The Surly Man

[richardnunweek]

Hello Garry,
What I was suggesting is, that Hutchinson by Sunday had realized that he should report his sighting from the friday morning, but possibly put off by the police officers attitude, was somewhat reluctant once more, until he confided in someone , who said he must report it regardless, which he did on the monday evening.
It also is quite possible, that he mentioned at that interview , that he approached a beat officer on the sunday, who sent him 'on his way', and its then also possible that he offered that as a reason why he was so long coming foreward, for fear of being classed as a time waster.
It goes without saying that the press would not be privy to a nonchalent PC.
Regards Richard.

[Garry Wroe]

That, of course, Richard, is a possibility, though it still requires that Hutchinson ignored Kelly's death all day Friday and Saturday before eventually speaking to a policeman on the Sunday morning. And this is assuming that Hutchinson did actually speak to a policeman on the Sunday, a claim that was neither mentioned in his police interview nor the covering report submitted by Abberline. Frankly, I'd be astounded if it did happen and the officer concerned effectively disregarded a witness of Hutchinson's potential importance. It would certainly have been construed as a gross dereliction of duty for which the PC would have been hauled over the coals, yet we have no record of any such disciplinary action. In short, it was almost certainly another figment of Hutchinson's imagination, and may well have been one of those factors which led to his rejection as a credible witness.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Hatchett]

Hi Everyone.

Happy New Year.

I think a telling point in the article is that it doesn't say who would be imprudent if they revealed the reason for the delay. It doesn't say whether it would be Hurchinson himself or the writer of the article. Considering that there is nothing in Hutchinson's police statement that alludes to this particular imprudence, it is very likely that the writer of the article did not know the reason and was pehaps adding another touch of mystery to an already mysterious murder.

Best wishes.

[Sally]

The Morning Advertiser

It occurred to me that perhaps the Morning Advertiser is still around today - it took me a while to catch on, since I suffer from intermittal dimness

In fact, the Morning Advertiser is still around - now published weekly. The Morning Advertiser is the weekly magazine of the pub trade today. It was first published in 1794, at 127 Fleet Street, and by the middle of the 19th Century had a circulation second only to the Times..

Much as it is today, it began as a daily trade paper for the licenced victualler trade. It was a subscription paper and mutually beneficial society, which supported members in times of need.

The readership of the Morning Advertiser would have been public houses, clubs, coffee houses, etc - anywhere which could describe itself as a 'licenced victualler'.

I think the above is worth remembering when encountering the press reports taken from the paper - I further think that the readership of the Morning Advertiser goes some way towards accounting for it's rather salacious style.

[babybird67]

thanks Garry and all

i suppose it just goes to show what we probably all knew already...that anything a journalist says has to be taken with a healthy pinch of salt!
happy new year to all

[Garry Wroe]

I have KNOW idea what you mean, Jen.

A happy new year to you too.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Abby Normal]

That, of course, Richard, is a possibility, though it still requires that Hutchinson ignored Kelly's death all day Friday and Saturday before eventually speaking to a policeman on the Sunday morning. And this is assuming that Hutchinson did actually speak to a policeman on the Sunday, a claim that was neither mentioned in his police interview nor the covering report submitted by Abberline. Frankly, I'd be astounded if it did happen and the officer concerned effectively disregarded a witness of Hutchinson's potential importance. It would certainly have been construed as a gross dereliction of duty for which the PC would have been hauled over the coals, yet we have no record of any such disciplinary action. In short, it was almost certainly another figment of Hutchinson's imagination, and may well have been one of those factors which led to his rejection as a credible witness.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

Hi Garry
here is something else.

If Surly man is a figment of GH's imagination, then obviously MK never met him, had her flirtatious walk back to Millers court with him nor brought him into her room for a time. In that case, why was GH watching and waiting outside Millers court if there is no surly man? And Surly man's appearance is what GH says is the reason he took so much interest in him!

