The Surly Man

[Sally]

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.

Hello Richard

I wasn't really addressing the identity of Hutchinson - I think we'll be straying 'off topic' if we go down that road. In a sense though, what you say confirms my view that this is all about what we choose to believe. If the question is settled for you, then who am I to disagree? Each to his (or her) own.

I'd rather leave identity for another day. To my mind, it doesn't figure who he was so much as what he did. Whether or not he was killer or witness, or neither of the above, the facts of the matter remain.

So the same questions will always apply until we all get bored or find a solution - why did he wait three days before coming forward, why is his description of Surly Man so cinematic, why had nobody else apparently heard of him if he knew MJK for 3 years?

I'll stick to my view, I think. He was a strange fish, and no mistake - whoever he was.

And as for Surly Man? Well once again, if he didn't exist, who was Hutchinson 'waiting' for that night?

[Garry Wroe]

And as for Surly Man? Well once again, if he didn't exist, who was Hutchinson 'waiting' for that night?

If Astrakhan was merely a figment of Hutchinson’s imagination, Sally, it follows that the meeting with a near-sober Kelly on Commercial Street was also untrue. Once these elements are discounted, the logical assumption is that Hutchinson was waiting for Blotchy to leave Kelly’s room when sighted by Sarah Lewis at 2-30am.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

Hi Sally,

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?

It would be, were if not for the evidence of Sarah Lewis, who described a man behaving in a very similar fashion to Hutchinson - as per the latter's claims - at the same time and the same location. This was divulged at the inquest, which took place three days after the murder, and Hutchinson came forward with his account on the evening after the termination of the inquest. I find it difficult to ignore that double-coincidence: that Hutchinson and Lewis' accounts just happened to match very closely, and that Hutchinson just happened to have embraced the suggestion to approach the police at a time when Lewis' information had recently been released.

This is not so much selectivity as the rejection of two implausible "random coincidences", and the recognition of a likely chain of events in which Hutchinson came forward as soon as he recognised himself in another witness account. His motivation for doing so is a different matter, of course, but if we take his presence outside (and preoccupation with) the crime scene and his subsquent self-vindicating behaviour as "likelies", then it isn't outlandish to consider that he might have had some involvement in Kelly's death, and by extension, the others.

Significantly, very few of the 7000 or so posts in the Hutchinson threads seek to make a case for Hutchinson as the ripper. More often, you'll find the so-called "Hutchinsonians" merely defending the Hutch-as-killer proposal as a reasonable possibility, which it simply is.

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

Cognitive Leapfrog

If Astrakhan was merely a figment of Hutchinson’s imagination, Sally, it follows that the meeting with a near-sober Kelly on Commercial Street was also untrue. Once these elements are discounted, the logical assumption is that Hutchinson was waiting for Blotchy to leave Kelly’s room when sighted by Sarah Lewis at 2-30am.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

Garry - Why? Actually what follows if 'Astrakhan Man' was pure invention is only that Hutchinson didn't see him with Kelly. It doesn't logically follow that he didn't see Kelly at all.. The circumstances of his seeing her may have been similar, sans Surly Man, or very different, in fact. I don't think you can know. And besides, if he was waiting for 'Blotchy Man' to come back out, why didn't he just say so? Nobody saw him leave, that would have been quite plausible. Why invent Surly Man at all?

[Sally]

Hi Sally,



It would be, were if not for the evidence of Sarah Lewis, who described a man behaving in a very similar fashion to Hutchinson - as per the latter's claims - at the same time and the same location. This was divulged at the inquest, which took place three days after the murder, and Hutchinson came forward with his account on the evening after the termination of the inquest. I find it difficult to ignore that double-coincidence: that Hutchinson and Lewis' accounts just happened to match very closely, and that Hutchinson just happened to have embraced the suggestion to approach the police at a time when Lewis' information had recently been released.

This is not so much selectivity as the rejection of two implausible "random coincidences", and the recognition of a likely chain of events in which Hutchinson came forward as soon as he recognised himself in another witness account. His motivation for doing so is a different matter, of course, but if we take his presence outside (and preoccupation with) the crime scene and his subsquent self-vindicating behaviour as "likelies", then it isn't outlandish to consider that he might have had some involvement in Kelly's death, and by extension, the others.
Significantly, very few of the 7000 or so posts in the Hutchinson threads seek to make a case for Hutchinson as the ripper. More often, you'll find the so-called "Hutchinsonians" merely defending the Hutch-as-killer proposal as a reasonable possibility, which it simply is.

