The Surly Man

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"I'm sorry, but he MUST have known."

No. Simply no. We can´t tell, much as we want to.

"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 ?"

I´m not suggesting things at all, Ruby. You are. I´m having a hard time dispelling them.

You are quite satisfied to think that he knew about the killing, and that he knew about the name of the victim - and yet, he did nothing for three days. He did not go to the police and tell them that he could have seen the Ripper for three days, and he did not tell the papers that he did all he could to catch that probable killer in Petticoat Lane. He just sat tight, and the police were apparently happy to accept whatever explanation he had to offer.

Surely, Ruby, if you have any interest at all to reach an understanding of what happened back then, you must realize that a good deal points to Hutchinson not being aware that Kelly had been killed on Sunday morning? No matter that you personally think that he must have known all about it.

"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?"

No, Ruby - which is why we have very good reason to believe that he may NOT have known all the details of the murder - including the identity of the victim. Try looking at it from the other angle, Ruby - it helps!

"what could he risk by making a mistake?"

Why, Ruby, would he even give chase, if he did not even know that Mary was the victim? If all the astrakhan man was guilty of was being astrakhan man? Once again, look at all possibilities, Ruby!

"Certainly there are very many people in the pics of Petticoat"

Ah - progress!

"people that would slow up the progress of A Man walking through the market unawares, and would help -rather than hinder- someone tracking them."

Aha - they would hinder astrakhan man, but not any pursuer...? Sort of a biblical Red Sea scenario?

"I don't buy that A Man could 'melt into a crowd'"

There are lots of thing you don´t buy, Ruby. And you are welcome to your wiew, long as you realize that other people - for some reason - don´t share it.

"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 ?"

I don´t "think" that he "dressed down". I am pointing out the very obvious fact that Friday and Sunday were two days apart and that he COULD have changed his clothing, totally or to some extent. I do not deal in "feeling sure" that he did so, I won´t tell you that I "know" that he did or that he "must" have done - I am merely pointing to the fact that when you assess evidence, you need to keep an open mind on the parts where you cannot make a fact-based decision in either way. I firmly believe that this is a far, far better and more honest approach to things, than it would be to make claims about things that I cannot possibly know the full truth about. That is how I approach things like these, and it is not likely to change in the near future.

That is also why a question like "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 ?" is completely ridiculous in this context. I could not possibly know, could I?

Moreover, nor could you, Ruby.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Wow, and here we are again in what threatens to become another long debate over Hutchinson. Excellent.

Hi Fisherman,

There’s really no “flaw” in my suggestion.

“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.”

But “anywhere” means “anywhere”, surely? And “anywhere” also encompasses longer distances at different locations, such as Petticoat Lane from further away. If Hutchinson had claimed to be able to swear to the man at an organized identity parade or at unusually close quarters that would be another matter. As it stands, he clearly undermined his original claim to swear the man anywhere by making Petticoat Lane an odd exception; a point not lost on Garry Wroe who observed in Person or Persons Unknown:

“Additional incongruities arise once the subject of the Jewish dandy is broached. “I could swear to the man anywhere,” says Hutchinson. But then, “I fancy that I saw him in Petticoat Lane on Sunday morning, but I was not certain.” Consequently we have on the one hand Hutchinson’s singularly detailed police description, whilst on the other a surprising degree of hesitancy regarding the Petticoat Lane sighting. Here was a suspect whose appearance evokes images of the archetypal music hall bogyman, an individual who would have stood out in a crowd of hundreds. Yet two days after initially encountering him, Hutchinson experienced uncertainty over a possible second sighting. Quite simply, this does not ring true.”

Since several others here have made the same observation, I don’t think we can be accused of being “unrealistic” en masse.

“What if he saw a man of the same height, wearing spats, astrakhan coat and all, FROM THE BACK?”

Then I would have expected him to either specify as much in his statement, or better still, take steps to get a better, i.e. frontal view of the man whose behaviour and appearance of two night’s previously had been such a fascination to him, and who he would now consider the most likely suspect for the murder of his three-year acquaintance.

We don’t need to go down the reductio ad absurdum route here and start making analogies with tram wagons etc. The obvious point is that Hutchinson clearly had an opportunity to improve upon his alleged second sighting, and his failure to do so is just an inexplicable as his sudden “uncertainty over a possible second sighting” after swearing to the man anywhere. If I thought I saw someone who looked like a family member in a crowd, I’d certainly pursue the matter, and if I thought I recognized someone who had just murdered a person I’d known for three years (someone I had clearly been fascinated with two days ago), I’d certainly take steps to make sure.

Anyway, without wishing to sound rude, what’s your dog in this hunt, exactly? I was under the impression that you considered Hutchinson a liar who wasn’t even there when he claimed to be, and that his account was rightly discarded?

