The Surly Man

[Sally]

Hi,
Let me suggest that Hutchinson [ with no identity] was telling the truth ,...exactly what does that imply?
He was observant,
Astracan posed no physical threat to himself,
Astracan had his overcoat unbottoned... mayby to impress Mary,
Astracan did not fear Hutchinson
Astracan did not fear Dorset street, or entering dingy Millers Court.
I Would have to form the opinion that this man was her killer, but proberly not JTR.
It gives me the impression that he was void of any danger simply because he was bent on murder... murdering the woman who he had been looking for, the woman who had stolen a valuable watch from him.. that is why he had his watchchain on view.
I feel that this man was the same man that McCarthy sent packing 'In True McCarthy style' a short time previous when he called on Kelly.
The above incident allegedly happened according to Fiona Kendall McCarthys great grandaughter.
A Copycat killing with a motive.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard

Interesting post. If you are correct, however, and Surly Man as the murderer of Kelly was a copycat killer, he really went to town, didn't he? It seems to me less like a copy in that scenario than a serious case of one-up-man-ship. I mean, murder and mutilation - worse than in any other case to that point - for the sake of a watch? That would be horrible, and quite extreme. If nothing else, the idea of two psychotic killers on the loose in the East End with the willingness to murder and mutilate women is disturbing, to say the least.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Let me suggest that Hutchinson [ with no identity] was telling the truth ,...exactly what does that imply?
He was observant,
Astracan posed no physical threat to himself,
Astracan had his overcoat unbottoned... mayby to impress Mary,
Astracan did not fear Hutchinson
Astracan did not fear Dorset street, or entering dingy Millers Court.
I Would have to form the opinion that this man was her killer, but proberly not JTR.
It gives me the impression that he was void of any danger simply because he was bent on murder... murdering the woman who he had been looking for, the woman who had stolen a valuable watch from him.. that is why he had his watchchain on view.
I feel that this man was the same man that McCarthy sent packing 'In True McCarthy style' a short time previous when he called on Kelly.
The above incident allegedly happened according to Fiona Kendall McCarthys great grandaughter.
A Copycat killing with a motive.
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

You can go through all of Hutch's statements and the 'choices' to make are based on logic and not just a question of arbitralily choosing what you 'prefer'.

Rubyretro - I think 'prefer' is the wrong word. I didn't intend to imply that people necessarily make conscious decisions about which aspects they like best when evaluating material such as Hutch's super-statement; for example. It's my colourful turn of phrase, no doubt! No, but I do think we all have our personal bias - and that this informs our choices, even if we are not always aware of it.

You make very reasonable, valid points about Hutchinson actually having been a groom. It is after all, apparently an innocuous bit of information. But what if - say, on his way to the police station, he saw somebody leading horses? Unless we accept that he had no idea what he was going to say once he entered the station, he must have had it in his mind. 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.

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.

[Rubyretro]

That's an example. It's a choice. Another one. Generally we seem to accept that he was a groom, knew MJK etc. Yet we don't believe that he really saw Surly Man. Another choice.

If he was lying about his motives and reasons; about seeing Surly Man at all, then surely it is more logical to presume that none of his story is reliable? That folllows as far as I can see; and for me it leaves very uncertain ground. It's one of the reasons that I think it's a dead end - entertaining dead end though it may be.

I think that when it comes to making 'choices' in what I believe (because I'm only talking for myself here ) of Hutch's statement, then it comes down to what is likely and believable. Hutch's description of how he came to see and memorise A Man, and all the details of his clothing, is nigh on impossible given the level of lighting, the fleeting timespan, and the fact that the watch would be worn under the overcoat. It is also highly unlikely that 'Surly' would leave his overcoat unbuttoned, on a cold and rainy winter night, exposing
a valuable watch, and go off to a place like Miller's Court, happily walking into that narrow passage, whilst being followed by a Hutch standing so close that he could overhear a conversation and see the colour of a handkerchief. Then the suggestion is that A Man was confortable enough to hang about for a couple of hours to murder MJK and dissect her, having left Hutch outside the room -a man who had stooped down to get a look at his face. It is all unbelievable.

However, I do believe that good liars weave facts into their fictions to lend credibility to their lies. I no longer believe 100% that Hutch was either a groom nor had known Mary for 3 years, yet it is probable that he WAS a groom. A groom is a perfectly innocent job to have, and is provable to the Police..and people who knew Hutch and read the papers. It had no bearing-
ostensibly- on the Case, so why would Hutch risk being exposed as a liar
on such a detail ? I therefore tend to believe that he WAS a groom (something that lends me to also believe that Toppy was not the witness).

