The Surly Man

[Sally]

Hi Fish
How could someone who has a good enough memory to describe in such detail A-man on the night of the murder could not be sure if he saw him again, regardless of if he was wearing the same clothes or not? Especially by this time that GH was aware of MK's murder and that his A-man her likely killer.
"oh there he is again I think-oh well".

Wouldn't he try to follow him? would he not try to find the nearest PC? Surely this cavalier statement/behavior is another odd statement from GH. Red flags for me for sure.

Good Point.

[Abby Normal]

Rubyretro:

"To my mind it is inconceivable that Hutch fancied he saw A Man in Petticoat Lane but 'couldn't be sure'. Who would Hutch mix A Man up with -he that had memorised every detail of the man's clothing ?"

What makes you so sure that the man was wearing the same attire? It was a different day. Plus we have no knowledge of the circumstances under which Hutch made this observation.

"Surely such a 'local man" would be known to the population -even if just by sight?"

He probably was, Ruby. Then again, we do not know how many men were wearing astrakhan trimmed coats in that vicinity. We only know that there were enough of them about for Abberline to realize that Hutch´s story was nothing too much out of the ordinary, contrary to what you seemingly believe.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish
How could someone who has a good enough memory to describe in such detail A-man on the night of the murder could not be sure if he saw him again, regardless of if he was wearing the same clothes or not? Especially by this time that GH was aware of MK's murder and that his A-man her likely killer.
"oh there he is again I think-oh well".

Wouldn't he try to follow him? would he not try to find the nearest PC? Surely this cavalier statement/behavior is another odd statement from GH. Red flags for me for sure.

[Fisherman]

Rubyretro:

"To my mind it is inconceivable that Hutch fancied he saw A Man in Petticoat Lane but 'couldn't be sure'. Who would Hutch mix A Man up with -he that had memorised every detail of the man's clothing ?"

What makes you so sure that the man was wearing the same attire? It was a different day. Plus we have no knowledge of the circumstances under which Hutch made this observation.

"Surely such a 'local man" would be known to the population -even if just by sight?"

He probably was, Ruby. Then again, we do not know how many men were wearing astrakhan trimmed coats in that vicinity. We only know that there were enough of them about for Abberline to realize that Hutch´s story was nothing too much out of the ordinary, contrary to what you seemingly believe.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Let's begin with the last sentence : IF you believe that Hutch was JTR -and I'm not afraid to state that I do- then it is impossible to deny that he was someone who "really, really, likes risk". Infact huge adrenalin rushes during the 'danger period' and then feelings of omnipotence immediately after a murder, might have been part of the motivation.

Of course Hutch's behaviour -if he were guilty- after MJK's murder, of offering to go 'walkabout' with the Police, is extreme. Yet what could be more 'extreme' behaviour than butchering Mary's body for a couple of hours ?

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..

Hi Rubyretro. I like your post - but how did it get replicated 6 times??

If you choose to accept him as a killer, as you say you do, then fine. It hangs together quite well. It requires that you interpret events surrounding Hutchinson with the presumption of his guilt though.

Yet, you are perhaps right in that, if he truly was the strategist he would have been if he did pull this off - and was the murderer, he would have had nothing to fear.

Yes, there were no CCTV cameras, no dna profiling etc. He would have had the advantage of having put himself forward as a voluntary witness - so who would suspect him, I suppose.

But even more than that, if you are right, and he truly was capable of such brilliant bravado in the full knowledge of having killed at least 5 women - then he had nothing to fear in any case; because he was clearly brighter than the police could ever hope to be.

I am a long way from having decided about all this - the fun is in the mystery for me. It really is interesting to watch this discussion develop - there are so many differing views!

Regards,

Sally

[Abby Normal]

Ben - Look at that! Cognitive Leapfrog at it's finest!

Seriously though - there a a lot of maybes and might haves here, aren't there? It's interesting what you say about the number of posts actually making the case for Hutchinson being the killer being comparatively few - because he is, at the least, a mysterious figure, isn't he? Perhaps most people would prefer to see innocence rather than guilt?

I think I've identified one of my issues to be with the necessity of inventing Surly Man at all - which brings into question for me whether Hutchinson did actually see him. Why make him up?

Altogether, generally, I think your argument is fair enough, for now. Hmm, and this Hutch/Leiws thing. Off on a tangent, admittedly, but I wonder if it's all a bit over-engineered.

Hi Sally
which brings into question for me whether Hutchinson did actually see him. Why make him up?

To deflect possible suspician from himself, directly blame a jew and help give a reason why he is standing, waiting outside a murdered womens residence.

[Rubyretro]

Here is that moving bit of film again (I love it !); OK, granted it was taken in Petticoat Lane 15 years after Hutch's statement...but it surely can't have
changed THAT much in the intervening years- anymore than most of our local streets have radically changed character since the mid '90s ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTjzryR7FSg

Now imagine 'neighbourhood face' A Man sauntering down in an astrakhan overcoat, gold watchchain, spats etc..

Surely such a 'local man" would be known to the population -even if just by sight? He certainly would be to the stall holders, eyeing up the crowd for prospective business. Wouldn't all those small boys have avidly watched him ?

To my mind it is inconceivable that Hutch fancied he saw A Man in Petticoat Lane but 'couldn't be sure'. Who would Hutch mix A Man up with -he that had memorised every detail of the man's clothing ?

To my mind it is worth noting that Petticoat Lane Market was described as being 90% Jewish, and it is for this reason that he Hutch bothered to drop the name of the place into his recital.

