.”

Some others, Richard, not “many”. Let’s not go down last year’s road of conjuring up a whole army of people queuing up to support your view. If you don’t find the explanation convincing, then you obviously accept that Hutchinson’s decision to come forward as soon as the inquest finished was one “coincidence”, and that the striking similarity between the Hutchinson and Lewis’ accounts was another, and that's what I consider "unconvincing" in the extreme.

“But he was so paranoid that he may be reconized by Mrs Lewis at some later date, [ even though by being at the inquest, she could have spotted him there] he decides best play safe. Not convincing.”

Well do a little more research into the movements and behaviour of other serial killers in similar situations and you may come to consider the suggestion rather more convincing. He needn’t have attended the inquest in person, incidentally, in order to hear of Sarah Lewis’ evidence.

“Clearly by entering police hands on the monday evening , he would have had no evidence of soiled clothing , bloodstains, on clothes he was wearing, or at his lodgings, he would have known that by presenting himself at the murder scene at an appropiate time, he would have been checked out ..big time”

As I’ve explained so many times, the nature of police investigations at the time were such that the “checking out” process could only have taken them so far. They would have sought to do as much checking as was feasible, certainly, but the occasionally touted suggestion that the police had some sort of magic wand for determining the guilt or innocence of anyone every suspected of the crimes just doesn’t reflect reality, then or now. Thank goodness it’s touted by the “few” and not the “many”!

The preponderance of evidence indicates that the clothes would not have been bloodstained to any noticeable degree, especially not the outer garments.

“he could simply say 'that wasnt me', and with no evidence of ''murder' that would be that.”

Which wouldn’t have availed him when he was paraded before earlier witnesses who saw him with previous victims, which, for all Hutchinson knew, was a possible outcome, especially given the latest tactic of suppressing the full extent of eyewitness descriptions. I’m not interested in what other Casebook members would do in that situation. I’m interested in what serial killers have been proven to have done in similar situations.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Ruby,

If Hutchinson wasn’t the individual seen by Lawende and possibly Schwartz, it seems less likely to me that he’d bother with the subterfuge at all, and that if he was the killer, he came forward for reasons more concerned with bravado and general game-playing. While I suspect that this too played a part, I also believe that the earlier victims played some role in his decision to approach the police. Lawende was clearly considered the most reliable witness by the police, and for good reason, considering that the sighting occurred so close in time and proximity to Eddowes’ death. In addition, he stated that the clothes worn by the woman were “the same” as those worn by Eddowes, and “same” naturally assumes a greater significance than merely “similar” for example.

I don’t think the coat issue is a problem. The garment depicted in the sketch could easily qualify for a “loose-fitting jacket”.

All the best,
Ben

[sleekviper]

Hi all,
I was wondering if possibly Kelly had a signal? If she is working from where she lives, and owes money, she would probably need a signal to alert men of her current situation. If McCarty, for instance, charges rent by the customer, her best move may be to set up a signal for when she is available, and to prevent men from walking in interrupting time with someone else. So a signal such as, If the light is dim, come in, if the light is high, walk by. Now McCarthy only sees a fraction of those that enter, and he won't drop the rent, but he won't raise it either. She would have to claim a lack funds, since now she is claiming a drop in business.
Hutch does not want to "walk by", he wants to wait for the light to dim. So he waits, and waits, and waits, but the light does not dim. Finally, he decides to peek in that broken window to see what the devil is taking so long, and as he quietly looks in, he sees the back of a man, and as the man turns, he watches in shock as the man places the insides of Kelly on a table. In the next few seconds, where he is frozen with fear, details of what he sees are burned into his mind, like witnessing a major accident. He stumbles back, thinks that he should get help, but not knowing if he was seen, and not knowing if he would be followed, he hides until he finally figures that he must say something days later. He possibly has a internal struggle of wanting to point out the man that he saw, and not wanting his insides flopped on a table one dark night. Help/just hide, can spot him anywhere/not sure if that was him, alert the police/do not let him see you with police, give exact details of what he wore/don't say a word about his features. So he would want to help, but as he would be the only person to ever see the killer at work, if something did go wrong, the killer would know who caused the problem, and he would spend the rest of his life afraid of the dark. Just a thought.

