The Surly Man

[Ben]

“But if the same people - that would be you and Garry, right? - would claim that a pea equals a carrott, I would not be too convinced by that argument either.”

Woah, them’s fightin’ words, Fisherman! Suffice to say, though, I don’t think the analogy very apt.

Yes, we know Hutchinson was interviewed “more than just one time” because when he first approached the police station, he would have detailed his account to a policeman of lesser seniority than Abberline, who probably came directly from Leman Street after learning of Hutchinson’s account.

“Or did they simply follow up on a fact that was so obvious that it took no mentioning?”

No, I don’t suppose so for a moment. The press were clearly no strangers when it came to outlining what we now consider to be the bleedin’ obvious, especially with regard to witness evidence. I don’t agree, incidentally, that the Kelly investigation suffered from a lack of witnesses. On the contrary, as Philip Sugden observed, “the stories of the witnesses certainly abound in dubious characters”. Unfortunately, however, the potential significance of the loitering man took a very clear back seat amidst the black bag brigade and the other “dubious characters”. Your argument seems to demand that despite police and press giving wideawake man the least public attention, they were all secretly interested in him the most. I can’t buy it.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"since you’ve repeated yourself very extensively from a previous thread and made claims that have already been challenged vehemently there, I hope you’ll forgive the odd copy and paste here and there."

Yeah, Ben. Just read your contribution to the Examiner,speaking of that!

"you already know full well that others here are of the opinion that there is plenty of “reasonable doubt” over this issue"

Absolutely. But if the same people - that would be you and Garry, right? - would claim that a pea equals a carrott, I would not be too convinced by that argument either.

"We have no evidence that a re-interview of this nature ever occurred, however, which suggests that this incongruity was never noticed"

It first and foremost suggests that we have no record of any re-interwiew, Ben. I am quite convinced, for example, that the police interwiewed Hutchinson more than just the one time. The fact that we do not have those interwiews at hand does not prove that they were completely satisfied with the first one, as generously proven by the discrediting he received.

"Even the discerning folk at Washington’s Evening Star, who believed that Hutchinson himself ought to be considered a suspect on account of his implausible statement, failed to arrive at that “Eureka” moment as far as Lewis’ evidence was concerned."

Did they? Or did they simply follow up on a fact that was so obvious that it took no mentioning? I think that is a VERY open question.

"The few indicators (that) exist would suggest that the Hutchinson-Wideawake connection was never made."

It quickly enough went out of fashion, Ben. The reason why is to be found in my article in the Examiner.

"If anyone finds this remotely unlikely, and wants to suggest that the police couldn’t possibly have bypassed something of this nature, they’d do well to research a few high profile murder investigations. The all-too-human propensity to overlook seemingly trivial details, especially when deluged with “leads” ..."

I would prefer to take the Kelly case for what it was - a case involving very few witnesses saying very little. The connection - that never WAS a connection - would not have gone by the noses of the police OR the press. But now you have me repeating myself, Ben!

"it’s worth remembering that Lewis’ loiterer received demonstrably scant attention when compared to the more immediately “suspicious” individuals, of which there were at least three; Blotchy, Astrakhan, and the Bethnal Green Botherer with the black bag."

The Betnal Green Botherer was never tied to the time and place, Ben. And I really believe that the police got their priorities right. It was not rocket science, was it?

"There is evidence that he was ruled out as a witness. There certainly hasn’t been any widespread acceptance that he was investigated as a suspect and ruled conclusively out as one, and for damnably good reason: it almost certainly didn’t happen."

Correct. Which is why the police were able to lay any such claim to rest at a very early stage.

"I still find it very surprising that you still argue that, “they were faced with the fact that the two sightings did not refer to the same individual.”

I will argue it tomorrow too, Ben. And the day after that ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“Then again, when somebody takes the step from a signed confidence (as per Abberline) to a confidently manifested disinterest, we must realize that such a thing calls for an explanation.”

Fisherman, since you’ve repeated yourself very extensively from a previous thread and made claims that have already been challenged vehemently there, I hope you’ll forgive the odd copy and paste here and there.

Take this claim, for instance:

“There can be no reasonable doubt that the police noted this match in testimony inbetween Lewis and Hutchinson.”

