The Surly Man

[Rubyretro]

What a twit.

Maybe he WAS a twit, though Caz.

Maybe he went for immediate gratification rather than being a long term planner..?

[Sally]

Ben

Then we’re confronted with the lack of any indication that he delivered this news to the police, then there’s the provably false claim to have alerted a policeman about the Commercial Street encounter

It was proven false? Or it can be proven false? I am unaware of this - a gap in my knowledge, doubtless. Could you enlighten me please?

There are several details of Hutchinson's statement to the press which could have been, and presumably were, checked for veracity. If one of those details was demonstrably false, then I think that has significance.

[Sally]

Maybe he WAS a twit, though Caz.

Maybe he went for immediate gratification rather than being a long term planner..?

Planner, or Spanner?

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"it is safe to assume that he would have been sleeping (or wanting to sleep) on Friday. It is almost inconceivable to imagine that he would be up for another long trek on foot."

Hmm, Ruby - I am not always very fond of what you suggest as being "safe". Of course, he would reasonably have been tired, but he could have slept in the morning, and left for another job on Friday afternoon. And that does not necessarily have to have involved a "long trek on foot". It could have been any distance, and he could have hiked, for example.

"It is just loony to suggest that no one would mention MJK's murder on the Saturday."

It is! But it is a lot less looney to open up for the possibility that the version that reached Hutchinsons ears may have been a version that seemed to exclude Kelly as the victim. And it´s not like we can be sure that he read any papers, is it?

"Just how wrong would it have to be, before he asked any questions ?
The surviving newspaper reports got things globally right as to the victims name and address."

Ruby, once and for all, we do notknow where Hutch was, we do not know if he had access to papers, we do not know whether the people surrounding him spoke of the killing, and we do not know - if these people DID speak of it (and yes, there is a good chance that they did) - to what extent they were correctly informed. Furthermore, if they read the papers and Hutchinson did not, he may only have heard that a woman had been killed by the Ripper in the East End. We simply do not know, and no matter how much we would like for it to be a certainty that Hutchinson had access to relevant information, we cannot conclude it. End of story, I´m afraid!

Just to be clear here: I think that the suggestion that he would have gotten the news is a better one than the suggestion that he would not. But that does not mean that I am in any way certain, and nor can anybody else be.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"This is just threatening to become tiresome."

Well, Ben, feel free to avoid it, then!

"Why not spend your posting time arguing the case for something you actually believe to be true?"

I have a very good answer to that one, actually. But I will keep it to myself for the moment being, since I do not want to jump the gun on what I hope is an upcoming article in the Casebook Examiner. So you shall have to bear with me for the moment being, and trust me when I say that I have good reasons to argue this case.

"It is screamingly and overwhelmingly likely that a person on Petticoat Lane noticing somebody else on Petticoat Lane could easily take steps to confirm that sighting"

I prefer to do without the screaming, so I will just point out that this does not necessarily hold true - you have heard of people disappearing in crowds, I´m sure.
To this we must add the question of an incentive, Ben - for if Hutchinson was not informed about Kelly on Sunday morning, he would have no reason at all to verify the identity.

"Hutchinson’s statement was discredited – there’s our first clue in our quest to determine whether or nor this alleged Petticoat Lane sighting was anything other than super-added fabrication to an already fabricated account."

The statement in itself was discredited - not necessarily the Petticoat Lane sighting, or the astrakhan man sighting. Something in the statement was found to be malfunctional, absolutely. But until we pinpoint that something, we are left with guesswork.

"We only have Hutchinson’s claim that he had anything to do with Romford."

That is true! Of course, the police would have tried to verify it, and such a thing would reasonably not have been too hard to achieve, if Hutchinson made some sort of contact with somebody on his way there. But yes, you are correct - we cannot be sure of it.

"the Echo article makes very clear that the authorities were still wondering why he delayed coming forward. That was on 13th November, after his first audience with Abberline, so he can’t have been satisfied with his explanation for not coming forward earlier."

Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward earlier. That is what the Echo article asks. And maybe there is no more behind that question than the disagreement that you and me are having. Maybe Hutch said that he had not heard of the murder, and maybe the police reasoned that he would have. Or maybe the journalist that wrote the article enterprised a guess. I don´t know. But I do know that Abberline believed Hutchinsons story, and find it very hard to believe that he would not have asked about the delay. And if he thought that Hutchinson lied about it, he would not have believed the rest of the story, would he? My suggestion is that the Echo is chancing a guess here.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Here we go; there is a piece of information that I have overlooked, and that clearly tells us that Hutchinson had heard of Kellys death on Sunday morning! And since nobody else have pointed it out, I´d better do it myself:

The Pall Mall Gazette, Nov 14:th:

"I told one policeman on Sunday morning what I had seen, but did not go to the police station."