[Rubyretro]

Mary may well have had a 'signal' for 'regulars' -but she appears to have done most of her soliciting on the streets ('Mary's corner'), and her room did not give directly onto a road where there were passers-by. She appears to have picked up men elsewhere, and then have led the way to her room.

Hutch does not want to "walk by", he wants to wait for the light to dim. So he waits, and waits, and waits, but the light does not dim. Finally, he decides to peek in that broken window to see what the devil is taking so long, and as he quietly looks in, he sees the back of a man, and as the man turns, he watches in shock as the man places the insides of Kelly on a table

.

Mary apparently stuffed the broken pane with newspaper, and hung a coat in front of it, to keep out the cold. I'm not sure that you could see any light from Dorset Street, where Hutch was standing opposite the passage leading to Miller's court. He was waiting to see if anyone left the room (A Man, according to him ; I think Mary herself). The Ripper would have surely kept the window masked by the coat, and would have been wary of any noise or movement coming in that direction.

So he would want to help, but as he would be the only person to ever see the killer at work, if something did go wrong, the killer would know who caused the problem, and he would spend the rest of his life afraid of the dark. Just a thought.[/QUOTE

]

Hutch was very eager to talk to the Press, and publicise his presence at the crime scene. His name and even address were given (something your 'killer' would not have known otherwise) -so I don't think that he was racked with fear.

There was also a huge reward going for the Ripper's capture -surely that would have been a motivation for helping the Police had he witnessed a man actually committing the crime (he could have claimed 'Police protection' if he
was genuinly going to lead them to the killer).

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
I do follow what you are saying, and I am very aware of other killers making themselves known to the police.. Haig for one.
However if Hutch was JTR, then surely he must have thought that he may be placed in a line up if his story came across suspicious, and in which case, it would not have only been Mrs Lewis he would have had to be concerned about..
I am also aware of the limit of police investigation, blood stains could not be interpreted for exsample, but Hutchinsons movements would have been checked, and verified, since the Friday morning, all of his clothing checked for any tale tale signs, and many questions asked before he would have been dismissed as a time waster etc, even if his story was discredited, simply because he placed himself at the crime scene, and had a conversation [ allegedly] with the soon to be victim.
Ben.
Question.
Why did George Hutchinson go to the police, if on doing so he could have been place in a line up with not only Mrs Lewis, but all the other witnesses throughout that autumn, without taking a chance by simply moving out of the vacinity.?
It would have been as simple as that.
Mayby because he had nothing to fear... its that easy, no conspiracy, and even if Mrs Lewis picked him out, so what he hadtokd the trut.
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

sorry last three words Told the truth...more haste less speed.
Richard.

[Rubyretro]

I've already said that I don't believe any of the witnesses ever saw Jack knowingly (maybe Mrs Long -I'm back peddling furiously, now -from the back ; but Hutch took pains with his A Man description to play up the 'foreign looking' aspect).

IF Hutch were the Ripper, then only he would know what to fear (or not) from any 'line up'.

I think that the only person who risked identifying him was Mrs Lewis -but as you rightly said, Richard, if he'd already stated clearly that he was in the same place as her 'Wideawake hatted man', at the same time, and doing the same thing -why would he fear that ?

the blood on clothing is an excellent point; still we know that the Ripper would not have been covered in visible blood -both because of what we can deduce from the autopsies, and the fact that people passed in the street, or who unwittingly knew the murderer, didn't notice it (whoever he was).

doubtlessly the Ripper would have loads of blood of the victims caught in the fibres of his clothing and invisible to the naked eye -and assuming that he dabbed off visible stains off a dark jacket when they were 'fresh'. There just didn't exist the forensic techniques then to a) detect 'invisible' blood or b) link it to the victims.