All the best,
Ben

Ben - Look at that! Cognitive Leapfrog at it's finest!

Seriously though - there a a lot of maybes and might haves here, aren't there? It's interesting what you say about the number of posts actually making the case for Hutchinson being the killer being comparatively few - because he is, at the least, a mysterious figure, isn't he? Perhaps most people would prefer to see innocence rather than guilt?

I think I've identified one of my issues to be with the necessity of inventing Surly Man at all - which brings into question for me whether Hutchinson did actually see him. Why make him up?

Altogether, generally, I think your argument is fair enough, for now. Hmm, and this Hutch/Leiws thing. Off on a tangent, admittedly, but I wonder if it's all a bit over-engineered.

[DVV]

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

Yeah.
Nasty people with an apocalyptic agenda.

[Rubyretro]

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 think that when it comes to making 'choices' in what I believe (because I'm only talking for myself here ) of Hutch's statement, then it comes down to what is likely and believable. Hutch's description of how he came to see and memorise A Man, and all the details of his clothing, is nigh on impossible given the level of lighting, the fleeting timespan, and the fact that the watch would be worn under the overcoat. It is also highly unlikely that 'Surly' would leave his overcoat unbuttoned, on a cold and rainy winter night, exposing
a valuable watch, and go off to a place like Miller's Court, happily walking into that narrow passage, whilst being followed by a Hutch standing so close that he could overhear a conversation and see the colour of a handkerchief. Then the suggestion is that A Man was confortable enough to hang about for a couple of hours to murder MJK and dissect her, having left Hutch outside the room -a man who had stooped down to get a look at his face. It is all unbelievable.

However, I do believe that good liars weave facts into their fictions to lend credibility to their lies. I no longer believe 100% that Hutch was either a groom nor had known Mary for 3 years, yet it is probable that he WAS a groom. A groom is a perfectly innocent job to have, and is provable to the Police..and people who knew Hutch and read the papers. It had no bearing-
ostensibly- on the Case, so why would Hutch risk being exposed as a liar
on such a detail ? I therefore tend to believe that he WAS a groom (something that lends me to also believe that Toppy was not the witness).

Is it believable that Hutch knew MJK (judging each statement on it's merits) ?
Well, Hutch lodged in a road very close to MJK's room. She was a young, above averagely good looking prostitute, and she used the pub that must have been his 'local' (even if he didn't drink, she stood on 'Mary's Corner' ) Furthermore, her boyfriend's brother, and her -ex both lodged in the same place as Hutch. It is likely and believable that Hutch knew who she was,
and totally open ended as to how long and how well.

You can go through all of Hutch's statements and the 'choices' to make are
based on logic and not just a question of arbitralily choosing what you 'prefer'.

[Sally]

You can go through all of Hutch's statements and the 'choices' to make are based on logic and not just a question of arbitralily choosing what you 'prefer'.

Rubyretro - I think 'prefer' is the wrong word. I didn't intend to imply that people necessarily make conscious decisions about which aspects they like best when evaluating material such as Hutch's super-statement; for example. It's my colourful turn of phrase, no doubt! No, but I do think we all have our personal bias - and that this informs our choices, even if we are not always aware of it.

You make very reasonable, valid points about Hutchinson actually having been a groom. It is after all, apparently an innocuous bit of information. But what if - say, on his way to the police station, he saw somebody leading horses? Unless we accept that he had no idea what he was going to say once he entered the station, he must have had it in his mind. If we disbelieve him about other things, then why, for instance, could he have just got the idea of 'groom' from a random incident?

In this scenario, he could have seen some such person - because there must have been quite a few around - and used it later. We don't know, do we? I'm not saying he wasn't a groom, just that I wouldn't assume it was the case - not that I'm suggesting you are. If we decide that Hutchinson's statement was so inventive, I just don't see what's to prevent even seemingly random details being invention.

As far as I know, no Hutchinson who actually was a groom has ever come to light - which kind of throws some doubt around, I think.

