The Surly Man

[Rubyretro]

Very, well ..if you insist...

Hutch wakes up late afternoon in Itchy Park, after an uncomfortable nap, and decides to look for work to earn some pennies.

By now it is the afternoon and too late to look for a labouring job for the day. Never mind, he has already earned a few pennies humping beer barrels up from pub cellars, so he decides that the obvious place to earn a bit of cash, and maybe scrape enough together for a bed is in a pub, so he sets off to look for one.

Although he knows the landlords in the pubs in his immediate area, they had turned him down when he was desperate for money before, so, despite being dog tired, cold from the November day in London, and hungry, he decides to walk away
from Whitechapel and into the heart of the city.

People in the park, and on the way out onto the street, seem to be excitedly gossiping about something, but he is too tired and
fixed on getting work to be interested in what they are saying..

On the street newspaper vendors are already calling "Read All About it ! Another prostitute murdered in Whitechapel !'
Never mind, thinks Hutch, although I lodge most of the time in Whitechapel, and I know prostitutes (well, at least one),
I am too fed up to want to find out who the victim is, and whether I knew her,...so I will continue to look for work.

Hutch walks into a pub to ask the landlord whether he needs any help for a bit of cash. In the pub, people are congregated around one man, who has got a paper and can read..

" looking for any help , tonight ?" Hutch asks the Landlord

"Ssssh.." the man replies "...there's been another dreadful murder in Whitechapel ! Fred's just reading about it !..."

"the victim was a Mary Kelly of 13, Millers Court -just off Dorset Street, Whitechapel, mother of a young son, who was murdered in the early hours of yesterday morning, in her room"...intones Fred, beer frothing over his luxuriant mustache.

'Why, how uncanny !' thinks Hutch 'I know a Mary Kelly who is a prostitute and has her own room in Miller's Court, and in the early hours of yesterday morning I saw her enter the room with a man who fits the popular image of Leather Apron, and was
a very surly looking chap..carrying a mysterious parcel, what's more ! What a coincidence ! -still this one had a young son, and Miller's Court being so huge, it can't possibly be the same woman...I don't think that I'll bother trying to find out any more details, even though the whole of London seems to know about the murder..'.

[Fisherman]

I think, Ruby, that most of us always realized that Hutch could have picked up on the news about Kelly. As far as I can tell, nobody has at least claimed that this could not have happened.

The notion that he may not have been aware of it, due to reasons unknown to us, is more controversial, and since it has been thrown forward that it is an impossible suggestion, I have provided theoretical scenarios to show it is nothing of the sort.

Surely you can see the difference?

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

We must not surmise that people read the papers aloud to him, Ben. And when the murder was related by those who had read it, they would probably not have spoken of "that poor Marie Jeanette Kelly of room 13, Millers Court, Spitalfields". They would more likely have spoken of "that poor East end woman that was killed by the Ripper, and who was cut to pieces", so they would likely not provide the name, address and such. And if they also added - for example - that she had a little son, then they would have had Hutch derailed in a jiffy. But since there is little use in my exemplifying this over and over again - you seem to use it more for a good laugh than for any serious afterthought - I think we had better agree to disagree, quite simply.

"

Since we're down to invented scenarios and dialogues, here's a few :

Hutch sleeps Friday morning, and wakes up in the Victoria. The very first
person he sees says to him " you'll never guess mate ! Another prostitute was killed by leather apron last night..just round the corner from here..in Miller's Court of all places, fancy that ! You should see the commotion outside !"
"Miller's Court ?" says Hutch "I know a prostitute who lives there ! What was her name ?"

Hutch walks into the communal room downstairs. Men are standing or sitting about in small knots discussing animatedly "here, Hutch.." one calls over"..did you hear about that brass that got slashed last night ? It was that tall red haired one that always
over at the ten bells...you MUST have seen her...bloke here, Barnett, has a brother that lived with her...".

Hutch decides that he needs to buy some food, and walks onto the street. The road is filled with far more people than usual, all flooding in the direction of Dorset Street, where some policeman are holding back a crowd, and Hutch has to fight his way across the street. seeing him coming away from the Victoria, someone stops him and says "here, mate...that postitute that was done for off Dorset Street, did you know her ? She was a young one they say...got murdered in her own room !"

