The Surly Man

[Rubyretro]

Hi Ruby - that's hilarious! I hope your computer will do as it's told from now on!

I think I may have wondered before about this - if Hutchinson was the murderer, didn't he shoot himself in the foot somewhat? Why would he do that? Do you think he didn't think that far ahead?

Yep, I think that he probably didn't think that far ahead in his excitement at
butchering MJK , and his thrill at his own cleverness in preserving himself from any accusations from Mrs Lewis..

Maybe he was someone good at 'snap decisions', who lived for the moment -and less good at long term planning...?

[Ben]

With regard to the alleged "Petticoat Lane" sighting, I think Garry spotted the fly in the ointment with that one. Hutchinson claimed that he could "swear to the man anywhere". Well, anywhere except Petticoat Lane it would seem, where he only "fancied" that he saw the same man again and "could not" be certain.

So much for swearing to the man "anywhere".

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"With regard to the alleged "Petticoat Lane" sighting, I think Garry spotted the fly in the ointment with that one. Hutchinson claimed that he could "swear to the man anywhere". Well, anywhere except Petticoat Lane it would seem, where he only "fancied" that he saw the same man again and "could not" be certain.
So much for swearing to the man "anywhere"."

Ben, your post reiterates what the others are asking, more or less. And it has the same flaw.

Hutchinson said that he could swear to the man anywhere, yes. And that would mean that if he was offered the possibility to take a good look at this man, he could identify him. Like things are done in a witness parade, more or less - you get to take a close look, and then you know.

But where does it say that Hutchinson got a good look at the Petticoat Lane man? We donīt even know if he saw that man from the front, do we? What if he saw him from the back, more or less, and recognized the clothes? What if he saw a man of the same height, wearing spats, astrakhan coat and all, FROM THE BACK? He may well have thought: "There he is! Must be him, mustnīt it?"

Would you have Hutchinson swear to the man under such circumstances?

If he saw the man from a hundred yards away, would you have him swear to him?

If he saw his face from the side in a tram wagon from thirty yards away, would you demand that he swore to him?

Can we be a bit more realistic here? I think we all would agree that there are innumerable possibilities for poor sightings of a person in a market, sightings that only allow for a suspicion that you are later not able to confirm if the person in question disappears in the crowd.

If we had had an assertion that Hutchinson got a long, good and close look at the Petticoat Lane man, THEN we could raise the demand that he should be able to swear to him. But in all the other, innumerable cases?
Have you never seen somebody in a crowd that you believed were your wife, father, mother, brother or sister, or somebody else closely connected to you - only to later realize that you were mistaken? And can I not take it that you would be able to swear to your wife, your father, mother, brother or sister "anywhere"?

We cannot make assumptions based on what he think or hope for. The Petticoat Lane sighting may have been of ANY quality, and that would have governed Hutchinsons verdict. We may also realize that Hutchinson did not say "I fancy I saw him in Petticoat Lane", but instead "I fancied I saw him ...", pointing to the possibility that he had changed his mind later on for some reason.

...and thatīs that!

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Hi Fisherman

I believe there are one or two photos of Petticoat Lane market on a Sunday on the East End Photos thread. There may even be a short film on Youtube.

Lots of people, the majority obviously Jewish in appearance, wearing very similar clothing, and all in hats, packed like Sardines.

Jon

[Rubyretro]

.

...and thatīs that!

The best,
Fisherman[/QUOTE]


It's not quite as simple as that though...

By the time that Hutch thought that he may of seen A Man again, he must have been aware that Mary Kelly had been found horribly butchered in her room -I shouldn't think that people in the neighbourhood were talking of much else, let alone the fact that Police and sightseers were pouring into the
area.

Hutch -according to himself- not only knew the dead woman, but had supposedly seen a man, fitting the popular image of the Ripper (and carrying a suspicious package !), go into her room just before the murder and not come out...even though he had hung about watching the room for about 3/4 of an hour ! The inference is plain that he had seen the top suspect for being the Whitechapel murderer....

...and then he got a glimpse of someone who might have been that same
'murderer' at the market -a man that not only all of London was looking for, but for who's arrest a gigantic reward was in the offing..

I'd have thought that he would have followed that man at all costs, and done anything to get a better look at him. I contend (looking at that film of Petticoat Lane Market) that it would be impossible for A Man to melt into the crowd..he would have stood out...and he would not be able to move away quickly amongst all those people, and why would he hide if he didn't realise that he was being followed by Hutch ?...because your story of just a 'glimpse', Fish, would mean that A Man couldn't have been looking full on at
Hutch (and Hutch would have looked like the rest of the crowd).

I'm afraid that Hutch's account does not stand up to scrutiny. I am sure that he only mentioned Petticoat Lane, because it was a predominately Jewish market, and he wanted to insist on the point that his fictitious suspect was a Jew.