But you already know full well that others here are of the opinion that there is plenty of “reasonable doubt” over this issue. Indeed, they are of the opinion that the police probably didn’t observe this match. As you’ve pointed out, Lewis provided a description at the inquest that wasn't offered in her police statement, but if the police noticed this, they would have re-interviewed Lewis and asked her to account for this alteration. We have no evidence that a re-interview of this nature ever occurred, however, which suggests that this incongruity was never noticed, and that the police were satisfied with the information contained in the Lewis police report in which she claimed that the "cannot describe" the wideawake man.

When I observed that: “nobody has remarked upon it for over a century” I was referring to the complete absence of any indication that the striking similarity between Hutchinson and Lewis’ wideawake man was ever noticed until the mid-1990s, and crucially, we can include the contemporary press in that group. Even the discerning folk at Washington’s Evening Star, who believed that Hutchinson himself ought to be considered a suspect on account of his implausible statement, failed to arrive at that “Eureka” moment as far as Lewis’ evidence was concerned.

The few indicators that exist would suggest that the Hutchinson-Wideawake connection was never made.

Certainly, there’s no evidence that it was.

If anyone finds this remotely unlikely, and wants to suggest that the police couldn’t possibly have bypassed something of this nature, they’d do well to research a few high profile murder investigations. The all-too-human propensity to overlook seemingly trivial details, especially when deluged with “leads” that need pursuing, cannot be gainsaid, and it’s worth remembering that Lewis’ loiterer received demonstrably scant attention when compared to the more immediately “suspicious” individuals, of which there were at least three; Blotchy, Astrakhan, and the Bethnal Green Botherer with the black bag.

“the police had ruled Hutchinson out on sound enough grounds for people to accept that there would be no sense to go looking for the killer in Hutchinson”

There is evidence that he was ruled out as a witness. There certainly hasn’t been any widespread acceptance that he was investigated as a suspect and ruled conclusively out as one, and for damnably good reason: it almost certainly didn’t happen.

I still find it very surprising that you still argue that, “they were faced with the fact that the two sightings did not refer to the same individual.” Misappropriated F-words aside, that would leave us with the astonishing coincidence of two separate individuals at the same location, engaging in the same activity of watching and waiting outside Miller’s Court at the same time in the small hours of the morning.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben (as quoted by Caz):

"...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."

If we cut this down to:

"... the police ... came to believe ... that he was not outside the crime scene when he claimed to be there."

,then I´d very much agree with you, Ben. For that much we can all understand from the quickly growing disinterest attaching to Hutchinson on the police´s behalf.

Then again, when somebody takes the step from a signed confidence (as per Abberline) to a confidently manifested disinterest, we must realize that such a thing calls for an explanation. A good one, preferably. And even if we cannot name that explanation, we can actually rule a few things out. And Hutchinsons detailed description of the man he claimed to have seen is one of them, since it very firmly belongs to the collection of items Abberline stamped "approved".
Ergo, something else was what brought about Hutchinson´s fall from grace.

My own stance is that this something also pointed out to the police that although they had two corroborating stories of a man opposite Miller´s Court at 2.30 in the morning, they were faced with the fact that the two sightings did not refer to the same individual.
Of course, as Caz has suggested, it could owe to some degree to a great dissimilarity inbetween the description given by Lewis and the factual physical appearance of George Hutchinson himself, but I would not bet too much money on it. The police knew full well that Lewis´original statement to them had not contained any description at all of the man she saw; it was not until the inquest that she did make a (very diffuse) description of her man. Therefore, there could never rest any real security in a ruling out of Hutchinson being the man on those premises only.

The suggestion that the police may not have picked up on the fact that both Lewis and Hutchinson described a man standing opposite Millers Court at the very same time, is not a viable one to my mind. There was a scarcity of witnesses, and we all know that what was recorded from Kellys inquest is a very short story. There can be no reasonable doubt that the police noted this match in testimony inbetween Lewis and Hutchinson.
The fact that "nobody has remarked upon it for over a century" would to a very large extent owe to the fact that it was accepted from the outset that there was nothing to remark about - the police had ruled Hutchinson out on sound enough grounds for people to accept that there would be no sense to go looking for the killer in Hutchinson. It is not until we loose track of the original reason for the police´s decision that Hutchinson´s candidacy for the Rippership can rise from the grave in which the police buried it back in 1888. And maybe we should regard the fact that he was not pointed out as a Ripper candidate until fairly late in the process as something very, very sound, instead of something to be astonished by. Maybe the ones who studied the case from the outset, more than a hundred years ago, saved a lot of valuable time by never even beginning to ask themselves "Could it have been Hutchinson?"