Hutch walks into a food shop. An old woman is talking to the shopkeeper behind the counter " serves her right I say, filthy prostitute.."
" no.."replies the shopkeeper "..Mary Kelly was alright...she used to come in here sometimes...pretty girl...and ever so nice when she hadn't been at the gin.."

Hutch decides to go for a drink and fights his way into the Ten Bells (or any other pub). The place is teeming with 'sightseers'
who have been trying to view Miller's Court, and have given up and gone for refreshments. The atmosphere is almost party-like, and the excitement is feverish "come and have a drink mate ! We're drinking to the memory of poor Mary Kelly !
murdered in her bed last night by leather apron..this place will never be the same without her sweet singing of a night !
Have you seen all the coppers down at Miller's Court ? They had to scrape her off the bed, they're saying..and she such a looker ! Hey, don't you lodge in the same place as Joe Barnett's brother ? -what did he say ? Does he know anything ?".

By the time Hutch weaves his way out onto the streets, newspaper vendors are already touting for business outside the pub
"Read All About It ! Another prostitute murdered in Whitechapel !" (seeing Hutch) " want to buy a paper, mate ? another victim for leather apron..just down the road from here, in Miller's Court.."
"nah" replies Hutch" if I hear one more person mention Mary Kelly and Millers Court today, I'll go off me bloody rocker !"


I could go on and do an alternative scenario for a Hutch NOT in the Victoria (where he most probably was), but that is enough for now...

[DVV]

[Fisherman]

David:

"forgive me for that horrible pun"

No.

Well, okey ... yes, then.

F/ound
I/dentical
S/ignatures of
H/utch

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Using the F-word in the wrong context again! Slap on wrist for Fish!"

Ouch!!! But that was not my wrist. It was your argument, Ben. For it IS a fact that it is not until we work from the premise that he did not know of Kellys death until Sunday morning that Hutchinsons actions become a logical sequence.

"even if that suggestion was a reasonable one (...) why, if he had heard of a murder having taken place in the East End, did our hypothetically travelling Hutchinson fail to obtain - or attempt to obtain - further details?"

We must not surmise that people read the papers aloud to him, Ben. And when the murder was related by those who had read it, they would probably not have spoken of "that poor Marie Jeanette Kelly of room 13, Millers Court, Spitalfields". They would more likely have spoken of "that poor East end woman that was killed by the Ripper, and who was cut to pieces", so they would likely not provide the name, address and such. And if they also added - for example - that she had a little son, then they would have had Hutch derailed in a jiffy. But since there is little use in my exemplifying this over and over again - you seem to use it more for a good laugh than for any serious afterthought - I think we had better agree to disagree, quite simply.

"I respectfully disagree. We have a fairly good idea..."

Ehrm, no - you THINK you have a fairly good idea, Ben. And if you are going to criticize me for even using the word "fact" when I speak of an undisputable such, I think you need to spend some time self-reflecting about your own propensity to transform a complete abscence of knowledge into a fairly good idea.

"There was almost certainly never..."

Almost. A_L_M_O_S_T. Meaning that I have been correct all along when I state that it cannot, and never could, be proven false that Hutch spoke to a PC, just like he said. You are free to offer your very own interpretation of how ridiculous, how insane, how outlandish, how frickin unbe-****inī-lievable it is - and all the while, that will remain a suggestion of yours that can, should and will be challenged.

"Oh, no. No no no. Heavens to Betsy no (...) The police were most assuredly not “able to remove him from their suspect board”."

Iīm afraid I think they were, Ben. Though you are of course correct that he would never have been much of a suspect, since the police at an early stage found that he would reasonably have been innocent of any such accusation. My apologies to Betsy.

"If I were to compile a list of credible suggestions that might just point away from Hutchinson being the ripper, the idea that Hutchinson did not hear about the killing until Sunday would not belong on that list."

Well, itīs a good thing, then, that you havenīt engaged in compiling such a list. In that case, I suspect weīd never be able to wawe our goodbyes to Hutchinson and go home.