[Fisherman]

David:

"True also, is the fact that Hutch said he had seen his suspect again in Petticoat Lane on Sunday morning...and I truly can't swallow that one."

Actually, David, you may not need to swallow it after all - since it is not any fact that Hutchinson did say that he saw his man again in Petticoat Lane. What he said was: "I believe that he lives in the neighbourhood, and I fancied that I saw him in Petticoat lane on Sunday morning, but I was not certain."

So, in fact, Hutch only "fancied" that he saw him, but he was not certain. Why, we don´t know; maybe he saw a man from a distance who reminded him of Astrakhan man, maybe it was a sighting made in a fleeting second in a crowd ... who can tell? What we CAN tell, however, is that it seems that Hutchinson implies that Astrakhan was a man he was to some extent familiar with, since he stated that he believed that he lived in the neighbourhood. That, to me, speaks of prior knowledge on Hutchinsons behalf. And when you have a familiar face popping up in circumstances like the ones surrounding Kelly´s death, then maybe you are slightly prone to interpret his looks into people. Scientifically, it used to be called "dominance of interest", I believe.
Anyway, there was never any certainty in Hutch´s pointing out of Astrakhan man on that Sunday!

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

I am absolutely convinced that Topping was telling the truth in every respect, and admire the man for his courage in coming foreward.

Hi Richard

the truth is that this surly man's trail leads nowhere, or worst, to Sir Randolph.
True also, is the fact that Hutch said he had seen his suspect again in Petticoat Lane on Sunday morning...and I truly can't swallow that one.
Can you ?

Amitiés
David

[Scorpio]

I did not realise the surly man, or Hutch's motives in his conception were the source of some much contention. Hutch's basic honesty is something that i have never really doubted, and any doubts in validity i would link to non sinister but very human causes. Your contributions are interesting though, but Edward, just who was Hutch looking out for? hhmm?.

[Rubyretro]

will this unblock it ?

[Rubyretro]

still malfunctioning..

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Wow we will never forget Rubyretro s last post x6.
If we let common sense prevail, it is extremely unlikely that a man with a murderous personality would walk into a police station placing homself at the murder scene, at the relevant time [ according to medical opinion?] with tales of a well dressed man , complete with watch, seal, leather gloves, carrying a parcel wrapped in American cloth, and adding snippits of oral from kelly and stranger ie.
Come along dear you will be comftable.
Oh I have lost my hankerchief.
Observations like.
He looked at me surly,
She was spreeish.
He gave her a kiss.
All invented by Hutchinson...for what purpose? was he on a death wish.
I am absolutely convinced that Topping was telling the truth in every respect, and admire the man for his courage in coming foreward.
I should add however that if I had not heard that radio broadcast in the early-mid 1970s, I would proberly be suspicious also.
But it is quite clear to me that as the same imformation was relayed on the radio some 18 years before 'The Ripper and the Royals was published, then it has to have either been Reg himself speaking [ on tape] or someone using his account.
Not one of active members of this site remember that airing, but I have been mentioning the five pound payment for years, long before faircloughs book although not on Casebook obviously.
And to my knowledge no one on casebook, [ including myself] had ever heard of the Wheeling article until recent years, and that mentions a payment does it not?
It is extremely unlikely that a novice on JTR such as Reg, would have read such a publication as that report, and even more unlikely that a 22 year old Topping would have come across such an article on the streets of the east end in 1888.
So how would Reg obtain that imformation, if not from his father, and how would dad know of a payment unless it was paid to him?
Street gossip at the time, which had to have originated for a reason, and if gossip why such a large amount of payment?
I find it very unlikely that Topping would hear of a rumour on the streets and realise that if he researched on the real Hutchinson statement etc, he could incorperate all of this into becoming this man on a friday night to supplement his beer money forever more, and whats more lie to his brother, his son , and uncle Tom Cobley and all.
That would be too fanciful at least to me... much prefer the Honest theory.
Regards Richard,

[Rubyretro]

Sorry -there was a malfunction -I've got multiple posts, whilst Sally is credited as the last Post (as opposed to, Come To The Cookhouse Door ??)
in Messages.

[Rubyretro]

Sorry -there was a 'malfunction' : I've got multiple posts, and Sally is quoted as the last Post (as opposed to 'Come To The Cookhouse Door '?)in messages..

[Rubyretro]

Rubyretro - You think? I think he comes across as somebody with a colourful imagination!

A colourful imagination -yes, certainly; but more than that to retain all the details of the clothes and then build on them to the press. I would think that this is a person who has rehearsed the description in his mind before making a Statement to the Police. I've already given the reasons why I think that Hutch made up Surly/A Man, and if he invented and rehearsed the details, then those details had a significance in his mind. I don't think that an invented 'groom' story would be anything more than an encumberance to
his memory, so -personally- I don't think that he invented that.

As for the Surly Man story - well, wasn't it checked out? I thought Mr Hutchinson offered to go on walkabouts in the area to earch for Mr. S? I really can't imagine why he did that if he was making it up. Now, I'm not saying he wasn't making it up, but it seems a bit extreme, don't you think?

I think this indiividual is either innocent of any wrongdoing or he really, really, likes risk.

Let's begin with the last sentence : IF you believe that Hutch was JTR -and I'm not afraid to state that I do- then it is impossible to deny that he was someone who "really, really, likes risk". Infact huge adrenalin rushes during the 'danger period' and then feelings of omnipotence immediately after a murder, might have been part of the motivation.

Of course Hutch's behaviour -if he were guilty- after MJK's murder, of offering to go 'walkabout' with the Police, is extreme. Yet what could be more 'extreme' behaviour than butchering Mary's body for a couple of hours ?

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..