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

"I believe there are one or two photos of Petticoat Lane market on a Sunday on the East End Photos thread. There may even be a short film on Youtube.

Lots of people, the majority obviously Jewish in appearance, wearing very similar clothing, and all in hats, packed like Sardines."

Exactly, Jon - not the best of surroundings to perform witness identifications, I should think...

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

I posted the bit of film earlier in this thread.

A Man would have stood out like a sore thumb (although the film was taken 15 years after the Events, and apparently in the summer..so no overcoats).

The people are packed in 'like sardines' because there is a camera there filming them -a huge novelty event- and some toffs evidently arranging the filming !!

[Fisherman]

Rubyretro:

"It's not quite as simple as that though..."

It is, Iīm afraid; we have no idea at all about the circumstances under which Hutchinson saw a man that resembled astrakhan man in Petticoat Lane, and therefore we cannot tell how good (or bad) a chance he stood to make some sort of identification. It really is quite simple.

"By the time that Hutch thought that he may of seen A Man again, he must have been aware that Mary Kelly had been found horribly butchered in her room"

That is what you conclude, Ruby. Things "must" have been the way you believe they were, and therefore Hutch "must" have been a nefarious character.
Well, let me use your own vocabulary, Ruby: Its not quite as simple as that.
Have you pondered the fact that Hutchinson did not come forward until three days after the killing? What if that owed to him not having heard about it until then, for reasons we cannot establish? That, of course, would be to read the evidence in another way than your preferred one - the "must-have" version, if you like.
Consider it, Ruby. You "must" actually, if you want to be open-minded.

"...then he got a glimpse of someone who might have been that same
'murderer' at the market -a man that not only all of London was looking for, but for who's arrest a gigantic reward was in the offing.."

Take a look at what happens if Hutchinson was still unaware of the Kelly slaying. Or if he knew somebody had been slain, but had no idea it was Kelly. How nefarious does the story come across then?
And even if he knew, once again: We do not know the circumstances in Petticoat Lane, and most people who are not sure about things, do not bother the police with their stories.

"I'd have thought that he would have followed that man at all costs, and done anything to get a better look at him."

And how on earth do you know that he didnīt, Ruby? Where does it say that he leisurely let the man walk? Tell me!

"I contend (looking at that film of Petticoat Lane Market) that it would be impossible for A Man to melt into the crowd..he would have stood out..."

Take a look at Jonīs post above, Ruby. The marketers were packed like sardines. What does it tell you? It tells me that these are circumstances under which anybody could disappear, without having any actual wish to do so, even. The crowding settles that.

"I'm afraid that Hutch's account does not stand up to scrutiny. I am sure that he only mentioned Petticoat Lane, because it was a predominately Jewish market, and he wanted to insist on the point that his fictitious suspect was a Jew."

Yes, Ruby, I know: You are "sure" of this, althoug you have no, silch, nada substantiation at all. In my book, THAT does not stand up to scrutiny in a million years. And thatīs sad, because I would much more like to congratulate you on a careful analysis than on a fruitful fantasy. As it stands, though: no.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"The people are packed in 'like sardines' because there is a camera there filming them"

Have you ever been to Petticoat Lane market, Ruby? Even today, it is a crowded business - cameras or no cameras.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Have you ever been to Petticoat Lane market, Ruby? Even today, it is a crowded business - cameras or no cameras.

The best,
Fisherman[/QUOTE]

...but given the opportunity of maybe catching a notorious serial killer, who had killed a woman with whom you were on friendly terms, and claiming a huge amount of reward money, you would still be able to follow a man through the busy market, until such time as you saw a Policeman.

Better to make a 'mistake' and accuse the wrong man (if he were innocent, he could probably prove it) rather than risk letting the killer (and the reward)
get away..

[Jon Guy]

Exactly, Jon - not the best of surroundings to perform witness identifications, I should think...

That`s how I see it, Fisherman.

...and easily lost in the crowd, I would imagine..

Jon

[Jon Guy]

The people are packed in 'like sardines' because there is a camera there filming them -a huge novelty event- and some toffs evidently arranging the filming !!

True, Ruby.

But there are other photos looking down on the street from the surrounding buildings which show the extent of the crowding.

Jon

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"but given the opportunity of maybe catching a notorious serial killer, who had killed a woman with whom you were on friendly terms, and claiming a huge amount of reward money, you would still be able to follow a man through the busy market, until such time as you saw a Policeman."

A/ Actually, Ruby, the density of the crowd in a market is not affected by single persons differing convictions - it remains the same no matter how many killers you think you see. The same applies for the propensity of people disappearing in crowds - no matter how intent you are on keeping an eye on somebody, there is only so much you can do about it.