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

“you must realize that a good deal points to Hutchinson not being aware that Kelly had been killed on Sunday morning?”

What??

Nothing in the world, ever, points to this.

Even if he missed the papers, which were free at the Victoria Home, the chances of him failing to pick up the gossip in the streets of any town of city (let alone the East End itself where he lived and presumably worked) are effectively zero. Slightly astonished that anyone could even begin to argue otherwise.

With respect here, there’s open-mindedness and there’s borderline impossible suggestions.

Look, we can argue this issue to eternity (and I probably will, if necessary), but the point is that Hutchinson’s account was discredited, and his suspect was certainly not considered a likely candidate in the ripper murders. Any attempt, therefore, to try and spot a ray of truth in one of the more dubious aspects of an already dubious and discredited account seems like a futile exercise to me. One need only recall that this claim to have recognised the man again is followed by an additional claim that cannot possibly be true, unless we accept vast police negligence as an acceptable alternative explanation. He claimed to have told a policeman about the Miller’s Court encounter, and we’re expected to believe that this policeman took no further action.

As for Hutchinson's likely motivation for fabricating a subsequent Petticoat Lane encounter, my personal guess is that the street's strong Jewish associations had a good deal to do with it. In the case of the mysterious policeman, this was undoubtedly Hutchinson's attempt to explain his failure to alert the police earlier; "Oh, but I did".

[Defective Detective]

I've heard the argument that Hutchinson was lying and either just totally bullshitting the police or trying to cover his involvement in the murder. Both are pretty believable. Just as believable to me is the possibility that Hutchinson saw everything he said he did, but left out his motivation for spying on Kelly and her client: that he wanted to rob the man. And if that's the case, if Hutchinson saw who he claimed he saw and told the police everything he did, it would reinforce in my mind Severin Klosowski's candidacy for the identity of Jack the Ripper. He's the only possible suspect that comes close to fitting Hutchinson's description, imo.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"But “anywhere” means “anywhere”, surely? And “anywhere” also encompasses longer distances at different locations, such as Petticoat Lane from further away."

If you believe that, yes. Then we should also accept that Hutchinson would be able to swear to the man five kilometres away on the North Pole, peering over the flat polar landscape, since that must have been what Hutchinson suggested: That no matter the conditions, the distance and the time offered to make the observation, he would unhestítatingly be able to point the man out.
Don´t you think, Ben, that this is to be a bit harsh on him? Don´t you think that what he really meant was that he would be able to pinpoint the man IF HE WAS OFFERED A PROPER LOOK? Is that not what most of mean whan we say that we could swear to a person anywhere?

"Since several others here have made the same observation, I don’t think we can be accused of being “unrealistic” en masse."

Of course not - as shown by the very reasonable example mentioned above. Ehrm ...!

"Then I would have expected him to either specify as much in his statement, or better still, take steps to get a better, i.e. frontal view of the man whose behaviour and appearance of two night’s previously had been such a fascination to him, and who he would now consider the most likely suspect for the murder of his three-year acquaintance."

Unfortunately, although you would have wished for it, he took no steps at all to explain from what angle and distance he saw the man. But that does not mean that any suggestion that he saw him from close range and face-on must be true, I´m afraid. It only means what it always means - that we can´t tell.

"We don’t need to go down the reductio ad absurdum route here and start making analogies with tram wagons etc."

Yes, we certainly do. We need to leave each and every opportunity open that we cannot close. And that includes tram wagons and a host of other possibilities. Hutchinson may, for example, have seen the man from a window overlooking the market, something that would have diminished his possibilities to get a good look at him, and also to pursue him.
If you feel that you can draw the line for what possibilities belong to the discussion, you are quite simply wrong, Ben.

"Anyway, without wishing to sound rude, what’s your dog in this hunt, exactly? I was under the impression that you considered Hutchinson a liar who wasn’t even there when he thought he was, and that his account was rightly discarded?"

Yes, my stance is that Hutchinson was not telling the truth, and that he was not there on the night of Kellys murder. But that is not a certainty, Ben. It is, as you say, an impression. And I don´t regard impressions as truth, which means that I am quite prepared to discuss other possibilities. And when we discuss the Petticoat Lane man, we must adjust to the evidence at hand and admit that:
A/ We do not know how he was dressed.
B/ We do not know from what distance and angle Hutchinson saw him.
C/ We do not even know that Hutchinson was aware that Mary Kelly was the latest Ripper victim as he saw him in the market on Sunday morning, do we?

These factors are all open to discussion, and just like you, I do not wish for a rude discussion. Hutchinson is a fascinating fellow, whichever way we look at him, and much fun to discuss. That´s my dog in this hunt. A chihuahua, sort of.