Unfortunately, this does not conclusively prove that Hutchinson knew of Kellys demise when he spotted the Petticoat Lane man, since the alledged information to the police came after the incident. He may have learnt about things inbetween the sighting of the Petticoat Lane man and his meeting with the PC.
Hutchinson further says that he told one lodger about his experiences on Sunday, and that the lodger adviced him to go to the police, which he did the following day.

So it could be either way. He could have known about Kelly before he saw the man in Petticoat Lane, and in that case, it seems strange that he does not speak of any effort to catch the man. Or does he? Was his alleged contact with the PC something that followed immediately after the sighting, and as a direct result of it?
Or was Hutchinson unaware about Kellys death as he saw the man in the market, only to later find out, and contact a policeman with the information? That is impossible to tell, as it stands.

Sally asks:

"It was proven false? Or it can be proven false?"

There is no confirmation of the incident, Sally. Nor is there any information telling us that the police set out in search of the PC in question and were able to confirm/dispell Hutchinsons claim. Important to keep in mind, though, is that the snippet in the Pall Mall Gazette, containing this story, was printed on the 14:th, whereas we know that Hutchinsons story was in doubt the day before, on the 13:th, as reported in the Echo. Thus it would seem that the story about the PC was NOT what gave the story away.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

But I do know that Abberline believed Hutchinsons story, and find it very hard to believe that he would not have asked about the delay. And if he thought that Hutchinson lied about it, he would not have believed the rest of the story, would he?

My understanding is that although Abberline believed Hutch's account straight off -probably due to his reaction to Hutch's persuasive personality-
the Statement was rapidly discredited after a bit of reflexion, and doubtlessly discussion with others.

We don't know for what concrete reasons the account was discredited. At any rate it was , and had the Police believed in A Man, then they would have continued looking for him, I think.

[Abby Normal]

Two problems with this, Rubyretro. If the ripper injected himself to prolong the excitement he felt while murdering and mutilating, it was painfully short-lived, and showing his face seems to have effectively put paid to pushing his luck with any ‘fresh’ excitement from future ripping experiences.

If, on the other hand, the ripper injected himself as Hutch the innocent witness through fear of otherwise becoming a suspect, you said it yourself: what did he have to fear - in 1888? Finding Lewis’s lurker would have been a needle-in-a-haystack job if he was sufficiently determined not to be found; proving he was the man she saw would have been pretty much impossible; proving that he was not only the man but went on to enter Kelly’s room and do the deed would have been out of the question. The only really worrying scenario from the ripper’s point of view would be if he thought the police could be suppressing a full and accurate description of him with a previous victim or near another murder scene. But as you say, he’d be in a position to judge the likelihood. If he considered it a real possibility he would hardly have offered himself up as a perfect match; if not he had no need to offer himself up as anything.

So we are back to the sheer bravado motive, which comes with the distinct downside of early retirement or making damn sure he’s not seen next time. Seems he took the former path and had to sacrifice ripping for all of fifteen minutes of fame as a mere witness. What a twit.

And Fisherman is right about the many possibilities of losing anyone spotted in Petticoat Lane, from that day to this. How could anyone be sure if they merely fancied they saw someone from a distance before the figure disappeared down a side street or into a doorway?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
Both hutch and lewis were friends of Mary kelly. Hutch more than likely saw sarah lewis see him waiting there. he may have thought that she could have recognized him, perhaps even know his name. Perhaps then It was a calculated risk to go to the police therefore as a potential witness instead of waiting to be found by the police as a potential suspect.

I disagree with you and Fish on petticoat lane. There was no- I tried to follow him-or I thought i saw him, but he disapeared. Just a very casual-I thought I saw him again, but wasn't sure.

I think any normal person (especially after exhibiting the intense curiosity with A-man the night he saw him with MK) would have a very strong reaction if he thought he saw him again a day after the murder and done everything in their power to make sure it was him, follow him/find out where he lived, get a good look at him etc. Heck If it was me i would have tackled him on the street and yelled I have the ripper.

