The Surly Man

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
I do follow what you are saying, and I am very aware of other killers making themselves known to the police.. Haig for one.
However if Hutch was JTR, then surely he must have thought that he may be placed in a line up if his story came across suspicious, and in which case, it would not have only been Mrs Lewis he would have had to be concerned about..
I am also aware of the limit of police investigation, blood stains could not be interpreted for exsample, but Hutchinsons movements would have been checked, and verified, since the Friday morning, all of his clothing checked for any tale tale signs, and many questions asked before he would have been dismissed as a time waster etc, even if his story was discredited, simply because he placed himself at the crime scene, and had a conversation [ allegedly] with the soon to be victim.
Ben.
Question.
Why did George Hutchinson go to the police, if on doing so he could have been place in a line up with not only Mrs Lewis, but all the other witnesses throughout that autumn, without taking a chance by simply moving out of the vacinity.?
It would have been as simple as that.
Mayby because he had nothing to fear... its that easy, no conspiracy, and even if Mrs Lewis picked him out, so what he hadtokd the trut.
Regards Richard.

[Rubyretro]

Mary may well have had a 'signal' for 'regulars' -but she appears to have done most of her soliciting on the streets ('Mary's corner'), and her room did not give directly onto a road where there were passers-by. She appears to have picked up men elsewhere, and then have led the way to her room.

Hutch does not want to "walk by", he wants to wait for the light to dim. So he waits, and waits, and waits, but the light does not dim. Finally, he decides to peek in that broken window to see what the devil is taking so long, and as he quietly looks in, he sees the back of a man, and as the man turns, he watches in shock as the man places the insides of Kelly on a table

.

Mary apparently stuffed the broken pane with newspaper, and hung a coat in front of it, to keep out the cold. I'm not sure that you could see any light from Dorset Street, where Hutch was standing opposite the passage leading to Miller's court. He was waiting to see if anyone left the room (A Man, according to him ; I think Mary herself). The Ripper would have surely kept the window masked by the coat, and would have been wary of any noise or movement coming in that direction.

So he would want to help, but as he would be the only person to ever see the killer at work, if something did go wrong, the killer would know who caused the problem, and he would spend the rest of his life afraid of the dark. Just a thought.[/QUOTE

]

Hutch was very eager to talk to the Press, and publicise his presence at the crime scene. His name and even address were given (something your 'killer' would not have known otherwise) -so I don't think that he was racked with fear.

There was also a huge reward going for the Ripper's capture -surely that would have been a motivation for helping the Police had he witnessed a man actually committing the crime (he could have claimed 'Police protection' if he
was genuinly going to lead them to the killer).

[sleekviper]

Hi all,
I was wondering if possibly Kelly had a signal? If she is working from where she lives, and owes money, she would probably need a signal to alert men of her current situation. If McCarty, for instance, charges rent by the customer, her best move may be to set up a signal for when she is available, and to prevent men from walking in interrupting time with someone else. So a signal such as, If the light is dim, come in, if the light is high, walk by. Now McCarthy only sees a fraction of those that enter, and he won't drop the rent, but he won't raise it either. She would have to claim a lack funds, since now she is claiming a drop in business.
Hutch does not want to "walk by", he wants to wait for the light to dim. So he waits, and waits, and waits, but the light does not dim. Finally, he decides to peek in that broken window to see what the devil is taking so long, and as he quietly looks in, he sees the back of a man, and as the man turns, he watches in shock as the man places the insides of Kelly on a table. In the next few seconds, where he is frozen with fear, details of what he sees are burned into his mind, like witnessing a major accident. He stumbles back, thinks that he should get help, but not knowing if he was seen, and not knowing if he would be followed, he hides until he finally figures that he must say something days later. He possibly has a internal struggle of wanting to point out the man that he saw, and not wanting his insides flopped on a table one dark night. Help/just hide, can spot him anywhere/not sure if that was him, alert the police/do not let him see you with police, give exact details of what he wore/don't say a word about his features. So he would want to help, but as he would be the only person to ever see the killer at work, if something did go wrong, the killer would know who caused the problem, and he would spend the rest of his life afraid of the dark. Just a thought.

[Ben]

Hi Ruby,

If Hutchinson wasn’t the individual seen by Lawende and possibly Schwartz, it seems less likely to me that he’d bother with the subterfuge at all, and that if he was the killer, he came forward for reasons more concerned with bravado and general game-playing. While I suspect that this too played a part, I also believe that the earlier victims played some role in his decision to approach the police. Lawende was clearly considered the most reliable witness by the police, and for good reason, considering that the sighting occurred so close in time and proximity to Eddowes’ death. In addition, he stated that the clothes worn by the woman were “the same” as those worn by Eddowes, and “same” naturally assumes a greater significance than merely “similar” for example.