"Then why bother relating the "lodger" communuication at all? “Hey, Hutch, maybe this copper was a negligent ninny who didn’t pass on your crucial and fascinating information? Maybe you should try again, now that the inquest has JUST finished?”.
Stop it, Claire!"

Stop it .... Claire?

"my point was that if Hutchinson found himself a PC and then thought he spotted Astraponce again, why didn’t he find himself another, or (better still) the same, PC and alert him to this possible and potentially crucial second encounter?"

..and MY point was that we do not know that he had spoken to the PC BEFORE he saw the Petticoat Lane man, Ben. He tells us that he saw this man on Sunday morning, and he tells us that he spoke to the PC on Sunday morning. Tell me why it follows from this that he FIRST spoke to the PC..?

"Oh dear, no, this is far worse than any sequence of events suggested so far, in my opinion. So your preferred “contention” now is that he’d got as far as Petticoat Lane on Sunday 11th November, and yet was still oblivious to news of the Kelly murder?"

Yes - but that is just because I am trying to look away from the Mary Kelly information desks at all entrances to the market, as well as the neon signs on the rooftops saying "Paging Mr Hutchinson - it was Mary Kelly!"
My humble suggestion is that if he for some reason had not gotten word of Mary Kellys death before Sunday morning, then the market would be a very reasonable place to find out about it. There were many people there, and Kellys death would have been a major topic of conversation. If you find it hilarious, be my guest! Iīm too fascinated with how things all fall in place in this scenario to be too annoyed about it.

"I would, of course, value and appreciate your thoughts with regard to my article's conclusions"

You shall have them, Ben. You know my stance on the issue, but I fully expect you to serve a healthy helping of information to topple me over!

The very best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"given that I made no reference to Sweeney in my book, you have certainly misconstrued the thrust of my post."

Iīm sorry if that it what you think, Garry - I would not intentionally misconstrue anything, coming from you or anybody else. I mentioned Sweeney since you wrote that the perpetrators you had on line who had claimed they were the Ripper, had also all used violence or a threat of it, thus providing the law enforcement with an excellent reason to jail them. Sweeney, on the other hand, used no violence or any threat of it. In a drunken state, he claimed he was Jack the Ripper, and he was sentenced for it.

"Given my utter bewilderment regarding that final sentence, Fish, perhaps you might care to qualify it."

You quote TWO sentences, Garry, but since you speak only of the latter one, I take it you disagree that Sweeney (for example) belongs to the Hutchinson discussion. My stance is that he does, since he seemeingly exemplifies the danger involved in taking up valuable police time with false Ripper-related information.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“You see how much easier it is to get to the character of a person by getting them to speak?”

Absolutely, Claire! I’ve seen the light, and can now picture it really catching on. Have you noticed, though, that these internal monologues are only ever funny and engaging when they’re supporting my arguments, and not Fisherman’s?

“Could you please let the posters on here make their own calls, Ben? I have already said that I think that both the PC encounter and the Petticoat Lane incident could well be true, and I still stand by it.”

Don’t get me wrong, Fish. I’ve already acknowledged several times that everyone is free to make up their own minds, hence my previous observation that despite my amazement that certain theories can be considered even remotely plausible, I cannot “extort belief” out of the people who embrace these amazingly outlandish theories.

And what a dull world it would be if I could.

“But for the blatantly obvious fact that it is not until we work from that premise that Hutchinsons actions become a logical sequence”

Using the F-word in the wrong context again! Slap on wrist for Fish! Seriously, though, I have no problem with envisaging a sequence of events for Hutchinson, providing that sequence does not involve him failing to learn of Kelly’s murder until Sunday 11th November, because that isn’t remotely plausible, in my opinion. But as you say, to each his own.

“what I keep hammering in is that he could have heard of the murder WITHOUT having found out about the victimīs identity.”

But even if that suggestion was a reasonable one (which it isn’t, because Manchester newspapers were already mentioning Mary Jane Kelly of Millers Court, Dorset Street, Spitalfields as early as the 10th November), it would beg the question; why, if he had heard of a murder having taken place in the East End, did our hypothetically travelling Hutchinson fail to obtain - or attempt to obtain - further details?

“we have absolutely no idea about the extent of information he was able to take part in inbetween Friday and Sunday.”