That, at least, is my suggestion.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“How safe is it for you to be suggesting that the police likely missed this completely and without anything to go on but gut instinct”

Pretty safe really, Caz, considering that nobody has remarked upon it for over a century (until it was written about as a possibility in the mid 1990s, apparently), and the complete absence of any evidence that the police did pick up on it. That doesn’t mean, however, that I’ve never considered the possibility that they noticed the Hutchinson/Wideawake similarity, and as I hope you’ve noticed from other recent threads, I’ve discussed in detail the likely consequence of the police registering that connection. Unfortunately, for those eager beavers keen to rule Hutchinson out of any possible involvement in Kelly’s death (and I’m not necessarily including you in this group), that “likely consequence” very probably did not consist of a mysterious lost-to-history “alibi” for 4.00am on a Friday morning, or a tall, thin physical description of him that destroyed his candidacy for the wideawake man.

If they considered, for a moment, the possibility that Hutchinson was Lewis’ man, they would have been left with the author of a discredited witness sighting who was nonetheless at the scene of the crime when he claimed to be there, and that would naturally create suspicions in the minds of the police. How could it not? Unfortunately, the police were very unlikely to have been in a position to progress with those suspicions for reasons discussed extensively elsewhere.

But that explanation is predicated on too many “must haves” for which we have no evidence. Consequently, therefore, the above explanation is not my personal favourite.

Instead, I think it rather more likely that the police never considered Hutchinson in the capacity of the Lewis loiterer, which is very different from arguing that he was ruled out as such. There are compelling indications that his account was discredited, but crucially, no evidence that he was ever suspected as a consequence, at least not of killing anybody. With regard to the wideawake man seen by Lewis, there is also no evidence that the police specifically sought out the identity of this individual. On the contrary, it seems more than likely that the potential significance of Lewis’ loitering man was considerably overlooked on account of her more sensational description of her other suspect (with the pale face and the black bag), and the fact that police attention was subsequently diverted first by “Blotchy” and then by “Astrakhan”, with the loitering man never receiving the focus that he perhaps deserved (and might well have received, if the 1888 police knew that serial killers will often monitor their intended murder venues from a vantage point).

It strikes me as very likely indeed that Hutchinson was considered just another false witnesses who was presumed by police not have been anywhere near the crime scene when he claimed to have been, just like Emmanuel Violenia (another demonstrably “false witness”). Did the police make this judgement erroneously, and fail to heed the indications that Hutchinson really was there? Yes, in my opinion they did, but I’d be astonished if I didn’t come to the same conclusion if I were in their shoes in 1888.

“I can only recall the fair and reasonable argument that any modern forger capable of creating the thing in the first place could and should have obtained something by the real James to copy if the object was to fool the experts into believing it was genuine and make a fortune on the back of it.”

Well, yes, that would be a “fair and reasonable argument” providing those doing the arguing take it to its logical conclusion, i.e. that the modern forger’s failure to “have something by the real James to copy” is only evidence that the modern forgery was particularly unsophisticated in that regard. I agree that the “older hoax” hypothesis doesn’t suffer quite so much on this point, given the likelihood that examples of James’ handwriting would have been far harder to come by in earlier times. But I really wasn’t addressing the “old versus modern” debate. What I was challenging was the occasionally touted fantasy – not by you, but I can assure you it’s been tried a few times (Soothy?) – that the failure to recreate the real James’ handwriting is evidence that the real James wrote it, and they make that deduction via the faulty reasoning I outlined earlier in this thread.

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

...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.

That's not saying much though, Ben, considering how strongly you argue on the other hand for the obvious similarity between Lewis's account of her lurker and Hutch's account of himself, and the overwhelming likelihood that this was no coincidence and they concerned the same man. How safe is it for you to be suggesting that the police likely missed this completely and without anything to go on but gut instinct, went in totally the opposite direction, to conclude he was never even there, and that whoever Lewis saw it wasn't this man?

The only really safe explanation, if you expect weight to be given to both of your arguments, is that the obvious similarity between the two ended before it began, with the physical presence of Hutch at the police station indicating no match with Lewis's lurker. They saw him in the flesh, we didn’t. And that could have undermined his own claim to have been there, not strengthened it. How likely was Lewis not to have seen someone who was claiming to have been at the same spot for nearly an hour? It could only have helped to discredit his whole account if it was obvious that Lewis had not seen or described the man in front of them.