I don’t think the coat issue is a problem. The garment depicted in the sketch could easily qualify for a “loose-fitting jacket”.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

“Not convincing at least to yours truely , and many others to boot.”

Some others, Richard, not “many”. Let’s not go down last year’s road of conjuring up a whole army of people queuing up to support your view. If you don’t find the explanation convincing, then you obviously accept that Hutchinson’s decision to come forward as soon as the inquest finished was one “coincidence”, and that the striking similarity between the Hutchinson and Lewis’ accounts was another, and that's what I consider "unconvincing" in the extreme.

“But he was so paranoid that he may be reconized by Mrs Lewis at some later date, [ even though by being at the inquest, she could have spotted him there] he decides best play safe. Not convincing.”

Well do a little more research into the movements and behaviour of other serial killers in similar situations and you may come to consider the suggestion rather more convincing. He needn’t have attended the inquest in person, incidentally, in order to hear of Sarah Lewis’ evidence.

“Clearly by entering police hands on the monday evening , he would have had no evidence of soiled clothing , bloodstains, on clothes he was wearing, or at his lodgings, he would have known that by presenting himself at the murder scene at an appropiate time, he would have been checked out ..big time”

As I’ve explained so many times, the nature of police investigations at the time were such that the “checking out” process could only have taken them so far. They would have sought to do as much checking as was feasible, certainly, but the occasionally touted suggestion that the police had some sort of magic wand for determining the guilt or innocence of anyone every suspected of the crimes just doesn’t reflect reality, then or now. Thank goodness it’s touted by the “few” and not the “many”!

The preponderance of evidence indicates that the clothes would not have been bloodstained to any noticeable degree, especially not the outer garments.

“he could simply say 'that wasnt me', and with no evidence of ''murder' that would be that.”

Which wouldn’t have availed him when he was paraded before earlier witnesses who saw him with previous victims, which, for all Hutchinson knew, was a possible outcome, especially given the latest tactic of suppressing the full extent of eyewitness descriptions. I’m not interested in what other Casebook members would do in that situation. I’m interested in what serial killers have been proven to have done in similar situations.

Best regards,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

Ben - I think that before finger printing, DNA testing, and CTT cameras, alot more emphasis was put on 'witness statements', although we now know how mistaken those can be.

I can't believe that Hutch would have risked coming forward and being confronted with Lawende pointing his finger and saying 'yes ! that's the man I saw !! '. As you have pointed out yourself, Hutch could not know how much Lawende had really seen and the police had supressed. still, reading back over the 'eddowes.... direction of death ?' thread, it seems really logical that Lawende did NOT see the Ripper and Eddowes at all.

I think that it is very possible that an East End Man might own more than one hat ?....but an overcoat ? Hutch is wearing one I think ( I haven't checked, I confess) in the Press drawing -what would he do with his coat ? Why wouldn't you naturally wear one, if you owned one, and it was a late autumn night in London ? If Hutch had owned one, and had asked someone to keep it for him coinciding with Kate's murder, could he risk that person coming forward volunteering the information if Lawende accused him ? : I don't think so.

A Billycock/Wideawake coincides with Mrs Lewis's W Man, and an overcoat
naturally fits it. It also fits with Mrs Long ( I'm so sorry, Wolf, but I did say that I was going to eat Humble Pie over Cadosche and the bump on the fence ).

N.B. Mrs Long said 'foreign looking' from the back -something that she could not possibly have ascertained-but which Hutch has chosen to draw out with his ridiculous description of A Man, above Lawende's description. Hutch appears to want to disarm Lewis and Long, but not Lawende or Schwartz
at all.

