The Surly Man

[Scorpio]

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

[Rubyretro]

does the sultry man simply not exist at all ?.:

Sadly I don't think he does exist...but I'd love to meet a sultry man when I
have a drink there in January..

[Scorpio]

I should clarify my own thoughts on the subject. Hutchinson provides a good example of reconstructive memory, which is an interesting but annoying, as far as the law is concerned, quirk of human long term memory. Detectives and Lawyers want black and white, no nonsense recall, but long term/auto biographical memory only works in colour. Hutchinsons memory of events , like ours, is coloured by memories and information that is already established. I believe the most important phrase in Hutchinsons statement is " jewish in appearance ". This phrase is proof positive of reconstructive memory at work, this is evidence that Hutchinson mixture of experience and various cliiches absorbed from Gentile culture about Jewishness was well established in his mind and was probably colouring his recall. Some elements like jewellery and style of clothing and physical appearance may have been exaggerated if not invented completely, to fit with his description recalled long after an affective short term memory lapse. The question of appearance is so important, since it was the mans appearance that Hutchinson claims was his motivation for loitering , when,in truth, it was probably old fashioned voyeurism. Hutch probably wanted to avoid admitting that, so the motivation was there to make the mans description more eye catching. Hutch made two statements and the sheer number of details sucessfully recalled between the two is impressive for a BS merchant.

[Rubyretro]

I believe the most important phrase in Hutchinsons statement is " jewish in appearance ".

Me, too.

Hutchinson mixture of experience and various cliiches absorbed from Gentile culture about Jewishness was well established in his mind and was probably colouring his recall

.
..or his imagination.

Some elements like jewellery and style of clothing and physical appearance may have been exaggerated if not invented completely

,
It would certainly seem so.

The question of appearance is so important, since it was the mans appearance that Hutchinson claims was his motivation for loitering

,
Too true !!

the sheer number of details sucessfully recalled between the two is impressive for a BS merchant.

[/QUOTE]
He certainly would of had to have had a concrete visual image steadfast in his mind to retain his description...whether that would of been possible describing A Man, given the circumstances, is highly unlikely. I always thought that he had a real (or composite) person from his past in mind. Bob Hinton makes a strong case for a shop window dummy, in his book.

[Rubyretro]

I have just copied my reply from 'Bloody Tourists' on the same subject :

'If Kelly knew this 'surly man' with his 'swanky threads' it's certainly strange
that no one else did ! Did he have no job ? No neighbours ? No friends nor
acquaintances -not even a landlord ? No family, nor a maid or visiting tradesmen ? Did he never shop ? Never set foot in a pub or a place of worship -not even walk down the street where he lived ? He was totally
unknown to his neighbourhood Policeman on the beat ?

With his description circulating in all the papers, a vast reward offered,
and a very conspicuous watch and tiepin (taken together, even if you argue that individually neither were very rare), I am very surprised that nobody 'shopped' him ; he must have been a very well loved man ! (not so 'surly' then).

Of course he might only have put his spats on, at night (according to Bob Hinton they were 'day wear') just not to be noticed in grim slum streets..'

[Ben]

“Hutch made two statements and the sheer number of details sucessfully recalled between the two is impressive for a BS merchant.”

Not really, Scorpio.

It would mean he merely remembered many of the lies he provided in his police interview, and that was hardly “impressive” considering that many of these “recollections” were offset by polar opposite versions of some of the key particulars of the man’s appearance, to say nothing of the various other contradictions and embellishments that appeared in the press. He also claimed to have “recalled” details of the man’s appearance that he almost certainly could not have even noticed.

“This phrase is proof positive of reconstructive memory at work”

Again, it really isn’t, because we only have discredited Hutchinson’s word for it that he was “memorizing” an encounter with a man. If the Astrakhan man didn’t even exist, it would have been a case of wholesale invention as opposed to embellished “memory”, entirely irrespective of the man’s appearance. That’s not to say I disagree with your observation that he may have incorporated “experience and various clichés absorbed from Gentile culture about Jewishness”, but the point is that he could have applied these experiences and cliches to an entirely invented individual.

“in truth, it was probably old fashioned voyeurism”

Probably not, Scorpio.

Kelly’s window was situated within the court itself and faced north, whereas Hutchinson claimed to have loitered outside the entrance to the court itself, also looking north. He would have needed to enter the passage into the court and turn left if he wanted to witness any action. His professed vantage point rendered “voyeurism” impossible, and the same was true of the man seen by Sarah Lewis.

Best regards,
Ben

[Scorpio]

It is a good point about the voyeurism angle or lack of one, but this only strengthens my belief in Hutch's statement, he surely waited for the reason he stated, which was the surly mans unlikely appearance. If he is a fiction then what is the possible motivation for constructing the surly man?.

[Ben]

Hi Scorpio,

he surely waited for the reason he stated, which was the surly mans unlikely appearance.

But that's not really a reason for "waiting".

Waiting for what?

I believe Hutchinson invented the surly man because he realised he had been seen by another witness (Sarah Lewis), and saw an opportunity to both explain his presence there and deflect suspicion in a false direction.

Best regards,
Ben

[DVV]

Poor Hutch waited for no reason...quite a long moment, but not enough to see the man sortie de scène...(too bad)...and left for no reason...(to go nowhere, by his own account).

Amitiés
David

[Scorpio]

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

[Abby Normal]

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

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

[Sally]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ben]

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

[Sally]

Ben

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

[richardnunweek]

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