The whole thing relies on Hutch being Lewis’s lurker, but the police failing to see any possible resemblance between the two and indeed believing they were two different individuals, one present, one not. Perhaps he adopted a cunning disguise for one or other of his appearances? But if it was a 'murder' disguise he would not be recognised without it so no need to come forward, and if it was a disguise just while 'helping' the police he'd have been taking a risk.

You told Fisherman:

...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.

It would have been a bad argument if I could recall anyone actually making it. I don't want to take the thread further off topic but at the same time you can't just invoke Maybrick like this and expect to get away with it. I can only recall the fair and reasonable argument that any modern forger capable of creating the thing in the first place could and should have obtained something by the real James to copy if the object was to fool the experts into believing it was genuine and make a fortune on the back of it.

With an older hoax, however, the need to copy would depend on whether anything by James was thought to be accessible at the time. If not, who would have known if it resembled his writing or not? And with an older hoax it would be more difficult to guess at the motivation and hope to get it right. Its creator may not even have intended it to be taken seriously for all we know.

Love,

Caz
X

[sleekviper]

I think, that if she was attempting to hide profits from McCarthy, and tell clients what was happening, a signal would work in three ways; to say busy, not at home/asleep, come in. Keeping a group of regular customers is literally a matter of life and death, STD's are a major concern. If she has that, but can't make headway because McCarthy is skimming, she will be saying that she lost a consumer base, and standing around as if she was seeking new clients, but it ultimately may have just been a means to keep McCarthy from suspecting the truth. Much like, before the age of computers, someone claiming to look for employment, yet never leaves a house, is cause to doubt the spoken intent.
McCarthy, for his part, waits till nearly 11 am to send someone for rent, the day of the dreaded discovery. The later one waits in an age with cash being king, the more chance that cash will be gone. If he waits because she was up late, why not go down and get it before it was spent or lost while she was up? If he does not know, she could have been long gone by that hour.
Hutch waiting for the busy signal to turn to anything but busy would have him confused. If a customer is paying for the night, change the signal to asleep, if not staying, what is taking so long? Bowyer had little problem seeing into the room, so I figured a quiet Hutch might not as well. I can see someone thinking about a sexual connection, peeking in a room and being stung with the horror of this depth, then switching from helpful to not so helpful as the struggle to do what one feels is right battles self preservation. Police can only watch him for so long, and as far as he knows, it is his word against a killer since there is no one else to report having seen this man in action. Well, none that are alive have said anything. I am the first to admit it may be wrong, it is just a thought.

[Rubyretro]

around that can confirm that this was in use in the East End of 1888?

As you well know, we can all confirm that fact..

However :
-We know that Mary solicited on the streets and took men home
-We know that Mary lived in a room giving onto a small courtyard rather
than in a room giving onto a busy street
-We know that Mary was very drunk on the night when she was killed, and the hour was very late
-We know that Mary had already had at least one customer that night...(if not more)..so presumably she had already earned some money.

So what are the chances that she just crashed out in bed, rather than put a
'sign' in her window, which no one would see ?

[Fisherman]

Sleekviper:

"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."

Hear, hear, Sleekviper! Now, that is what I call common sense! Anybody around that can confirm that this was in use in the East End of 1888?

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

No there wasn't.

Mike

Forgive me if I'm wrong...I thought that the City Police offered a £500 reward (1st October)
for anyone giving information leading to the actual capture and conviction of the Ripper (following the death of Eddowes), and the Lord Mayor of London promised to match the sum (in the name of the Corparations of London).

As I understood it (but I'm only using memory), there was some contention over offering a reward, and discussion in Parliament over the Government's refusal to do so -as they felt that it would lead to a plethora of false witnesses.

I seem to remember that there were also some private rich men who at least talked about clubbing together to offer a reward -and it was reported in the papers.

....I shall go off and try to find confirmation..

[Ben]

“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..”

But this is precisely why I contend he came forward, Richard. If he was dragged in as a suspect without having first pretended to be a witness, there was a far greater sense of inevitability that these identity attempts by other witnesses would have taken place. By coming forward first under the guise of a co-operative informant, there was a reduced likelihood of this happening, since an 1888 police force were very unlikely to have considered the possibility of the real murderer coming forward and requesting an audience with the police.