By the way, I don't think that Lawende NOT seeing JTR has any bearing on Hutch/anti-semite connection at all : Mitre Square is STILL in proximity to the synagogue/jewish club night, Liz was still murdered in front of a jewish club, the apron piece found under the GSG was still in a predominately jewish
habitation, and Hutch -as witness- still took pains to implicate a false jewish suspect.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
No mention of Topping honest.
The argument here is, Why did GH present himself to the police on the monday night?
Many believe that he had something to hide, and knowing from the inquest[ obviously in attendence] that he had been seen, albeit without being named, decided that he would invent a good reason for being opposite Millers court...best be safe then sorry er..
So of to Commercial street station he goes.
Not convincing at least to yours truely , and many others to boot.
firstly it has been suggested that he attended the inquest, which would have primarily been to find out if a loiterer was mentioned .
Was he seen that was paramount to his security .
Hs worst fear came about , he was seen , but no name was mentioned.
But he was so paranoid that he may be reconized by Mrs Lewis at some later date, [ even though by being at the inquest, she could have spotted him there] he decides best play safe.
Not convincing.
Clearly by entering police hands on the monday evening , he would have had no evidence of soiled clothing , bloodstains, on clothes he was wearing, or at his lodgings, he would have known that by presenting himself at the murder scene at an appropiate time, he would have been checked out ..big time.
That being the case, if attending the inquest, he would have known he could not be identified by name, and even if sometime in the future Mrs Lewis had spotted him, which led to a apprehension, he could simply say 'that wasnt me', and with no evidence of ''murder' that would be that.
What would Casebook members do in that situation.?
I would take my chances , by presenting myself to the police, I would be certain that they could not find any trace of evidence on me, and or anywhere else that could be traced, and linked to me.
All I would be doing is drawing attention to myself.
So taking that into account, carry on as normal, grow a beard / change clothing fashion, loose weight, the odds are you will never be identified, and if by chance you were , say 'It was,nt me Guv'
I should add that I am suggesting in this post that Hutch was guilty of naughties, which I consider as you know ..not the case.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Interesting thoughts, Ruby, although I'm personally of the opinion that both Lewis and Lawende saw the murderer - the only marked difference being the headgear, and it's likely that all but the most impoverished vagrants in the district had the means to purchase or borrow more than one hat. One of the clearest sketches of Hutchinson was recreated in Stewart Evans' "Letters From Hell", where he is depicted very clearly as having a light or fair moustache. Note also that possible ripper victim Ada Wilson's attacker was described as being 5"6' and wearing a "wideawake".

Hi Richard,

Since this isn’t a Toppy thread, I hope you won’t have any objections if we return to the original premise of the thread once I’ve addressed your points.

“I trust you accept, that the only person that 'albeit' via his sons account that has ever been named as the witness George Hutchinson, is one George William Topping Hutchinson.”

It depends what you mean. There have been several “named” candidates for the identity of the man who signed the statement, as you well know, but if you only mean “named” in the sense that they were brought to the attention of the public via family members, then yes, that leaves us with Toppy. Unfortunately, this assumes a greatly reduced significance when we recall that the nature of the publication in which that particular “naming” came to light is such that grave doubts must (and have) been entertained over its authenticity.

The radio show is still regrettably impermissible as evidence, incidentally, since we only have your word for it that it ever existed. This isn’t an attack on your integrity – it’s just the way things work, and rightly so. It’s worth pointing out, however, that a researcher who has contacted Toppy’s descendants has expressed his opinion here that the radio show almost certainly never took place, at least not as you remember it.

The Wheeling report, in my view is a major bonus in the hands of the defence lawyer[ ie myself]

But it makes useful birdcage lining in the hands of everybody else, one would hope, since it does not remotely corroborate any Reg-submitted claim that appeared in the Ripper and the Royals. I’ve explained why. You’ve already acknowledged the existence of a likely “rumour base”, so presumably you would appreciate the extent to which stories involving police and informants are commonly linked to the issue of “pay-offs”, and that it should not, therefore, come as any surprise that two independent and decidedly dodgy sources should have come up with the entirely false idea of a substantial payment in connection with Hutchinson?

I don’t know why you keep insisting that Toppy would have needed access to Hutchinson’s “full account” if he wanted to assume his identity. That obviously wasn’t the case. The R&R Reginald account contained only the claim that his father knew one of the victims and was interviewed by the police. No additional knowledge of the actual content on the statement was evinced by the Fairclough-Reginald interview.

Best regards,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

Ben -Lawende saw a man with a "fair" moustache, "medium build", "appearance of a sailor" and with a red handkerchief tied round his neck. He was, by inference, when taking Harris and Levy's attitude into consideration, 'aggressive looking'. He was supposedly about 5'7"".

I don't know about you, but I would imagine a 'sailor', with a red triangular tied scarf, having a peaked cap ? I don't imagine this description including a wideawake/billycock.

If I look at Mrs Lewis's description, she definitely says 'not tall, but STOUT',
and wearing a Wideawake hat.

If I look at the engraving of Hutch -well he is wearing a 'billycock', looks
'well built', doesn't look 'fair', doesn't have a handkerchief tied around his neck, and is wearing an overcoat; I don't need to make any real effort to place him in the shoes of W Man -he fits easily.