We have no idea what Hutch did between the time of MJK's death and his presenting himself to the Police (except that he didn't go far from the area);
Maybe he pawned any clothing that he thought might be incriminating -and that was how he could afford the Victoria Home on Sunday, although he said that he had no money left after 'going down to Romford' ?

[richardnunweek]

Hi Rubyretro,
I feel regarding the having 'no money' aspect, what Hutchinson claimed to have said to Kelly is proberly true to a certain extent, the fact that he had money, or a pass, to return to The Victoria home at 6am on the morning of the 9th, and on the 10th /11th,would have been enquired upon at his interview
In other words the police would have known off record, if infact Hutch had money on his person when he encountered Mary, and told her a fib, or if true how he managed to secure accomodation at the Victoria since.
Which must have satisfied them.
By Hutchinsons own admission he returned to his lodgings just after 6am on the 9th...are we suggesting that after the bloodbath in room 13, that he [ if the killer] would have returned to his very well inhabited lodgings, free of any signs , physical, or mental.?
I am convinced, that the police suspected after the Kelly murder, that the Ripper had some safe haven to flee to, and proberly had someone assisting him , by keeping quiet....Hense the pardon .
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

There was also a huge reward going for the Ripper's capture

No there wasn't.

Mike

[Ben]

“However if Hutch was JTR, then surely he must have thought that he may be placed in a line up if his story came across suspicious, and in which case, it would not have only been Mrs Lewis he would have had to be concerned about..”

But this is precisely why I contend he came forward, Richard. If he was dragged in as a suspect without having first pretended to be a witness, there was a far greater sense of inevitability that these identity attempts by other witnesses would have taken place. By coming forward first under the guise of a co-operative informant, there was a reduced likelihood of this happening, since an 1888 police force were very unlikely to have considered the possibility of the real murderer coming forward and requesting an audience with the police.

This why I don’t remotely share your confidence that the police checked his clothes for bloodstains etc. As I’ve mentioned already, it is very unlikely that these tell-tale signs would have left an incriminating mark, and if blood traces did find their way onto his inner garments (shirt cuffs for instance), it could easily have been disposed of. As for checking and “verifying” his movements since Friday morning, this was only possible in the broadest sense as he could hardly have possessed an alibi for every minute of that three-day period, and even then the results of that checking would hardly have cast any light on the issue of whether or not Hutchinson lied or killed anyone.

“Why did George Hutchinson go to the police, if on doing so he could have been place in a line up with not only Mrs Lewis, but all the other witnesses throughout that autumn, without taking a chance by simply moving out of the vacinity.?”

I can’t possibly say with any degree of certainly, but if he was involved in Kelly’s death, the act of coming forward under a false guise in spite the possibility of being exposed has been resorted to by known serial and one-off offenders, so we’re simply not in position to decry the suggestion as remotely outlandish, and it certainly isn’t a “conspiracy”.

“In other words the police would have known off record, if infact Hutch had money on his person when he encountered Mary, and told her a fib, or if true how he managed to secure accomodation at the Victoria since. Which must have satisfied them.”

Oh, here we go – “off record”. Why is it always the “off-record” explanations that are used to cast Hutchinson in a favourable light? If Hutchinson had disclosed to Abberline that any claim made in the body of the statement - such as having no money to give Kelly – did not reflect the reality of the situation, Abberline would certainly have mentioned it in the accompanying report. The fact that no such detail was mentioned is a compelling and obvious indication that the police had accepted – at this early stage, at least – Hutchinson’s “no money” explanation.

“are we suggesting that after the bloodbath in room 13, that he [ if the killer] would have returned to his very well inhabited lodgings, free of any signs , physical, or mental.?”

I’m suggesting that as a very plausible explanation, yes, but more on this on the “Did Jack live in a Lodging House” thread?

Best regards,
Ben