Anyway - I still want to know why he'd make up Surly Man in the first place? Why not just say he was waiting for 'Blotchy Man' to come out? After all, nobody knew how long he'd been standing there - he volunteered that information himself.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Let me suggest that Hutchinson [ with no identity] was telling the truth ,...exactly what does that imply?
He was observant,
Astracan posed no physical threat to himself,
Astracan had his overcoat unbottoned... mayby to impress Mary,
Astracan did not fear Hutchinson
Astracan did not fear Dorset street, or entering dingy Millers Court.
I Would have to form the opinion that this man was her killer, but proberly not JTR.
It gives me the impression that he was void of any danger simply because he was bent on murder... murdering the woman who he had been looking for, the woman who had stolen a valuable watch from him.. that is why he had his watchchain on view.
I feel that this man was the same man that McCarthy sent packing 'In True McCarthy style' a short time previous when he called on Kelly.
The above incident allegedly happened according to Fiona Kendall McCarthys great grandaughter.
A Copycat killing with a motive.
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

Hi,
Let me suggest that Hutchinson [ with no identity] was telling the truth ,...exactly what does that imply?
He was observant,
Astracan posed no physical threat to himself,
Astracan had his overcoat unbottoned... mayby to impress Mary,
Astracan did not fear Hutchinson
Astracan did not fear Dorset street, or entering dingy Millers Court.
I Would have to form the opinion that this man was her killer, but proberly not JTR.
It gives me the impression that he was void of any danger simply because he was bent on murder... murdering the woman who he had been looking for, the woman who had stolen a valuable watch from him.. that is why he had his watchchain on view.
I feel that this man was the same man that McCarthy sent packing 'In True McCarthy style' a short time previous when he called on Kelly.
The above incident allegedly happened according to Fiona Kendall McCarthys great grandaughter.
A Copycat killing with a motive.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard

Interesting post. If you are correct, however, and Surly Man as the murderer of Kelly was a copycat killer, he really went to town, didn't he? It seems to me less like a copy in that scenario than a serious case of one-up-man-ship. I mean, murder and mutilation - worse than in any other case to that point - for the sake of a watch? That would be horrible, and quite extreme. If nothing else, the idea of two psychotic killers on the loose in the East End with the willingness to murder and mutilate women is disturbing, to say the least.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Sally
It was only halfway through my last post, that I remembered that a watch might have played a significant part in the kelly murder, if Fionas account did happen, then not only would the person who called on the court know of Kellys residence, but it might explain why his overcoat was undone displaying a watch chain.
With this in mind it is not impossible that he was waiting until he could enter Dorset street relatively safely , when he had the luck to find Mary walking towards him.
A bit of laughter, a bit of lets forget the past, and a invitation to a secluded room, thanks very much in the mind of a very disturbed man.
Regards Richard,

[Garry Wroe]

Actually what follows if 'Astrakhan Man' was pure invention is only that Hutchinson didn't see him with Kelly. It doesn't logically follow that he didn't see Kelly at all..

Not in itself, Sally, no. But there is compelling evidence indicative that Mary Jane was drunk to the point of near-incoherence during the timeframe under scrutiny. According to Hutchinson, however, Kelly “was not drunk”, merely “a little spreeish.” This incongruity, I would suggest, is sufficient to cast considerable doubt upon the claim that Hutchinson met and spoke to Kelly at approximately 2-00am.

And besides, if he was waiting for 'Blotchy Man' to come back out, why didn't he just say so? Nobody saw him leave, that would have been quite plausible. Why invent Surly Man at all?

Blotchy entered Kelly’s room at approximately a quarter to midnight, Sally. This was fully two and three-quarter hours before Sarah Lewis observed the man presumed to have been Hutchinson staring intently down the court as though “looking or waiting for someone.” Had Hutchinson used Blotchy as an excuse for his fixation with Mary Jane’s room, it would have been tantamount to an admission that he was stalking Kelly.

This was the beauty of the Astrakhan story. It not only implied a convivial pre-existing relationship between Kelly and Hutchinson, but further provided vindication for Hutchinson’s fascination with Miller’s Court as witnessed by Sarah Lewis. The problem, however, as I stated in a previous post, is that the Astrakhan story is almost certainly untrue. If so, and he also didn’t encounter Mary Jane as claimed, the question inevitably arises as to his true motivation for loitering close to Kelly’s room shortly before her murder.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Rubyretro]

Anyway - I still want to know why he'd make up Surly Man in the first place? Why not just say he was waiting for 'Blotchy Man' to come out? After all, nobody knew how long he'd been standing there - he volunteered that information himself

.[
I think that Garry has answered the question of why Hutch would make up
Surly A Man very well. You could add to it by saying that -IF he were the killer, and once again only speaking for myself-then he might have wanted to take control of his own Case by placing himself as a key witness, and misdirect the Police towards a suspect that looked nothing like himself and was Jewish.
Hutch may not have been waiting for Blotchy to leave -he may not even have known of Blotchy's existance until the inquest (Blotchy was seen a couple of hours before Wideawake). Hutch might simply have known that Mary was alone and wanted to make sure that she wasn't going to go out, no one else was going to arrive, and Mary would be in bed and well asleep.