I don't, personally, think that Lawende saw the killer of Eddowes -I think that Mrs Lewis DID though..and I think that she was the only one (that came forward); and that was why she ws so important in his mind.

Infact there is nothing to say that Abberline didn't ask Lawende's opinion
on the suspectworthyness of Hutch, when he threw out A Man as a viable suspect -and he got a "zero'.

Fish -I dont know why the Police discounted Hutch. If they were still taking Lawende very very seriously then maybe it amounted to Hutch = Wideawake (cross referenced to Mrs Lewis), "we don't believe that he was the Ripper
because he came forward, doesn't fit our profile, wasn't in town when other murders were commited, and he simply knew the woman and was hanging about hoping for sex and maybe somewhere to shelter/sleep for free.
Therefore we don't need to look for W Man -we've already interviewed him and discounted him".

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“But when you try and convert what may very well be a mere coincidence into an ironclad fact, and then move on to draw further conclusions from it, you are not on terra firma, I´m afraid”

It’s a strong probability, as far as I’m concerned, since the chances of it being a random unrelated coincidence are so incredibly slim. In that respect, it’s most assuredly “clear” – or should be considered so – but that doesn’t mean that I’ve ever insisted upon it as an “ironclad fact”. You're welcome to make guesses to the contrary, but with sincere respect, I’d consider it just as outlandish as some of the other guesses advanced, to my very great surprise and mild disappointment, on this thread.

“Don´t you think, by the way, that coming forward so very, very close in time to the ending of the inquest procedures would have seemed extremely coincidental to Abberline too?”

Impossible to determine at this remove in time, but since the account was discredited, it cannot be ruled out that this coincidence was noted.

“Why take that risk? Why not leave a day or two, cooling it down?”

I don’t know, but it seems incredibly likely that he did “risk” it, or else we’d be forced to accept the “random coincidence” explanation that I personally find hideously implausible. Anyway, it’s important to remember why “The Maybrick diary was genuine because there’s no way a forger would be so stupid as to disavow any pretense at emulating the real James’ handwriting”…is such a bad argument.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Whatever ultimate motivation Hutchinson had for coming forward, it’s clear that his decision to do so was prompted by Sarah Lewis’ evidence, which, in turn, would indicate that he was the man in the wideawake seen by Lewis."

It is nowhere clear at all, Ben - although it of course is a viable suggestion. But when you try and convert what may very well be a mere coincidence into an ironclad fact, and then move on to draw further conclusions from it, you are not on terra firma, I´m afraid.

There is the possibility that Hutchinson came forward as a result of Lewis´statement at the inquest, but it is no more than that. My own guess is that this was not so. It is also viable to suggest that Hutchinson and the loiterer were one and the same, but such a suggestion does not even border on being any fact. Once again, my own feeling is that the two were not identical.

Don´t you think, by the way, that coming forward so very, very close in time to the ending of the inquest procedures would have seemed extremely coincidental to Abberline too? Why take that risk? Why not leave a day or two, cooling it down?

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

sorry double posted

[richardnunweek]

Hello Ben,
I trust you accept, that the only person that 'albeit' via his sons account that has ever been named as the witness George Hutchinson, is one George William Topping Hutchinson.
I cannot[ with much regret] verify a radio account in the mid seventies, but the same acount we can verify as being in the publication The Ripper and the Royals in 1992.
That account was credited to the son of Topping, the late Reg Hutchinson. thus it is a fair assumption that the account on air, was either made by him , or spoken by someone.
It was not therefore, invented by the author, in a publication that many discount.
The mention of a payment was made in both accounts, the mention of a toff appearance was mentioned in both accounts, and a general reference to the credibity of the witness was made in both accounts.
There is no doubt that both references refered to Topping
The Wheeling report, in my view is a major bonus in the hands of the defence lawyer[ ie myself]
I accept that it proberly originated from a rumour base, however as Topping mentioned it, complete with a relevant sum allegedly paid, for him not to have been the original, he would have had to adopt the identity of the real Hutchinson, complete with knowledge, of his 'FULL' statement, and armed with that , and the payment 'Rumour' spend the rest of his life using his own surname with also the right christian name incidently, in a clever ploy to gain a audience down the boozer on a saturday night.
Does anyone on Casebook consider this likely?
I am not trying to paint Hutchinson completly guiltless, he may indeed have had his own secrets,he may well have been loitering around in the hope that he could doss down in room 13 until 6am, and wandered off when that appeared unlikely.
Let The prosecution commense.
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Ben,
I trust you accept, that the only person that 'albeit' via his sons account that has ever been named as the witness George Hutchinson, is one George William Topping Hutchinson.
I cannot[ with much regret] verify a radio account in the mid seventies, but the same acount we can verify as being in the publication The Ripper and the Royals in 1992.
That account was credited to the son of Topping, the late Reg Hutchinson. thus it is a fair assumption that the account on air, was either made by him , or spoken by someone.
It was not therefore, invented by the author, in a publication that many discount.
The mention of a payment was made in both accounts, the mention of a toff appearance was mentioned in both accounts, and a general reference to the credibity of the witness was made in both accounts.
There is no doubt that both references refered to Topping
The Wheeling report, in my view is a major bonus in the hands of the defence lawyer[ ie myself]
I accept that it proberly originated from a rumour base, however as Topping mentioned it, complete with a relevant sum allegedly paid, for him not to have been the original, he would have had to adopt the identity of the real Hutchinson, complete with knowledge, of his 'FULL' statement, and armed with that , and the payment 'Rumour' spend the rest of his life using his own surname with also the right christian name incidently, in a clever ploy to gain a audience down the boozer on a saturday night.
Does anyone on Casebook consider this likely?
I am not trying to paint Hutchinson completly guiltless, he may indeed have had his own secrets,he may well have been loitering around in the hope that he could doss down in room 13 until 6am, and wandered off when that appeared unlikely.
Let The prosecution commense.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