B/ We STILL donīt know if Hutchinson at this stage thought of astrakhan man as the killer of Kelly. Actually, if he did, I would expect him to tell the newspapers about efforts on his behalf not to loose him out of sight or to call the police to the place. But no such thing is mentioned. Interestingly, this tells the two of us different things. It tells me that he may either not have known at that stage that Kelly had been killed two days earlier, or he may have been in a situation where he realized that he would not be able to follow the man, or, finally, he may have decided on the spot that it probably was not astrakhan man after all: "I fancied I saw him, but I was not certain".
You, on the other hand, read a lot of sinister things into this. And it is all governed by your chosen wiew that Hutchinson was Kellys killer. Therefore, he MUST have been able to identify astrakhan man, therefore you are SURE that he mentioned Petticoat Lane since it was a predominantly Jewish market and therefore, Hutchinson could NEVER have been in a position where he was unable to follow and capture the man. It all MUST have been the way you think, because... because... eh, otherwise... you may be wrong? No?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

A few samples:

http://aliciapatterson.org/APF001971/Downie/Downie11/Downie02.jpg

Thatīs 1972, the first year I went to the Petticoat Lane market

http://www.age-exchange.org.uk/projects/past/ryee/TH_images/16_petticoatlane7.jpg

...and 1961 …

http://www.ourwardfamily.com/1800s/A_London_Street_-_Petticoat_lane_1.JPG

...and at the end of the 19:th century.

How about it, Ruby – is there no way that people could disappear in these crowds? And did they all come about since there were cameras around...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

What if that owed to him not having heard about it until then, for reasons we cannot establish? That, of course, would be to read the evidence in another way than your preferred one - the "must-have" version, if you like.
Consider it, Ruby. You "must" actually, if you want to be open-minded.

[QUOTE]

Take a look at what happens if Hutchinson was still unaware of the Kelly slaying. Or if he knew somebody had been slain, but had no idea it was Kelly. How nefarious does the story come across then?

I'm not ashamed of the word 'must' in this context. I was going to change 'must' to 'almost certainly', but the word is 'must' alright.
We have a man living within a stone's throw of the room where the latest in a series of murders took place -murders which were being reported all over the world, not just in London , or in the locality- and this one was exceptional in it's savagery.
We know that Police had to cordon off the road, and we know that crowds gathered at the sites of these murders.
Mary was a very local girl to Hutch, whom he must have known by sight (even if he was lying about knowing her), and he lodged in the same place as her boyfriend's brother and her ex. The whole of the Victoria must have been talking about it.
The shopkeepers must have been full of it (did this man not eat ?), pubs
must have been full of it, newspaper vendors calling on the street...was this man deaf and blind ?
I'm sorry, but he MUST have known.

Even (supposing) that he didn't know the woman's name..and I suggest that it was being bandied about...he would surely know that the murder was that of a prostitute, in Miller's Court. Are you seriously suggesting that he was so devoid of imagination and curiosity as to not ask her name, seeing that he had been in Miller's Court himself at the time of the murder ?

He certainly painted himself as a curious man.

So, if he obviously (and I'm sorry, I will use the word obviously) knew of Mary's murder, and the vignette with A Man was a reality- was he so dumb that he didn't immediately suspect A Man of being the killer ? Well, why not ?
A Man would seem an absolutely obvious suspect to me.

So when there was even the CHANCE that the man he saw in Petticoat Market was the same man, why didn't he follow him and try and find a Policeman ?

OK most people don't bother the Police with things that they're not sure about. We will leave aside for a minute a natural human desire to want to catch the murderer before he kills another human being, a maybe desire to have the kudos of being responsible for bringing a notorious killer to justice...the 'reward' (surely publicised, otherwise there would be no point to it) would be a huge motivation in itself ; it was a fantastic amount of money
for a precarious living East End man -what could he risk by making a mistake ??...I just do not buy that it was 'timidity at 'not bothering' the Police !

Certainly there are very many people in the pics of Petticoat -people that would slow up the progress of A Man walking through the market unawares, and would help -rather than hinder- someone tracking them.

I don't buy that A Man could 'melt into a crowd' , since his coat, jewellery,
spats etc show him as someone 'well off, and the majority of people in the place were not well off. As a shopkeeper (and having worked street markets, with friends that still do !), I KNOW that street traders eye up everyone that comes along and sum up whether they are potential customers..even if you momentarily 'lost' the man, you could ask a stall holder 'where did he go?' and
they would tell you..

If you think that A Man was 'dressing down' in the market -well , why would he hide his wealth, in daylight, with a high police presence in the area, -yet go to Millers Court after midnight with his coat flapping open to expose a gold watch ?? How many overcoats and watches would he own, anyway ?

Or did he disguise himself as a visible rich toff to go to the slums bent on murder , and then disguise himself as a poor 'crowd infiltrating' bloke for his innocent market shopping ?