The Surly Man

[sleekviper]

Is there something missing? Ok, if a witness says she saw the deceased, and more likely than not it was the day before, and a close friend sees the deceased 12 hours after the re-adjusted timeline, and Hutch 6 hours after that, are all three describing the same articles of clothing at her time of last contact? If all three say different things, Hutch is going to be seen as odd man out. However, if he matches, especially a witness 6 hours prior, and the deceased had changed, it would show when, or if, he did in fact see her. They did ask, right?

[richardnunweek]

Hi ,
It is my opinion that Mrs Cox was a day out on her sighting with Blotchy, the reason being her description of kellys clothing does not match that of Mrs Praters.
Let me explain.
Prater states [ press] that she met the murdered woman at 9pm on the eve of the 8th, she talked to her and they parted., she was wearing her jacket and bonnet.
That happened on the same night as she heard the cry 'Oh Murder, the same night that she talked with McCarthy, before returning to her room, and placing furniture against her door.
Yet Cox has her returning to her room at midnight with Blotchy, in completely different clothing.
She also has Mjk as drunk, which Hutch did not agree.
Coxs husband was described as a drunk according to her neice, when interviewed by Dan Farson, she surely would know that description.
We know Cox was fond of a 'tale' , her neice was of the opinion she saw a toff with Kelly, which differs from Blotchy in every detail.
There is so much that we are not aware of when trying to understand JTR, and its quite possible that the shabby man alleged to have been with Mary on that night, was from another day, or fabricated for some reason...?
Regards Richard.

[sleekviper]

Does anyone know if there is a robbery reported on the morning of November 9, sometime between 2am and 3am? Ok, George is following these two, and makes no attempt to subdue this man with the mean looks, and Kelly is laughing and enjoying the company of the man anyway, so what does standing outside serve to do? What really has me confused is the break in continuity. George is following, and the couple head toward the court, but instead of saying he followed, he says "I then". Wait, he did something, and then he went to the court, so time has passed instead of a direct follow. If he is going to help Kelly, and not by stepping between her and this guy, how else would he help besides getting money?

[Garry Wroe]

Here’s a passage from The Morning Advertiser of Wednesday, 14 November, 1888, that may be of interest:-

[Hutchinson] states that he knew Mary Jane Kelly well, and that on the morning of Friday last he was in Dorset-street shortly after two o'clock. There he saw the deceased with a strange man. He spoke to the murdered woman. In consequence of the recent crimes his suspicions were aroused by the man's appearance, and he did not leave the vicinity, but watched the couple and saw them enter Miller's-court. After the lapse of a few minutes he went to the court, but could see no one about, and after waiting sufficient time he concluded that all was right and retired from the scene. He afterwards heard of the murder, but for certain reasons which it would be imprudent to state he did not immediately put himself in communication with the police.

According to this report, Hutchinson became aware of Kelly’s death yet failed to come forward for reasons that were known but not publicized. I’m not sure how much credence I’d put on such an assertion, though if true it certainly raises questions as to the claimed conversation with a policemen in Petticoat Lane.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[babybird67]

wow Garry

what an incredible thing to state. Obviously being a press report one has to keep some measure of incredulity as to whether everything reported is factual, but how interesting to hint at valid reasons for Hutchinson's reticence and to claim it would be imprudent to reveal them...what could that possibly be alluding to? Any ideas? Thanks for posting that, very interesting.

And happy new year to you!

[Garry Wroe]

To begin with, Jen, this was an article clearly derived from information circulated by the Press Association, so we may be confident that the journalist involved didn’t actually interview Hutchinson. Neither did the piece refer to Hutchinson by name. In fact, it insinuated that Hutchinson was being protected from potential retribution by the murderer – strange given that most other papers cited Hutchinson’s name from the word go.

In order to better understand the implications of this piece, I think it would be necessary to examine the manner in which The Morning Advertiser covered the murders. If it was given to exaggeration or invention, there’s a strong likelihood that this is more of the same. If not, then we might be looking at the type of inside information that I believe was responsible for The Echo’s denunciation of Hutchinson the previous day. Thus it may be the case that Hutchinson claimed that his failure to come forward sooner was due to his fear of the killer – you know, Astrakhan being a local and all that.

The fact is, though, Jen, I’m every bit as mystified as yourself.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

Hi Garry,

For what it's worth, the same article also claimed that it was "now conclusively proved" that Mary Kelly "spent the latter part of Friday evening in the "Ringers," otherwise the "Britannia" public-house, at the corner of Dorset-street".