Your suggestion would be a reasonable one were it not for the unusual and striking coincidence of Hutchinson’s decision to contact the police coming hot on the heels of the termination of the inquest, where Sarah Lewis had provided her evidence of a man standing opposite Miller’s Court an hour or so before the generally accepted time of Kelly’s murder, and with an apparent interest in that court. It would also fail to the account for the striking similarity between Lewis’ description of the man and Hutchinson’s account of his own actions and movements.

Whatever ultimate motivation Hutchinson had for coming forward, it’s clear that his decision to do so was prompted by Sarah Lewis’ evidence, which, in turn, would indicate that he was the man in the wideawake seen by Lewis. Unless, of course, we choose to believe that he falsely assumed his identity, which is not a conclusion I can agree with for reasons I provided here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=146615&postcount=30

Second paragraph down.

“One thing's for sure - if the police still thought Hutch could have been hanging round that court until three o'clock on the Friday morning, but no longer believed that Surly Man was there too, they would not simply have sent their former star 'witness' packing with an "Oh well, boys will be boys".”

I couldn’t agree more, which is why the safer explanation is that the police discredited Hutchinson as a time-waster and came to believe, accordingly, that he was not outside the crime scene when he claimed to be there. But as the Packer and Violenia demonstrate very well, this “discrediting” almost certainly came about on the basis of a police opinion only, and not as a result of proof having being secured either way. The alternative, of course, is that Hutchinson was still considered to have been “hanging round that court” but lied about surly man and his reasons for being there. In which case, you raise the salient question yourself:

“If Hutch then found himself in trouble, would we necessarily know about it?”

That's just it. Probably not. But this also doesn't mean that this hypothetical "trouble" was ever converted into proof of guilt/innocence.

Hi Richard,

“just because Hutchinson did not [ as far as we know ] engulf all the London police intrests for a long period of time, does not mean that his story was discredited”

Nobody is suggesting that the discrediting of Hutchinson had anything to do with his failure to “engulf” police interest. It was reported in The Star newspaper that the account was "discredited", and we know that this discrediting had already been set in motion two days earlier when The Echo reported that a “very reduced importance” had already been attached to the account because of the doubts “the authorities” were having with it.

You don’t discredit a witness because it doesn’t immediately lead to the apprehension of the offender, so your “nothing came of it” explanation clearly does not apply here. “Nothing came” of other witness sightings, but at least one of them was still used in identity attempts years after the murders, and it certainly wasn’t reported as having been “discredited”.

“Does anyone on Casebook believe Reg hutchinsons father GWTH, was any of the above descriptions? He is the only one to have labled himself, as THAT man, since the crimes were commmited, so please let common sense prevail.”

But common sense is clearly not “prevailing” in your case, or else you’d realise that those of us who don’t believe that Toppy was the witness in question cannot possibly be accusing him (Toppy) of being a “fraudster, a Liar,stalker, pimp., or a maniac”

As for the real Hutchinson, I don’t think he was a pimp either.

Hi Ruby,

While Lawende’s gave a fairly detailed description of the man’s clothing, the features were far more vaguely described. In terms of age and height, there’s no disparity with either Lewis’ wideawake-man description or the press sketches of Hutchinson

All the best,
Ben