If we disbelieve him about other things, then why, for instance, could he have just got the idea of 'groom' from a random incident?

In this scenario, he could have seen some such person - because there must have been quite a few around - and used it later. We don't know, do we? I'm not saying he wasn't a groom, just that I wouldn't assume it was the case - not that I'm suggesting you are. If we decide that Hutchinson's statement was so inventive, I just don't see what's to prevent even seemingly random details being invention.

As far as I know, no Hutchinson who actually was a groom has ever come to light - which kind of throws some doubt around, I think.

It makes no difference to the suspicion surrounding Hutch, whether he was a groom or not.
He comes over in his statements as someone with a very good memory for detail, and not just 'spouting off the top of his head' -someone who had thought about what he said beforehand and not someone to throw in needless 'random details'. The 'groom' story was something that could be checked out, as the Surly Man story couldn't be.
I don't think that we have ever found the real Hutchinson.

[Sally]

He comes over in his statements as someone with a very good memory for detail, and not just 'spouting off the top of his head' -someone who had thought about what he said beforehand and not someone to throw in needless 'random details'. The 'groom' story was something that could be checked out, as the Surly Man story couldn't be.

Rubyretro - You think? I think he comes across as somebody with a colourful imagination! Yes, you are right, the groom story could have been checked out. Maybe it was, for all we know.

As for the Surly Man story - well, wasn't it checked out? I thought Mr Hutchinson offered to go on walkabouts in the area to earch for Mr. S? I really can't imagine why he did that if he was making it up. Now, I'm not saying he wasn't making it up, but it seems a bit extreme, don't you think?

I think this indiividual is either innocent of any wrongdoing or he really, really, likes risk.

[Sally]

Hi Garry

Not in itself, Sally, no. But there is compelling evidence indicative that Mary Jane was drunk to the point of near-incoherence during the timeframe under scrutiny. According to Hutchinson, however, Kelly “was not drunk”, merely “a little spreeish.” This incongruity, I would suggest, is sufficient to cast considerable doubt upon the claim that Hutchinson met and spoke to Kelly at approximately 2-00am.

Yes, but you are working with the Hutchinson guilt bias here. Objectively, what you have is two individuals, both claiming to witness a third under the influence of alcohol, over two hours apart. Firstly, perception is subjective; secondly, if both of these witnesses were indeed witnesses and did see Kelly that night, they interacted with her for a very short amount of time - a minute or two perhaps - long enough to form an accurate impression?; thirdly, two hours plus makes a difference in a state of inebriateion. I'm not so sure about the compelling evidence here.

On the other side of the fence, my own impression from Cox's testimony is that she had the impression that Kelly was retiring for the night. It's the bucket of beer really, the weather, etc. My impression is that Kelly was not intending to go out again - but that's a personal feeling.

Blotchy entered Kelly’s room at approximately a quarter to midnight, Sally. This was fully two and three-quarter hours before Sarah Lewis observed the man presumed to have been Hutchinson staring intently down the court as though “looking or waiting for someone.” Had Hutchinson used Blotchy as an excuse for his fixation with Mary Jane’s room, it would have been tantamount to an admission that he was stalking Kelly.

No, I don't agree. I don't think he would have been viewed as a stalker - I don't even know if stalking had been conceptualised at the time. Not as we view it today, in any case. I do think perhaps the police might have wondered why he hadn't alerted them; or at least somebody, if he'd been hanging around in the dark for over two hours harbouring dark suspicions about Kelly's house guest - but on balance I don't think it would have been too much of a problem for him.

This was the beauty of the Astrakhan story. It not only implied a convivial pre-existing relationship between Kelly and Hutchinson, but further provided vindication for Hutchinson’s fascination with Miller’s Court as witnessed by Sarah Lewis. The problem, however, as I stated in a previous post, is that the Astrakhan story is almost certainly untrue. If so, and he also didn’t encounter Mary Jane as claimed, the question inevitably arises as to his true motivation for loitering close to Kelly’s room shortly before her murder

Well, possibly, yes. In fact though, we don't know how long he'd been there, so we don't know if he had been loitering close to Kelly's room for more than say, 5 or 10 minutes at the most - that's about the limit of how long Sarah Lewis would have observed him for, and that's being generous. What she saw was a man standing across the street, in poor visibility, late at night, on her way to stay with a friend.

None of it is really very solid. As for Hutchinson - I really don't know, I'm open minded, actually - best way to be. I will say this though - if he wasn't straight up then something very odd was going on.