If there is no Surly man nor his attention getting (rich) appearance, then why is George Hutchinson standing watching and waiting outside Millers Court? Who is he waiting and watching for?

If he had only made his statement about Surly man but there was no watching and waiting involved, then i would still probably just beleive that he still invented him but was merely a police time waster/publicity seeker.
Its the lying about Surly man and then the watching/waiting which makes it much more dubious for me.

If George Hutchinson was not waiting for Surly man to come out of Mary Kelly's room-who was he waiting for? I would say he was waiting for someone else to leave her room or perhaps for her return.

Thoughts?

[Garry Wroe]

These were precisely the kind of questions I began putting to established experts such as Robin Odell, Colin Wilson and Paul Begg in the Eighties, Abby, when Hutchinson was universally regarded as an honest and reliable witness. Now here we are, twenty-odd years later and still they are being asked. Had Hutchinson been a mere time-waster, he had sufficient information to have come forward on the Friday or Saturday. Had he been an attention-seeker, coming forward earlier would have benefitted him since he would have been accorded the publicity platform of the inquest hearing. This being so, I am at a loss to provide an innocent explanation as to why Hutchinson came forward when he did with what was clearly a fictitious account of Kelly’s movements in the hours leading up to her death.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

[Abby Normal]

These were precisely the kind of questions I began putting to established experts such as Robin Odell, Colin Wilson and Paul Begg in the Eighties, Abby, when Hutchinson was universally regarded as an honest and reliable witness. Now here we are, twenty-odd years later and still they are being asked. Had Hutchinson been a mere time-waster, he had sufficient information to have come forward on the Friday or Saturday. Had he been an attention-seeker, coming forward earlier would have benefitted him since he would have been accorded the publicity platform of the inquest hearing. This being so, I am at a loss to provide an innocent explanation as to why Hutchinson came forward when he did with what was clearly a fictitious account of Kelly’s movements in the hours leading up to her death.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

I agree.

if God told me I could pick half a dozen suspects and if one of them was JtR he would tell me-George Hutchinson would definitely be on that list.

[caz]

Yes, but if we can all see the bleedin' obvious - that without Surly Man, Hutch's stated and signed reason for being there at all, never mind at that time on that night, falls apart, ceases to exist, dies a death and meets its maker - how could even the dimmest light bulb in the police force, never mind Abberline, not have seen it too and sought to ascertain a new reason for Hutch to have been there innocently, or failing that, to ascertain that he wasn't there as previously stated, and could be safely allowed to drop off their radar?

The very last possibility strikes me as being the one where Abberline and co merely assumed, without first looking closely at the alternatives, that Hutch was innocent and either mistaken or telling fibs about being there at all. One lie - concerning his curiosity about a surly man who wasn't there - would have been one too many for a police force hellbent on catching and stopping the man who was there in his tracks. One lie means not making any assumptions either way about anything else that Hutch claimed. It doesn't mean assuming everything else to be true, or that he lied about everything else and was therefore only a liar and no worse.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sally]

Yes, but if we can all see the bleedin' obvious - that without Surly Man, Hutch's stated and signed reason for being there at all, never mind at that time on that night, falls apart, ceases to exist, dies a death and meets its maker - how could even the dimmest light bulb in the police force, never mind Abberline, not have seen it too and sought to ascertain a new reason for Hutch to have been there innocently, or failing that, to ascertain that he wasn't there as previously stated, and could be safely allowed to drop off their radar?

The very last possibility strikes me as being the one where Abberline and co merely assumed, without first looking closely at the alternatives, that Hutch was innocent and either mistaken or telling fibs about being there at all. One lie - concerning his curiosity about a surly man who wasn't there - would have been one too many for a police force hellbent on catching and stopping the man who was there in his tracks. One lie means not making any assumptions either way about anything else that Hutch claimed. It doesn't mean assuming everything else to be true, or that he lied about everything else and was therefore only a liar and no worse.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz - I broadly agree. My view (following several other, now discarded views) is that the police probably dismissed him as one time waster amongst many - albeit an initially convincing one. I think an attentive reading of the report in the Echo of the 13th November demonstrates clearly that this was already the case. The early appearance of this press report, whilst the other papers were still oohing and aahing over Hutchinson's technicolor suspect account; hints at inside information, I think.

