The Surly Man

[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..

[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..

[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..

[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..

[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..

[Sally]

I’m unsure as to what prompts you to make such a statement, Sally, particularly since I have never accused Hutchinson of anything other than misleading the police and press. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else

Not at all, Garry. I think that's an odd response. I have no preconceptions about anybody. I take what is said at face value. It is your reasoning that leads me to that point, nothing more. You see an 'incongruity'; I am challenging that presumption - that's all. Besides, if you have accused Hutchinson of 'misleading the police and press' then you do think him guilty - of that at least. What if he was innocent of both? I think that illustrates my point.

several witnesses, Sally, asserted that Kelly was drunk in the hours immediately preceding her death. Maria Harvey even spoke of a drinking session that began in the afternoon. On top of this, a number of witnesses described Mary Jane’s tendency to sing when she was drunk. Given her serenading of Blotchy between midnight and 1-00am, therefore, we have further inferential evidence suggestive that Kelly was under the influence when sighted by Mary Ann Cox

Well, yes, ok. Kelly had been drinking. I don't think I was expressing doubt about that.

As for the notion that Kelly may have sobered up during the two hours immediately following the Cox encounter, this is a physiological impossibility. Given the probability, moreover, that Kelly took her share of Blotchy’s beer, the likelihood is that she continued drinking until one o’clock – an hour, at most, before her allegedly sober encounter with Hutchinson

No, I wasn't suggesting that she had sobered up entirely. I was suggesting that two hours can make a considerable difference. I was further suggesting that the perceptions ot two individuals may differ considerably. This may be sufficient to account for the incongruity that you refer to.

But loitering in the pursuit of a crime had, Sally. Should you have any doubts in this respect, I would urge you to familiarize yourself with the lengths to which investigators went in order to identify the soldier questioned by PC Barrett close to the Tabram crime scene. There are several other examples besides

Yes, I realise this - I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes.

I’m open-minded, too, Sally. I merely follow the evidence. And in the case of Hutchinson, the evidence is unequivocal. As such, ‘something very odd’ was indeed going onYour interpretation of the evidence. You may be right. I'm merely pointing out that there are other ways of looking at the scenario that are as logical; therefore as acceptable.

Garry, my assertion that I am open minded was not intended as an accusation that you are not - see the beginning of this post. I'm afraid I don't think the evidence is unequivocal though. What follows is a generality and not directed personally at you. I think that whilst there are some peculiarities in this Hutchinson epidode which ought to draw our attention, it is all to easy to build a case on shadows. I don't think that's necessary - the facts are enough to warrant explanation.

I have no axes to grind, Garry. My argument - if it can be called such - will always be with reasoning solely.

Regards

Sally

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"in the case of Hutchinson, the evidence is unequivocal"

... which is why any discussion about Hutchinson always ends up in total chaos.

The best,
Fisherman

[Edward]

Hutchinson as Lookout?

Hello All –

Has there been any discussion in regards to Hutchinson as a lookout? What if Hutchinson was acting as a lookout for the actual murderer? This could explain him loitering outside Miller’s Court for 30 minutes (or so) in the rain.

Why wait so long before giving his account to police? The inquest into MJK’s murder was held on Nov. 11. Testimony given by Sally Lewis at the coroner’s inquest indicated that she saw a stout-looking man, not very tall standing in Dorset Street looking up the court (Miller’s Court). According to her testimony, Lewis felt that the man appeared to be waiting or looking for someone. Could he have been acting as a lookout for the murderer inside Miller’s Court?

The testimony given by Lewis made Hutchinson realize that he had been observed outside Miller’s Court on the night of the murder, and that it was now part of a sworn statement. Hutchinson had to come up with a (non-incriminating) reason why he was hanging around that place at that particular time. He gave his account to police at 6:00pm the evening of the inquest. Why not invent a mysterious person to justify his (observed) presence outside Miller’s Court? He would also have to invent his acquaintance with MJK in order to account for his "concern" about her safety.

On the other hand, The Daily Telegraph did not publish the inquest proceedings until a day later, Nov. 13. Was the general public allowed to attend Coroner’s inquests?

Edward

[Garry Wroe]

Quote:
Not in itself, Sally, no. But there is compelling evidence indicative that Mary Jane was drunk to the point of near-incoherence during the timeframe under scrutiny. According to Hutchinson, however, Kelly “was not drunk”, merely “a little spreeish.” This incongruity, I would suggest, is sufficient to cast considerable doubt upon the claim that Hutchinson met and spoke to Kelly at approximately 2-00am.

Yes, but you are working with the Hutchinson guilt bias here.

I’m unsure as to what prompts you to make such a statement, Sally, particularly since I have never accused Hutchinson of anything other than misleading the police and press. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else.