I respectfully disagree. We have a fairly good idea, and that information was overwhelmingly likely to have included - at the very least - the detail that the victim Kelly was murdered in Spitalfields, and was a “ripper”-attributed murder.

“Because they firmly believed it was completely safe to let him go, since they were of the meaning that he was not their killer, thatīs why. They were able to remove him from their suspect board.”

Oh, no. No no no. Heavens to Betsy no. Come on, now. Please, let’s not depress me here, Fisherman. A Thousand times no to this suggestion that I’ve already scratched my head in disbelief at when I heard it advanced on the other threads. The police were most assuredly not “able to remove him from their suspect board”. Firstly, we have absolutely no evidence that the police ever considered him in the capacity of a suspect, and secondly, even if they did suspect him at some stage, they were very unlikely to have been in a position to convert those suspicions into concrete proof of guilt or innocence, which is a problem that continues to confront investigating authorities even today. But didn’t we discuss this is rather extensive detail on a recent Hutchinson thread?

“Thatīs a very long speach for a lost cause, Ben.”

What’s lost, Fisherman? There was almost certainly never any negligent nincompoop of a policeman who didn’t pass on relevant details pertaining to Hutchinson’s discredited account.

“It would be like deciding that Hutchinson was the Ripper, and keep claiming that no matter what evidence that surfaced, pointing away from it. Iīm sure youīd avoid such a thing at all costs...”

I would, 100%, but if I were to compile a list of credible suggestions that might just point away from Hutchinson being the ripper, the idea that Hutchinson did not hear about the killing until Sunday would not belong on that list.

“Inertia? He had spoken to the police - what else was he supposed to do?”

Then why bother relating the "lodger" communuication at all? “Hey, Hutch, maybe this copper was a negligent ninny who didn’t pass on your crucial and fascinating information? Maybe you should try again, now that the inquest has JUST finished?”.

Stop it, Claire!

“My contention is that he found out about Kelly on Sunday morning, and before that he had no idea of any suspected killer. And what did he do? He found himself a PC. Is that letting the trail grow cold? Not in my world, it ainīt.”

It used to be an “outside possibility” rather than “your contention” (remember?), but my point was that if Hutchinson found himself a PC and then thought he spotted Astraponce again, why didn’t he find himself another, or (better still) the same, PC and alert him to this possible and potentially crucial second encounter?

“Which effectively means that he may first have seen the Petticoat Lane man, THEN have found out about Kelly, and THEN spoken to the PC about his Dorset Street sighting, and - perhaps - about the Petticoat Lane man.”

Oh dear, no, this is far worse than any sequence of events suggested so far, in my opinion. So your preferred “contention” now is that he’d got as far as Petticoat Lane on Sunday 11th November, and yet was still oblivious to news of the Kelly murder?

“The Jewish connection, is it not? Should be interesting!”

Should be, considering that contemporary police officials including Charles Warren, Donald Swanson and Henry Smith noted the same connection, as have latter-day historians Philip Sugden and Martin Friedland. But I would, of course, value and appreciate your thoughts with regard to my article's conclusions.

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

Garry Wroe writes:

"The incidents to which Fisherman referred, Ruby, did not involve timewasters, but rather individuals who claimed to be Jack the Ripper. I enumerated a number of these in my book, and each, without exception, was a drink-fuelled event which involved actual or threatened violence. Accordingly, they are of no relevance whatever in any endeavour to gain an insight into Hutchinson-related police thinking."

Then you may have missed for example George Sweeney, Garry?

No, Fish. But given that I made no reference to Sweeney in my book, you have certainly misconstrued the thrust of my post.

No violence or threat of it involved in that one, as you may notice.And of course it is relevant in the Hutchinson discussion.

Given my utter bewilderment regarding that final sentence, Fish, perhaps you might care to qualify it.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[DVV]

Hi Richard,

please, don't keep Toppy for yourself, that would be selFISHness.
And forgive me for that horrible pun...

G'night !

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"Topping has to be the witness, but only my opinion , which holds very little weight in such a giant puzzle."

Not only in your opinion, Richard - surely you know that!

