The Surly Man

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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?

[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]

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?

[Ben]

And that would not have owed to their supposition that the Ripper´s "full-of-devices"-character must tally well with Hutchinson´s storytelling

Not "must" necessarily, only that it could tally, or else there wouldn't be any point or sense in reminding us that Jack the Ripper was "full of devices". It might also have owed to the fact that by this stage, Hutchinson's account had come to incorporate a claim that he actually ventured into the court itself and waited outside the room. Well, whatever they thought, it's clear that any putative Hutch-wideawake connection was quite unknown to the Evening Star or else they'd have mentioned it in the context of their suggestion that Hutchinson might end up taking his turn on the defensive.

But I agree, the more interesting discussion is indeed on the other thread, which is why I'm there now.

Shall we?

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I know you regard it as “totally unviable”

I do.

"...the obvious inference here is that the journalist’s suggestion that Hutchinson might end up taking “his turn on the defensive” was made in recognition of the evidence that “The man popularly known as "Jack the Ripper" is full of devices”. In other words, the act of coming forward and delivering a bogus statement in order to confuse the police might just be something a “full of devices” type of person would do."

The obvious inference is that the Washington journalists knew that Hutchinson would be in an awkward spot if caught out telling porkies. And that would not have owed to their supposition that the Ripper´s "full-of-devices"-character must tally well with Hutchinson´s storytelling, since there were bunches and heaps of more or less gifted storytellers about throughout the case. Only one of them, though, could seemingly be placed at the spot and time. And THAT would account for any perceived future grilling the guys at the paper foresaw.

At any rate, I think the more interesting discussion is to be had at the Examiner 5 thread! At least if you really are looking for evidence that Hutch was never our man.

The best
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
Oh How I wish, that the late Reg Hutchinson was still amongst us, he could then end my frustration, by one simple answer to , one simple question.
Did you ever give a interview for a radio broadcast regarding your fathers past?.
If only.. Ivor [ Edwards] had asked that question when he called on Reg a couple of years before he died, but alas he was not aware of my ramblings at that time.
Toppings brothers, daughter in law, suggested in a rare post on casebook, that her father in law was aware of the family connection.
I made efforts to contact her by letter, but who can blame her, and her husbands reluctance to involve themselves.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“I see your point, Ben. But I actually don´t think it´s all that drastic - believing that neither police nor press spotted the wideawake-Hutch comparison is something I regard as totally unviable.”

You really don’t need to remind me any more, Fisherman. I know you regard it as “totally unviable”, and I’m still very surprised that you that adopt this view given the total absence of any evidence, anywhere, that the police or press “spotted the wideawake-Hutch comparison”. If any evidence is forthcoming, I’ll be the first to revise my thinking on the subject, but until such time, we’re stuck in “must have” land.

Of course the Evening Star would not have known anything about serial killers, but the obvious inference here is that the journalist’s suggestion that Hutchinson might end up taking “his turn on the defensive” was made in recognition of the evidence that “The man popularly known as "Jack the Ripper" is full of devices”. In other words, the act of coming forward and delivering a bogus statement in order to confuse the police might just be something a “full of devices” type of person would do.

Clearly they knew nothing of any Lewis-Hutchinson connection, or else it would have been an extraordinary and inexplicable omission on the part of the Evening Star. If they knew of this connection, it very obviously stands to reason that they’d cite as the most important reason of all for keeping “a sharp eye on Hutchinson himself”.

“So there you are, Ben - they knew. Everybody knew, in fact.”

It’s not remotely a “fact” that everyone knew, Fisherman.

There’s not a shred of evidence that anyone “knew”.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Woah, them’s fightin’ words, Fisherman! Suffice to say, though, I don’t think the analogy very apt."

I see your point, Ben. But I actually don´t think it´s all that drastic - believing that neither police nor press spotted the wideawake-Hutch comparison is something I regard as totally unviable.
Your overall reasoning on Hutch is something I used to consider viable, but that has changed very much. A chain is no stronger than it´s weakest link, as you will know, and this particular link represents a link fabricated out of wet toilet paper in my wiew.

"Yes, we know Hutchinson was interviewed “more than just one time” because when he first approached the police station, he would have detailed his account to a policeman of lesser seniority than Abberline, who probably came directly from Leman Street after learning of Hutchinson’s account."

Of course. But what I am saying is that he would have been interwiewed - formally or perhaps more informally - by the police after the initial Abberline interwiew.

"No, I don’t suppose so for a moment. The press were clearly no strangers when it came to outlining what we now consider to be the bleedin’ obvious, especially with regard to witness evidence. "

Look at it this way, Ben! You write: "Even the discerning folk at Washington’s Evening Star, who believed that Hutchinson himself ought to be considered a suspect on account of his implausible statement, failed to arrive at that “Eureka” moment as far as Lewis’ evidence was concerned."

Now, let´s first agree that the journalists of the paper - discerning or not - actually promoted Hutcinson´s story as a red hot tip that had finally reached police hands. But, just as you point out, they add that if Hutchinsons story was NOT true, then the focus of the investigation may well turn on him, right?

Okay! Let´s ask ourselves how much experience the gentlemen of the Washington Evening Star had of serial killers (or any other killers for that matter) injecting themselves into ongoing police investigations. My guess is that it was a whole new ballgame to them.
And if they had not heard of such a thing, or did not feel that they had reason to believe that Hutchinson was anything but a liar, quite possibly an attention seeker, then why would they feel that he would be next up for the Ripper title?
Was it just a hunch? Or did they have something else to go on, perhaps?

Of course they had. The only thing that could possibly put Hutchinson´s behind in grave peril, would be if it could not only be shown that he was wrong, BUT ALSO THAT HE WAS ACTUALLY THERE AT THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE MURDER! Seemingly, the enterprising Washington journalists were of that meaning - unless they were simply psychic.

And where, oh where, would they have gotten the crucial information from? Exactly: from the very obvious fact that Lewis and Hutchinson had told corroborating stories about the loiterer. Without that knowledge, any allegation of Hutchinson being a hotter bid that Violenia or Packer or any other tall story teller would be a shot in the dark, and nothing else.

So there you are, Ben - they knew. Everybody knew, in fact. It was as obvious as the nose in your face.

The best,
Fisherman