[Abby Normal]

Here we go; there is a piece of information that I have overlooked, and that clearly tells us that Hutchinson had heard of Kellys death on Sunday morning! And since nobody else have pointed it out, I´d better do it myself:

The Pall Mall Gazette, Nov 14:th:

"I told one policeman on Sunday morning what I had seen, but did not go to the police station."

Unfortunately, this does not conclusively prove that Hutchinson knew of Kellys demise when he spotted the Petticoat Lane man, since the alledged information to the police came after the incident. He may have learnt about things inbetween the sighting of the Petticoat Lane man and his meeting with the PC.
Hutchinson further says that he told one lodger about his experiences on Sunday, and that the lodger adviced him to go to the police, which he did the following day.

So it could be either way. He could have known about Kelly before he saw the man in Petticoat Lane, and in that case, it seems strange that he does not speak of any effort to catch the man. Or does he? Was his alleged contact with the PC something that followed immediately after the sighting, and as a direct result of it?
Or was Hutchinson unaware about Kellys death as he saw the man in the market, only to later find out, and contact a policeman with the information? That is impossible to tell, as it stands.

Sally asks:

"It was proven false? Or it can be proven false?"

There is no confirmation of the incident, Sally. Nor is there any information telling us that the police set out in search of the PC in question and were able to confirm/dispell Hutchinsons claim. Important to keep in mind, though, is that the snippet in the Pall Mall Gazette, containing this story, was printed on the 14:th, whereas we know that Hutchinsons story was in doubt the day before, on the 13:th, as reported in the Echo. Thus it would seem that the story about the PC was NOT what gave the story away.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish
Very comendable of you to do that, you would make a very ethical prosecutor : )

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"My understanding is that although Abberline believed Hutch's account straight off -probably due to his reaction to Hutch's persuasive personality-
the Statement was rapidly discredited after a bit of reflexion, and doubtlessly discussion with others."

...and a bit of investigation, Ruby! But yes, this would be the gist of things, more or less. I don´t know to what extent Hutch´s persuasive personality entered the equation, though.

"and had the Police believed in A Man, then they would have continued looking for him, I think"

Had the police believed in the statement on the whole, they would have kept looking. Fine difference - but important!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Abby:

"I disagree with you and Fish on petticoat lane. There was no- I tried to follow him-or I thought i saw him, but he disapeared. Just a very casual-I thought I saw him again, but wasn't sure."

Then we don´t disagree - this is how I see it too. And then I ask myself WHY it was casual.

"Very comendable of you to do that, you would make a very ethical prosecutor : )"

Well, well - who would have thought it? Thanks, Abby!

The best,
Fisherman

[Edward]

For whom was Hutchinson looking out?

... but Edward, just who was Hutch looking out for? hhmm?.

Scorpio -
I'm just saying that if Hutchinson was a look out for MJK's murderer, it would give us a possible explanation about why his description of 'Surly Man' was so detailed (Hutchinson made up 'SM' to give a non-incriminating reason why he was loitering outside of the court). It may also explain why Hutchinson didn't pursue 'SM' when he (perhaps) spotted him again ... ('SM' was fictional). It coud also give us a reason why Hutchinson was standing in the rain for such a long time on a cold night.

I'm not stating that Hutchinson was a lookout, only that if he was, it could explain a number of the issues that are being debated.

Edward

[Edward]

Fisherman,

This is just threatening to become tiresome.

All the best,
Ben

Too late, Fish, it already is tiresome ...

Edward

[Ben]

“Well, Ben, feel free to avoid it, then!”

I would, Fish, but I’m afraid my obsessive Hutchinson zealotry has just started to kick in big time, so Hutch-avoidance is easier said than done.

Seriously though, whatever side of the fence you straddle on the Hutchinson-as-killer/liar issue, the notion that he was oblivious to the news of Kelly’s death is just not credible. I don’t want to use any more exclamatory pseudo-humourous terminology to highlight the sheer implausibility of such a suggestion (because it gets unfunny after a while, and because I know how pissed-off I’d get if anyone resorted to the same debating strategy against me), but finally, in all serious circumspection, and for the record, the idea that Hutchinson did not know anything about the demise of Mary Kelly by Sunday 11th November 1888 is very, very, very implausible, bordering on impossible.

“The statement in itself was discredited - not necessarily the Petticoat Lane sighting, or the astrakhan man sighting.”