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys,
Talk about banging heads against a brick wall..
To start again.. in 122 years only one GH has ever presented himself to us..only one, albeit via his son, that being GWTH[ Topping]
He presents himself to us with information, that fits the facts that we know, he even adds details that we were not aware of [ that is on Casebook until recently ie the rare Wheeling report] except for me /radio
Yet we still dismiss this all, as not relevant.
I maintain, it is essential that we identify the correct witness GH,.. any other names would be welcome,.. we simply are guilty of making a mountain out of a molehill, I have never doubted the word of Reg H, In saying so, we should take note that Reg was ignorant of the case, and simply relayed his fathers claim as he remembered, complete with facts that fitted.. Topping has to be the witness, but only my opinion , which holds very little weight in such a giant puzzle.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Claire:

"Relevant or not, that's a great story, Fish"

Thanks a bunch, Claire! And there is more to come!

the very best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Despite the fact that we’re still arguing at amazing length over this issue, we’re essentially back to square one insofar as nobody really believes that this Petticoat Lane or policeman encounter actually occured."

Could you please let the posters on here make their own calls, Ben? I have already said that I think that both the PC encounter and the Petticoat Lane incident could well be true, and I still stand by it. If you force me to guess, I would say that I am in favour of both of them being true, much as I do not exclude the opposite.

"My position hasn’t changed – the suggestion that Hutchinson had not heard of the murder by Sunday is incredibly outlandish, and it beggars belief that anyone can seriously contemplate otherwise."

But for the blatantly obvious fact that it is not until we work from that premise that Hutchinsons actions become a logical sequence, with him acting promptly on his gained insight by contacting the PC first and going to the police station the next ...
Let me assure you, Ben, that presenting a scenario like this, does in no way equal presenting an outlandish proposition. But each to his own!

"It makes no difference whether or not Hutchinson remained “close to his residence”."

No comments required on that one.

" ...even if he did disappear to new pastures for two days, it’s unthinkable that he didn’t hear of another “ripper” murder committed in the East End."

Well, Ben, I managed that thought with no problems at all. And as one would have thought that you would know by now, what I keep hammering in is that he could have heard of the murder WITHOUT having found out about the victimīs identity.

"No amount of fill-in-the-blanks or “what ifs” can ever hope to obfuscate these obvious probabilities."

And no flood of "outlandishes", "incrediblies" and "beggars beliefs" on your behalf will change the fact that we have absolutely no idea about the extent of information he was able to take part in inbetween Friday and Sunday. A slightly more receptive attitude on your behalf on that point would suit you well, Ben!

"But in that event, it would have been an unproven conclusion, and as such, they could not have subjected him to “hard labour” any more than they could with Packer or Violenia."

That aside, Ben, they would spend lots of time and resources investigating him, Ben - and that is the point I am making here. There would have been long and hard interrogations, and much suspicion would always attach to him in a case like that. But no. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
And why? Because they firmly believed it was completely safe to let him go, since they were of the meaning that he was not their killer, thatīs why. They were able to remove him from their suspect board.

"This is vastly implausible on two levels. Firstly, it would have been pretty impressive for Hutchinson to have correctly pinpointed a time and location where there would really have been a policeman, and the authorities would certainly have confronted the naughty copper with this oddity, and secondly, it would mean that this same naughty copper essentially ignored a witness of Hutchinson’s potential importance despite knowing that he could be tracked down and identified if necessary."

Thatīs a very long speach for a lost cause, Ben. The simple truth is that if the PC said "Nope. Never seen him", there would not have been anything anybody could do to prove him wrong. And that is all we need to discard your proposition of a story that was "provably false". The rest is and remains smokescreens and empty rethorics. Sorry.

"then why did you argue on a previous thread that Hutchinson was discredited because he had some sort of alibi in Romford (or somewhere) when he claimed to be monitoring Kelly in Spitalfields? Was this another one of those “outside possibilities” that you don’t buy into for a moment, but which needs mentioning anyway because we owe it to history? Damn, I wouldn’t have got so annoyed about it at the time if I knew you didn’t believe it!"