This why I don’t remotely share your confidence that the police checked his clothes for bloodstains etc. As I’ve mentioned already, it is very unlikely that these tell-tale signs would have left an incriminating mark, and if blood traces did find their way onto his inner garments (shirt cuffs for instance), it could easily have been disposed of. As for checking and “verifying” his movements since Friday morning, this was only possible in the broadest sense as he could hardly have possessed an alibi for every minute of that three-day period, and even then the results of that checking would hardly have cast any light on the issue of whether or not Hutchinson lied or killed anyone.

“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.?”

I can’t possibly say with any degree of certainly, but if he was involved in Kelly’s death, the act of coming forward under a false guise in spite the possibility of being exposed has been resorted to by known serial and one-off offenders, so we’re simply not in position to decry the suggestion as remotely outlandish, and it certainly isn’t a “conspiracy”.

“In other words the police would have known off record, if infact Hutch had money on his person when he encountered Mary, and told her a fib, or if true how he managed to secure accomodation at the Victoria since. Which must have satisfied them.”

Oh, here we go – “off record”. Why is it always the “off-record” explanations that are used to cast Hutchinson in a favourable light? If Hutchinson had disclosed to Abberline that any claim made in the body of the statement - such as having no money to give Kelly – did not reflect the reality of the situation, Abberline would certainly have mentioned it in the accompanying report. The fact that no such detail was mentioned is a compelling and obvious indication that the police had accepted – at this early stage, at least – Hutchinson’s “no money” explanation.

“are we suggesting that after the bloodbath in room 13, that he [ if the killer] would have returned to his very well inhabited lodgings, free of any signs , physical, or mental.?”

I’m suggesting that as a very plausible explanation, yes, but more on this on the “Did Jack live in a Lodging House” thread?

Best regards,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

There was also a huge reward going for the Ripper's capture

No there wasn't.

Mike

[richardnunweek]

Hi Rubyretro,
I feel regarding the having 'no money' aspect, what Hutchinson claimed to have said to Kelly is proberly true to a certain extent, the fact that he had money, or a pass, to return to The Victoria home at 6am on the morning of the 9th, and on the 10th /11th,would have been enquired upon at his interview
In other words the police would have known off record, if infact Hutch had money on his person when he encountered Mary, and told her a fib, or if true how he managed to secure accomodation at the Victoria since.
Which must have satisfied them.
By Hutchinsons own admission he returned to his lodgings just after 6am on the 9th...are we suggesting that after the bloodbath in room 13, that he [ if the killer] would have returned to his very well inhabited lodgings, free of any signs , physical, or mental.?
I am convinced, that the police suspected after the Kelly murder, that the Ripper had some safe haven to flee to, and proberly had someone assisting him , by keeping quiet....Hense the pardon .
Regards Richard.

[Rubyretro]

I've already said that I don't believe any of the witnesses ever saw Jack knowingly (maybe Mrs Long -I'm back peddling furiously, now -from the back ; but Hutch took pains with his A Man description to play up the 'foreign looking' aspect).

IF Hutch were the Ripper, then only he would know what to fear (or not) from any 'line up'.

I think that the only person who risked identifying him was Mrs Lewis -but as you rightly said, Richard, if he'd already stated clearly that he was in the same place as her 'Wideawake hatted man', at the same time, and doing the same thing -why would he fear that ?

the blood on clothing is an excellent point; still we know that the Ripper would not have been covered in visible blood -both because of what we can deduce from the autopsies, and the fact that people passed in the street, or who unwittingly knew the murderer, didn't notice it (whoever he was).

doubtlessly the Ripper would have loads of blood of the victims caught in the fibres of his clothing and invisible to the naked eye -and assuming that he dabbed off visible stains off a dark jacket when they were 'fresh'. There just didn't exist the forensic techniques then to a) detect 'invisible' blood or b) link it to the victims.

We have no idea what Hutch did between the time of MJK's death and his presenting himself to the Police (except that he didn't go far from the area);
Maybe he pawned any clothing that he thought might be incriminating -and that was how he could afford the Victoria Home on Sunday, although he said that he had no money left after 'going down to Romford' ?

[richardnunweek]

sorry last three words Told the truth...more haste less speed.
Richard.