But it was the Astrakhan man that clearly wasn’t considered a credible ripper candidate, and realistically, the police could hardly have discredited the statement itself whilst continuing to invest belief in the veracity of the Astrakhan man sighting.

“That is true! Of course, the police would have tried to verify it, and such a thing would reasonably not have been too hard to achieve”

Well, unless he lied about it, in which case it would have been extremely difficult to achieve.

“Or maybe the journalist that wrote the article enterprised a guess.”

Ooh, no. Recall the wording of the article “Why, ask the authorities…” This wasn’t idle speculation on the part of the journalist. They were clearly relaying doubts that the police were harbouring over the veracity of Hutchinson’s accounts, and those doubts were clearly concerned with his failure to come forward earlier. That’s not to say that Abberline didn’t quiz Hutchinson along these lines, but as the article makes clear, by the 13th November the “authorities” were clearly dissatisfied with whatever explanation he provided (if any).

“He may have learnt about things inbetween the sighting of the Petticoat Lane man and his meeting with the PC.”

Wait a minute. Surely the inference is that “his meeting with the PC” (snort!) came as a consequence of “the sighting of the Petticoat Lane man”. As for the claim to have told a lodger about the incident (a detail mysteriously absent from the police account) I still consider it beyond coincidence that his decision to embrace this fellow lodger’s advice just happened to coincide with the end of the inquest, at which Sarah Lewis’ “I saw someone opposite Millers Court” evidence became public knowledge.

Hi Sally,

Hutchinson’s claim to have encountered a policeman on the Sunday following the murder is provably false, yes. Policemen in those days patrolled a meticulously delineated beat. If Hutchinson had informed Abberline about this encounter, the policeman in question would have been tracked down, identified, and hauled over the coals for failing to report an incident of the potential magnitude described by Hutchinson. That this never happened is a compelling indication that this alleged policeman encounter never occurred. It was one of the very few aspects of Hutchinson’s account that the police could check up on with ease, and it may explain why Hutchinson only reported this detail (and the Petticoat Lane episode) to the press and not the police. In the latter case, Abberline had only to ask Hutchinson when and where he encountered this policeman, and the game would be up. Not so with the press, who could not have cornered him so easily on such details.

Fisherman seems to think that the police would have read about the claim involving the mysterious policeman, but decided to take no action, despite Hutchinson's press account being tantamount to a claim that a policeman whitheld crucial information relating to the murder well in advance of Hutchinson himself coming forward in person. He also cites the Pall Mall Gazette of 14th November as evidence that the disappearing PC had nothing to do with the discredting of Hutchinson, whereas I suggest that certain newspapers simply took longer to catch up with the latest developments. Besides which, the interview related by the PMG (in which Hutchinson provided his account to "a reporter") clearly took place on the day before the publication of the article, i.e. the 13th November, when the "policeman/Petticoat Lane" claims were not in mainstream public circulation.

So yes, this would constitute a good example of a “demonstrably false” detail which assumes “significance”, accordingly.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

Fancy seeing you here.

I hope you won't object to a few observations regarding your post to Ruby.

“and showing his face seems to have effectively put paid to pushing his luck with any ‘fresh’ excitement from future ripping experiences.”

Well no, not really. It’s only fair to point out that we don’t know how many victims, if any, the ripper claimed after Mary Kelly, nor do we know whether or not the thrill of getting one over on his pursuers superceded, temporarily or otherwise, the thrill of claiming a victim.

“Finding Lewis’s lurker would have been a needle-in-a-haystack job if he was sufficiently determined not to be found”

…Which wasn’t something either the ripper or Hutchinson could have known, especially given the suppression of previous witness descriptions from the latest inquest into the death of a ripper-attributed victim, and if he lived in close proximity to one of the murder locations and was spotted outside one at a time critical to a murder, he had even less reliance on the assumption that he represented a “needle in a haystack” to the investigating authorities. I certainly disagree that he was ever in a position to “judge the likelihood” of the police suppressing Lewis’ description as they had done with Lawende’s. It would be difficult to encounter a “perfect match” for any of the descriptions on record, but a sighting is very different. A witness may well be able to recognise an individual subsequently without necessarily being able to “describe” him very well, and I’d be amazed if this was a distinction lost on Hutchinson, Jack the Ripper, or anyone else.

“How could anyone be sure if they merely fancied they saw someone from a distance before the figure disappeared down a side street or into a doorway?”

Easily, by following them down that side street or into that doorway.

Best regards,
Ben