Why so melodramatic, Ben? And why would we not look at all possibilities, as long as they are this - possible? Must we lock ourselves to our ideas and always stand by them, no matter what? How are we supposed to develop new insights and allow for openmindedness in such cases. It would be like deciding that Hutchinson was the Ripper, and keep claiming that no matter what evidence that surfaced, pointing away from it. Iīm sure youīd avoid such a thing at all costs...

"I certainly look forward to your reading article, where all this will doubtless be explained!"

Thanks! Likewise, of all the potential readers (whatever insignificant number that may add up to ...), I think I am most curious about your verdict!

"Then on Sunday morning, he's suddenly firing on all cylinders"

Good observation! And that tells us...?

"He then goes back to inertia again, and does nothing until 6.00pm the following day..."

Inertia? He had spoken to the police - what else was he supposed to do? Form a vigilante squad?

"... where he suddenly requires motivation from a fellow lodger to contact the police despite having done so already."

Not all that strange, if we imagine this conversation between the lodger (L) and Hutch (H):

H: I was in Dorset Street on that night, and saw Kelly with a man at 2 AM.
L: Wow. What did you do?
H: I told a PC yesterday.
L: What did he do?
H: Report it, I should think.
L: Should think? For heavens sake, you must go to Commercial Street police station and make sure that the police are notified!

End of play. Not the surrealistic Ionescu type of thing, more like everyday realism.

"If you think the sequence of events in that of “responsible and dutiful” man, then I can only disagree. It is neither responsible nor dutiful deliberately to allow the trail of a suspected killer to grow cold, and to time your decision to contact the police “properly” with the end of the inquest, which is clearly what happens unless we prefer loopy unrealistic coincidence as a preferred explanation."

Deliberately allow the trail of a suspected killer to grow cold...? What are you talking about? My contention is that he found out about Kelly on Sunday morning, and before that he had no idea of any suspected killer. And what did he do? He found himself a PC. Is that letting the trail grow cold? Not in my world, it ainīt.

"Also, if we accept your interpretation of the sequence of events, why didn’t Hutchinson seek out a policeman again if he even “fancied” he had seen the same man in Petticoat Lane?"

Havenīt you read my posts, Ben? He saw the Petticoat man in Sunday morning, and he contacted the PC on Sunday morning - but we do not know in which order! Which effectively means that he may first have seen the Petticoat Lane man, THEN have found out about Kelly, and THEN spoken to the PC about his Dorset Street sighting, and - perhaps - about the Petticoat Lane man.
Alternatively, he says he "fancied" he saw astrakhan man in Petticoat lane, but could not be certain. If he decided that he was wrong, then that would have been it.

"There we go, then. The press can’t have been working in chronological order if the events of Monday were discussed before the events of Sunday, so it’s a safer bet that we have no evidence for which of the Sunday morning encounters came first, not that it really matters."

He first told the story of Astrakhan man, and then told the story of Petticoat Lane man, Ben. Thatīs chronology. If he had done it the other way around, he would first have spoken of a man he saw on Sunday, and then about a man he saw the Friday before. Thatīs NOT chronology.
It is very easy to spot who the PC belongs to in his story - once you put the effort in. If not, well ...
Sally had no problems with it, did you notice that?

"I was only presenting an overview of what I consider to be the most plausible and least complicated explanation."

Ben, interpreting Hutchinson as a a serial killer is very complicated...! But I know what you mean, and I once thought the Hutch/Fleming suggestion was quite a compelling one. Iīm sure you can find posts of mine pointing that out. So Iīve been there to some extent myself, but I have abandoned it totally, since I am nowadays quite convinced that it is the wrong solution.

"Well, all the very best luck with that particular argument, as I suspect you’ll need it, particularly if you're going the distinctly Dewy "mistaken date" route. But I’m certainly not stopping you from “looking for other suspects than George Hutchinson”. In the meantime, I look forward to reading your article and do hope you enjoy mine. At the moment, though, I think we’re in peril of giving a few too many clues as to the content of our respective articles."

It is an itch, Iīll give you that! And the best of luck with your effort too! The Jewish connection, is it not? Should be interesting!

The best,
Fisherman

[claire]

Relevant or not, that's a great story, Fish

And Ben, I noticed (and was impressed by) your alternative monologues. You see how much easier it is to get to the character of a person by getting them to speak? )