Is it believable that Hutch knew MJK (judging each statement on it's merits) ?
Well, Hutch lodged in a road very close to MJK's room. She was a young, above averagely good looking prostitute, and she used the pub that must have been his 'local' (even if he didn't drink, she stood on 'Mary's Corner' ) Furthermore, her boyfriend's brother, and her -ex both lodged in the same place as Hutch. It is likely and believable that Hutch knew who she was,
and totally open ended as to how long and how well.

You can go through all of Hutch's statements and the 'choices' to make are
based on logic and not just a question of arbitralily choosing what you 'prefer'.

[DVV]

And people would have us believe he is the infamous ripper.

Yeah.
Nasty people with an apocalyptic agenda.

[Sally]

Hi Sally,



It would be, were if not for the evidence of Sarah Lewis, who described a man behaving in a very similar fashion to Hutchinson - as per the latter's claims - at the same time and the same location. This was divulged at the inquest, which took place three days after the murder, and Hutchinson came forward with his account on the evening after the termination of the inquest. I find it difficult to ignore that double-coincidence: that Hutchinson and Lewis' accounts just happened to match very closely, and that Hutchinson just happened to have embraced the suggestion to approach the police at a time when Lewis' information had recently been released.

This is not so much selectivity as the rejection of two implausible "random coincidences", and the recognition of a likely chain of events in which Hutchinson came forward as soon as he recognised himself in another witness account. His motivation for doing so is a different matter, of course, but if we take his presence outside (and preoccupation with) the crime scene and his subsquent self-vindicating behaviour as "likelies", then it isn't outlandish to consider that he might have had some involvement in Kelly's death, and by extension, the others.
Significantly, very few of the 7000 or so posts in the Hutchinson threads seek to make a case for Hutchinson as the ripper. More often, you'll find the so-called "Hutchinsonians" merely defending the Hutch-as-killer proposal as a reasonable possibility, which it simply is.

All the best,
Ben

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.

[Sally]

Cognitive Leapfrog

If Astrakhan was merely a figment of Hutchinson’s imagination, Sally, it follows that the meeting with a near-sober Kelly on Commercial Street was also untrue. Once these elements are discounted, the logical assumption is that Hutchinson was waiting for Blotchy to leave Kelly’s room when sighted by Sarah Lewis at 2-30am.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

Garry - Why? 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.. The circumstances of his seeing her may have been similar, sans Surly Man, or very different, in fact. I don't think you can know. 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?

[Ben]

Hi Sally,

If he was lying about his motives and reasons; about seeing Surly Man at all, then surely it is more logical to presume that none of his story is reliable?

It would be, were if not for the evidence of Sarah Lewis, who described a man behaving in a very similar fashion to Hutchinson - as per the latter's claims - at the same time and the same location. This was divulged at the inquest, which took place three days after the murder, and Hutchinson came forward with his account on the evening after the termination of the inquest. I find it difficult to ignore that double-coincidence: that Hutchinson and Lewis' accounts just happened to match very closely, and that Hutchinson just happened to have embraced the suggestion to approach the police at a time when Lewis' information had recently been released.

This is not so much selectivity as the rejection of two implausible "random coincidences", and the recognition of a likely chain of events in which Hutchinson came forward as soon as he recognised himself in another witness account. His motivation for doing so is a different matter, of course, but if we take his presence outside (and preoccupation with) the crime scene and his subsquent self-vindicating behaviour as "likelies", then it isn't outlandish to consider that he might have had some involvement in Kelly's death, and by extension, the others.

Significantly, very few of the 7000 or so posts in the Hutchinson threads seek to make a case for Hutchinson as the ripper. More often, you'll find the so-called "Hutchinsonians" merely defending the Hutch-as-killer proposal as a reasonable possibility, which it simply is.

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

And as for Surly Man? Well once again, if he didn't exist, who was Hutchinson 'waiting' for that night?

If Astrakhan was merely a figment of Hutchinson’s imagination, Sally, it follows that the meeting with a near-sober Kelly on Commercial Street was also untrue. Once these elements are discounted, the logical assumption is that Hutchinson was waiting for Blotchy to leave Kelly’s room when sighted by Sarah Lewis at 2-30am.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Sally]

Hi Sally,
As I have mentioned before [ sorry Ben] it all depends on who we believe Hutchinson was, a unknown , or Topping?
I have no reason to doubt Reg Hutchinsons account, simply because I know for certain, that his account in the Ripper and the Royals was not invented for publication reasons, it was repeated on radio some 18 years earlier.
I am unable [ for now] to prove that recording existed, but I will state on any oath that it did, if my word is not taken as suffice.
I am of no doubt, that Topping was the witness, and being [ in my opinion,and Regs] a trustworthy man , I feel we should accept his statement as a true reflection of what he saw regardless of modern day interpretations. he was there we, were not... that is a fact..
Regards Richard.