Objectively, what you have is two individuals, both claiming to witness a third under the influence of alcohol, over two hours apart. Firstly, perception is subjective; secondly, if both of these witnesses were indeed witnesses and did see Kelly that night, they interacted with her for a very short amount of time - a minute or two perhaps - long enough to form an accurate impression?; thirdly, two hours plus makes a difference in a state of inebriateion. I'm not so sure about the compelling evidence here.

Several witnesses, Sally, asserted that Kelly was drunk in the hours immediately preceding her death. Maria Harvey even spoke of a drinking session that began in the afternoon. On top of this, a number of witnesses described Mary Jane’s tendency to sing when she was drunk. Given her serenading of Blotchy between midnight and 1-00am, therefore, we have further inferential evidence suggestive that Kelly was under the influence when sighted by Mary Ann Cox.

As for the notion that Kelly may have sobered up during the two hours immediately following the Cox encounter, this is a physiological impossibility. Given the probability, moreover, that Kelly took her share of Blotchy’s beer, the likelihood is that she continued drinking until one o’clock – an hour, at most, before her allegedly sober encounter with Hutchinson.

Quote:
Blotchy entered Kelly’s room at approximately a quarter to midnight, Sally. This was fully two and three-quarter hours before Sarah Lewis observed the man presumed to have been Hutchinson staring intently down the court as though “looking or waiting for someone.” Had Hutchinson used Blotchy as an excuse for his fixation with Mary Jane’s room, it would have been tantamount to an admission that he was stalking Kelly.

No, I don't agree. I don't think he would have been viewed as a stalker - I don't even know if stalking had been conceptualised at the time[.]

But loitering in the pursuit of a crime had, Sally. Should you have any doubts in this respect, I would urge you to familiarize yourself with the lengths to which investigators went in order to identify the soldier questioned by PC Barrett close to the Tabram crime scene. There are several other examples besides.

As for Hutchinson - I really don't know, I'm open minded, actually - best way to be. I will say this though - if he wasn't straight up then something very odd was going on.

I’m open-minded, too, Sally. I merely follow the evidence. And in the case of Hutchinson, the evidence is unequivocal. As such, ‘something very odd’ was indeed going on.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[belinda]

The fact remains the Inspector Abberline took Hutchinson seriously as a witness. I do not believe he would have done this if he had any reason to doubt Hutchinsons story.
The police must have checked Hutchinsons background at the time.

[Sally]

Hi Garry

Not in itself, Sally, no. But there is compelling evidence indicative that Mary Jane was drunk to the point of near-incoherence during the timeframe under scrutiny. According to Hutchinson, however, Kelly “was not drunk”, merely “a little spreeish.” This incongruity, I would suggest, is sufficient to cast considerable doubt upon the claim that Hutchinson met and spoke to Kelly at approximately 2-00am.

Yes, but you are working with the Hutchinson guilt bias here. Objectively, what you have is two individuals, both claiming to witness a third under the influence of alcohol, over two hours apart. Firstly, perception is subjective; secondly, if both of these witnesses were indeed witnesses and did see Kelly that night, they interacted with her for a very short amount of time - a minute or two perhaps - long enough to form an accurate impression?; thirdly, two hours plus makes a difference in a state of inebriateion. I'm not so sure about the compelling evidence here.

On the other side of the fence, my own impression from Cox's testimony is that she had the impression that Kelly was retiring for the night. It's the bucket of beer really, the weather, etc. My impression is that Kelly was not intending to go out again - but that's a personal feeling.

Blotchy entered Kelly’s room at approximately a quarter to midnight, Sally. This was fully two and three-quarter hours before Sarah Lewis observed the man presumed to have been Hutchinson staring intently down the court as though “looking or waiting for someone.” Had Hutchinson used Blotchy as an excuse for his fixation with Mary Jane’s room, it would have been tantamount to an admission that he was stalking Kelly.

No, I don't agree. I don't think he would have been viewed as a stalker - I don't even know if stalking had been conceptualised at the time. Not as we view it today, in any case. I do think perhaps the police might have wondered why he hadn't alerted them; or at least somebody, if he'd been hanging around in the dark for over two hours harbouring dark suspicions about Kelly's house guest - but on balance I don't think it would have been too much of a problem for him.

This was the beauty of the Astrakhan story. It not only implied a convivial pre-existing relationship between Kelly and Hutchinson, but further provided vindication for Hutchinson’s fascination with Miller’s Court as witnessed by Sarah Lewis. The problem, however, as I stated in a previous post, is that the Astrakhan story is almost certainly untrue. If so, and he also didn’t encounter Mary Jane as claimed, the question inevitably arises as to his true motivation for loitering close to Kelly’s room shortly before her murder

Well, possibly, yes. In fact though, we don't know how long he'd been there, so we don't know if he had been loitering close to Kelly's room for more than say, 5 or 10 minutes at the most - that's about the limit of how long Sarah Lewis would have observed him for, and that's being generous. What she saw was a man standing across the street, in poor visibility, late at night, on her way to stay with a friend.