All the best,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
So why did Hutchinson delay his visit to the police?
The most logical reason is fear of what the police might infer, by admitting he was near/at the murder site.
The possibility that he did infact speak to a police officer on the sunday, but received a negative reponse... one can imagine the local bobbys were frequently approached with all sorts of tales... but he decided he had to inform the police by visiting the police station.proberly urged to, by another inmate of the Victoria home.
The 'fear' of the Ripper explanation , I do not go with.
If he was a bit short of courage, its unlikely that he if feared Astracan,then stooping and looking at him 'Full in the face', and following them into Dorset street would have been his actions.
So I would go with fear of how the police would react, and how would they respond to his elaborate description of kellys accoster, that kept him initially from coming foreward.
In other words 'no conspiracy, no suspicious activities, no stalker, mugger, pimp, liar, killer, even a member of the vigilante committee, or undercover policeman. even employed by Le grand.
How about Topping, and a genuine witness, , but nothing came of it, just like all the other investigations.
Regards Richard.

[Garry Wroe]

For what it's worth, the same article also claimed that it was "now conclusively proved" that Mary Kelly "spent the latter part of Friday evening in the "Ringers," otherwise the "Britannia" public-house, at the corner of Dorset-street".

Absolutely, Ben. There were other inaccuracies too. The assertion, for example, that Hutchinson became ‘suspicious’ of Astrakhan is absolutely at odds with what he claimed in his police statement and press interviews. There again, this is the only reference, newspaper or otherwise, that I have ever seen which suggests that Hutchinson may have had a legitimate reason for not coming forward sooner. Hence, on that basis alone, I’d like to give it due consideration before dismissing it altogether.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Sally]

Sensationalist Press?

I think the Morning Advertiser has an air of the Penny Dreadful about it. The very next day the paper was titillating its readership with Vassili:

"The correspondent of the Independance Belge at Berne sends the following remarkable communication: "A curious coincidence taken in connexion with the London murders is now the topic of conversation at Lucerne. A possible author for the Whitechapel horrors has been discovered. It appears that some sixteen years ago the population of Paris were greatly excited by the murderous exploits of a mysterious assassin who chose his victims amongst the class of demi-mondaines. He was finally discovered, and turned out to be a certain Nicolas Wassili, of Russian origin, who was born at Uraspol in 1847. He had received an excellent education at the University of Odessa. The murderer was examined by a council of physicians, who declared him insane. He had committed his horrible crimes under the influence of religious fanaticism. Wassili was consequently placed in an insane asylum, from which he received his discharge only last January. The question is, whether this religious maniac has gone to London and recommenced his curious method of saving souls."

Morning Advertiser 15th November 1888

So perhaps their rather Cloak and Dagger Hutchinson was simply the product of journalistic style.

Just a thought.

[Garry Wroe]

So why did Hutchinson delay his visit to the police?

That’s the million dollar question, Richard. Resolve this issue and we gain a far clearer insight into Hutchinson the man.

The most logical reason is fear of what the police might infer, by admitting he was near/at the murder site.

But then he claimed to have spoken to a policeman of the Kelly concatenation on the Sunday morning, Richard. This hardly reveals him to have been a man who was fearful of police contact.

The facts are eminently straightforward. He claimed to have seen Kelly in the company of the man likely to have been her killer, a man who by implication was responsible for a series of murders that had taken on global proportions. Kelly, according to Hutchinson, was not a stranger, but rather someone who was known to him. The rewards then on offer were truly astronomical to a man ‘in no regular employment’. And yet, even in the face of these moral and financial incentives, Hutchinson did nothing for three days. You are free to draw your own conclusions, Richard, but I cannot accept the premise that an innocent Hutchinson failed to come forward because of a fear of being falsely implicated in the Ripper crimes. It makes no sense. Even if he had fallen under suspicion, he only had to provide an alibi for one of the murders in order to exonerate himself. On this basis, therefore, I suspect that the true explanation for Hutchinson’s behaviour lies elsewhere.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Garry Wroe]

Thanks for the Wassili reference, Sally. But I still feel that we need evidence of exaggeration and invention as opposed to sensationalism if the claim regarding Hutchinson's failure to come forward is to be rejected as mere journalese.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

Hi all,

This is by no means the only example of the Morning Advertiser making claims and producing "evidence" not found elsewhere. Take their report of Julia Venturney's evidence, for example:

"I went to bed on Thursday night in Miller's-court about eight p.m. I did not sleep. Perhaps I dozed a bit. I heard a strange sound with some door, which was not like the way in which the deceased used to shut the door."

I've yet to find a single reference to this "strange sound with some door" in any other reproduction of Venturney's inquest evidence.

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

Or how about this -

Another fearful murder was committed in Whitechapel yesterday morning. At 10:30 a woman, named Mary Jane Kelly, was found dead in her house in a court off Dorset-street, her body having been mutilated in a horrible manner. The deceased woman was seen alive at 8:30, and she was subsequently heard singing in her room.

Morning Advertiser 10th November 1888. (my emphasis)

Ahem...

Unreliable, at the least. I've also noticed that the paper favoured reported speech, and that it was quite often, shall we say, 'colourful'.

[Garry Wroe]

Many thanks to Sally and Ben for providing the kind of examples indicative that The Morning Advertiser was hardly the most reliable of sources. As such, it would seem that its case-related assertions must be taken with a liberal dose of salt unless externally corroborated.

Thanks once again.

Garry Wroe.