Hello Richard

I wasn't really addressing the identity of Hutchinson - I think we'll be straying 'off topic' if we go down that road. In a sense though, what you say confirms my view that this is all about what we choose to believe. If the question is settled for you, then who am I to disagree? Each to his (or her) own.

I'd rather leave identity for another day. To my mind, it doesn't figure who he was so much as what he did. Whether or not he was killer or witness, or neither of the above, the facts of the matter remain.

So the same questions will always apply until we all get bored or find a solution - why did he wait three days before coming forward, why is his description of Surly Man so cinematic, why had nobody else apparently heard of him if he knew MJK for 3 years?

I'll stick to my view, I think. He was a strange fish, and no mistake - whoever he was.

And as for Surly Man? Well once again, if he didn't exist, who was Hutchinson 'waiting' for that night?

[richardnunweek]

Hi Sally,
As I have mentioned before [ sorry Ben] it all depends on who we believe Hutchinson was, a unknown , or Topping?
I have no reason to doubt Reg Hutchinsons account, simply because I know for certain, that his account in the Ripper and the Royals was not invented for publication reasons, it was repeated on radio some 18 years earlier.
I am unable [ for now] to prove that recording existed, but I will state on any oath that it did, if my word is not taken as suffice.
I am of no doubt, that Topping was the witness, and being [ in my opinion,and Regs] a trustworthy man , I feel we should accept his statement as a true reflection of what he saw regardless of modern day interpretations. he was there we, were not... that is a fact..
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

Ben

Thank you.

But why surprised? It does require selective vision. Hutchinson interests me because he is an enigma, and because as a figure he appears to invoke strong, polar responses in general.

Apparently, he was either a killer or an idiot - albeit an innocent one; a sinner or a saint. Maybe it's me, but I can't really see objectively the evidence for either. He was a strange fish, to be sure - but a killer? Or conversely, a totally innocent bystander? Hmm.. That's just a dubious to my eye.

Anyway, I'm rambling, I think. To get to the point, if you want to see him as JTR then this requires a specific selection in terms of what to believe, and what to reject as a lie. For example, you believe that he was where he said he was on the night of the 8th November; but you don't believe he was there for the reason that he said he was (you as in generic 'you' not you personally). That's an example. It's a choice. Another one. Generally we seem to accept that he was a groom, knew MJK etc. Yet we don't believe that he really saw Surly Man. Another choice.

If he was lying about his motives and reasons; about seeing Surly Man at all, then surely it is more logical to presume that none of his story is reliable? That folllows as far as I can see; and for me it leaves very uncertain ground. It's one of the reasons that I think it's a dead end - entertaining dead end though it may be.

I guess at the end of the day we all have our pet theories to account for, and maybe that explains it.

[Ben]

Some good points there, Sally, which is why I'm surprised by your observation that "Jack the Hutchinson requires some selective vision".

[Sally]

And people would have us believe he is the infamous ripper.

Indeed. I think that belief in Jack the Hutchinson requires some selective vision. Yes, ok, it's odd that he didn't come forward for three days - looks suspicious. And yes, his account of Surly Man is a bit too detailed for easy acceptance. And yes, nobody else seems to have heard of him, even though he claimed to have known 'Kelly' (as he equally oddly seems to have called her) for three years.

Is that enough to convict a man though? Doubtful. In itself it doesn't prove him as a killer I'm afraid.

Hey, but here's a thing - according to him, he was on the scene in Dorset Street by about 2.00am. When Sarah Lewis saw him at 2.30am he'd have been there for 30 minutes. She seems to have thought he looked as though he was waiting for somebody.

So, if he wasn't waiting for somebody to come out of Miller's Court - what was he waiting for? If he did lie, and hadn't been standing there for 30 minutes in the cold, rainy night - why? Why the 30 minute time lapse?

The easy explanation is that he did see somebody go in with Kelly and was waiting for him to come out.

[Abby Normal]

I am sure this question has been brought up more often than an eye-opener at the ten bells, but do you believe Hutchinsons surly man killed Kelly?. Did MJK pick up more men after her encounter with him or does the sultry man simply not exist at all ?.

Hi Scorpio
if hutch was telling the absolute truth-then yes Surly man should be the prime suspect. However, i have a hard time beleiving GH's story.