Hutchinson would not necessarily have stood out as suspicious. He lived at the Victoria Home, that Mecca of all that was respectable, according to some - which had recently been described in glowing terms by none other than the Telegraph; he wasn't obviously a Jew, a lunatic, or anything else that appeared to be deviant.

I suppose the eternal (apparentlly) question is whether we accept that view today. Some do, some don't. I'm quite happy on the fence, although I do find him interesting.

Best regards

Sally

[Abby Normal]

Yes, but if we can all see the bleedin' obvious - that without Surly Man, Hutch's stated and signed reason for being there at all, never mind at that time on that night, falls apart, ceases to exist, dies a death and meets its maker - how could even the dimmest light bulb in the police force, never mind Abberline, not have seen it too and sought to ascertain a new reason for Hutch to have been there innocently, or failing that, to ascertain that he wasn't there as previously stated, and could be safely allowed to drop off their radar?

The very last possibility strikes me as being the one where Abberline and co merely assumed, without first looking closely at the alternatives, that Hutch was innocent and either mistaken or telling fibs about being there at all. One lie - concerning his curiosity about a surly man who wasn't there - would have been one too many for a police force hellbent on catching and stopping the man who was there in his tracks. One lie means not making any assumptions either way about anything else that Hutch claimed. It doesn't mean assuming everything else to be true, or that he lied about everything else and was therefore only a liar and no worse.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
Except that Sarah Lewis saw him there, and apparently the police did not make the connection, therfore increasing the possibility that the police thought Hutch was lying about not only Surly man, but about even being there that night, therefore making Hutch in the police's eye's a harmless timewaster-not a suspect.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"My view (following several other, now discarded views) is that the police probably dismissed him as one time waster amongst many - albeit an initially convincing one."

And since he was the talk of the town, predominantly the parts of the town that represented police stations (we know that Abberline hasted to ensure that the districts were all given the information about the acceptedly truthful observation made by Hutchinson) - would a following discarding report not be something that the very same districts were in dire need of? In order to stop them from following a lead that had now been established to be useless, I mean? It would have saved them a lot of unneccesary trouble, methinks!

Of course, such a message MAY have been sent out, only to get lost to the world in years to come. But IF it was sent out, and IF it was common knowledge among the men who hunted the Ripper - then why did they forget to tell poor Dew? Why was he kept in the dark, and left to make his purportedly very private and totally unsupportable guess that Hutchinson had been dropped because the police had decided that he was wrong on the days?

Strange, is it not?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"how could even the dimmest light bulb in the police force, never mind Abberline, not have seen it too and sought to ascertain a new reason for Hutch to have been there innocently, or failing that, to ascertain that he wasn't there as previously stated, and could be safely allowed to drop off their radar?"

That, Caz, is as good and as legitimate as any question is gonna get. And you know my answer to it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal:

"Except that Sarah Lewis saw him there..."

That is in no way established. It is established that Sarah Lewis said she saw a man there, but I do not think she mentioned Hutchinson specifically. So we need to ask ourselves if it is possible that two different men can be standing at the same general point in a city of Londonīs size, at the same hour and on consecutive nights. And I have got a great answer for that one!

"... and apparently the police did not make the connection".

Well, that would depend how one reads the evidence. Try another hat on for size, Abby, just for a change:
1. Lewis says she was there at 2.30.
2. Hutchinson says that he only saw two OTHER people.
3. Ergo, the two are not describing the same occasion.
4. The police dropped Hutchinson.

Looking at matters that way, I think that something else than the policeīs inability to make the connection becomes apparent. The very opposite, in fact.

The best,
Fisherman