None of it is really very solid. As for Hutchinson - I really don't know, I'm open minded, actually - best way to be. I will say this though - if he wasn't straight up then something very odd was going on.

[Sally]

He comes over in his statements as someone with a very good memory for detail, and not just 'spouting off the top of his head' -someone who had thought about what he said beforehand and not someone to throw in needless 'random details'. The 'groom' story was something that could be checked out, as the Surly Man story couldn't be.

Rubyretro - You think? I think he comes across as somebody with a colourful imagination! Yes, you are right, the groom story could have been checked out. Maybe it was, for all we know.

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.

[Rubyretro]

Anyway - I still want to know why he'd make up Surly Man in the first place? Why not just say he was waiting for 'Blotchy Man' to come out? After all, nobody knew how long he'd been standing there - he volunteered that information himself

.[
I think that Garry has answered the question of why Hutch would make up
Surly A Man very well. You could add to it by saying that -IF he were the killer, and once again only speaking for myself-then he might have wanted to take control of his own Case by placing himself as a key witness, and misdirect the Police towards a suspect that looked nothing like himself and was Jewish.
Hutch may not have been waiting for Blotchy to leave -he may not even have known of Blotchy's existance until the inquest (Blotchy was seen a couple of hours before Wideawake). Hutch might simply have known that Mary was alone and wanted to make sure that she wasn't going to go out, no one else was going to arrive, and Mary would be in bed and well asleep.

If we disbelieve him about other things, then why, for instance, could he have just got the idea of 'groom' from a random incident?

In this scenario, he could have seen some such person - because there must have been quite a few around - and used it later. We don't know, do we? I'm not saying he wasn't a groom, just that I wouldn't assume it was the case - not that I'm suggesting you are. If we decide that Hutchinson's statement was so inventive, I just don't see what's to prevent even seemingly random details being invention.

As far as I know, no Hutchinson who actually was a groom has ever come to light - which kind of throws some doubt around, I think.

It makes no difference to the suspicion surrounding Hutch, whether he was a groom or not.
He comes over in his statements as someone with a very good memory for detail, and not just 'spouting off the top of his head' -someone who had thought about what he said beforehand and not someone to throw in needless 'random details'. The 'groom' story was something that could be checked out, as the Surly Man story couldn't be.
I don't think that we have ever found the real Hutchinson.

[Garry Wroe]

Actually what follows if 'Astrakhan Man' was pure invention is only that Hutchinson didn't see him with Kelly. It doesn't logically follow that he didn't see Kelly at all..

Not in itself, Sally, no. But there is compelling evidence indicative that Mary Jane was drunk to the point of near-incoherence during the timeframe under scrutiny. According to Hutchinson, however, Kelly “was not drunk”, merely “a little spreeish.” This incongruity, I would suggest, is sufficient to cast considerable doubt upon the claim that Hutchinson met and spoke to Kelly at approximately 2-00am.

And besides, if he was waiting for 'Blotchy Man' to come back out, why didn't he just say so? Nobody saw him leave, that would have been quite plausible. Why invent Surly Man at all?

Blotchy entered Kelly’s room at approximately a quarter to midnight, Sally. This was fully two and three-quarter hours before Sarah Lewis observed the man presumed to have been Hutchinson staring intently down the court as though “looking or waiting for someone.” Had Hutchinson used Blotchy as an excuse for his fixation with Mary Jane’s room, it would have been tantamount to an admission that he was stalking Kelly.

This was the beauty of the Astrakhan story. It not only implied a convivial pre-existing relationship between Kelly and Hutchinson, but further provided vindication for Hutchinson’s fascination with Miller’s Court as witnessed by Sarah Lewis. The problem, however, as I stated in a previous post, is that the Astrakhan story is almost certainly untrue. If so, and he also didn’t encounter Mary Jane as claimed, the question inevitably arises as to his true motivation for loitering close to Kelly’s room shortly before her murder.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Sally
It was only halfway through my last post, that I remembered that a watch might have played a significant part in the kelly murder, if Fionas account did happen, then not only would the person who called on the court know of Kellys residence, but it might explain why his overcoat was undone displaying a watch chain.
With this in mind it is not impossible that he was waiting until he could enter Dorset street relatively safely , when he had the luck to find Mary walking towards him.
A bit of laughter, a bit of lets forget the past, and a invitation to a secluded room, thanks very much in the mind of a very disturbed man.
Regards Richard,