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Nothing in the world, ever, points to this."

...except the fact that Hutchinson only came forward three days after the murder, that is. To you, that spells evil, to me, well, history is full of examples of people who have come forward to testify about crimes AFTER they have realized that they have something to offer. Not before.

I am not judging or weighing such a suggestion. But I am pointing out that it belongs here, and that anybody trying to prove that he had the knowledge will have a very hard time finding the proof to clinch it. Try yourself, and you will see!

To discuss it eternally, though - no. The point is made, and it belongs here.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“Then we should also accept that Hutchinson would be able to swear to the man five kilometres away on the North Pole”

Nah, Fish, there’s that reductio ad absurdum again, and not remotely applicable in this case as I explained in my last post. If the man was five kilometres away on the North Pole, he would not have been in an immediate position to affect the situation and acquire a better look at the individual, as he most assuredly would have been in the Petticoat Lane scenario. He was clearly in a position to obtain a “proper look”, and given his previous fascination with the man before he had learned of the murder, it seems unthinkable that this should dilute to a “maybe it’s him, but I won’t bother checking” afterwards. Indeed, his claim to have told a policeman about is further evidence that he wished to convey the impression that he was still very much “bothered” at that stage, and it isn't remotely consistent with a half-arsed failure to confirm the subsequent sighting.

“But that does not mean that any suggestion that he saw him from close range and face-on must be true, I´m afraid. It only means what it always means - that we can´t tell”

But what we can tell is that there was very unlikely to have been any insurmountable obstacle on Petticoat Lane that could have prevented him from getting a better look at the man if he really cared.

“Hutchinson may, for example, have seen the man from a window overlooking the market”

Not very likely, but certainly possible, and again, it wouldn’t qualify as a real impediment to acquiring a better look. Again, I’m not speaking in terms of possible versus impossible, but rather what I consider to be probable as opposed to vastly improbable, and the suggestion that Hutchinson didn’t know about the murder two days after it was committed ventures into as yet unprobed realms of improbability. Like you, I tend to reject “certainties” where they are not warranted, but on the basis of the evidence and the current evidence, I feel tremendously comfortable sticking with my unproven "impression" that Hutchinson fabricated the Petticoat Lane sighting.

“...except the fact that Hutchinson only came forward three days after the murder, that is”

That’s not evidence that Hutchinson didn’t know about the murder, though, because that’s a nigh on impossible explanation for his delay, which leaves us with the more credible explanations for his failure to come forward earlier. My favourite is that he realised he’d been seen by Sarah Lewis, and it’s my favourite because his decision to end this "delay" just so happened to coincide with the termination of the inquest, where Lewis provided this evidence.

But yes, a fascinating fellow he certainly is!

All the best,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;155805]Ruby:

[QUOTE]"I'm sorry, but he MUST have known."

No. Simply no. We can´t tell, much as we want to.[/QUOTE

]

lets just leave any debates on the usefullness of speculation aside ; Fish, I'm throwing down the gauntlet to you to invent a BELIEVABLE scenario explaining
how Hutch could not of known that a women had been murdered in Miller's Court.

...just for fun..

Aha - they would hinder astrakhan man, but not any pursuer...? Sort of a biblical Red Sea scenario?

Because somone wandering at a normal pace, browsing etc would make a slow progress in a crowd. On the otherhand, someone wanting to catch up, would clock the obstacles in advance and dodge around them instinctively and keep looking right and left not to pass the person.

That is also why a question like "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 ?" is completely ridiculous in this context. I could not possibly know, could I?

Moreover, nor could you, Ruby.

You could address the argument though, instead of circumventing it with rhetoric.

[DVV]

But yes, a fascinating fellow he certainly is!

Ben

Indeed Ben, fascinating witness, fascinating suspect.
In any case, not an ordinary witness.

Bestest, mate
David

[Rubyretro]

"We don’t need to go down the reductio ad absurdum route here and start making analogies with tram wagons etc."

Yes, we certainly do. We need to leave each and every opportunity open that we cannot close. And that includes tram wagons and a host of other possibilities. Hutchinson may, for example, have seen the man from a window overlooking the market, something that would have diminished his possibilities to get a good look at him, and also to pursue him.
If you feel that you can draw the line for what possibilities belong to the discussion, you are quite simply wrong, Ben.

"

I know that you are a journalist, and not a politician or a lawyer, Fish..but you've missed your niche.

This is the sort of slippery nonsense that has got MP and advocats a bad name.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Nah, Fish, there’s that reductio ad absurdum again, and not remotely applicable in this case as I explained in my last post. If the man was five kilometres away on the North Pole, he would not have been in an immediate position to affect the situation and acquire a better look at the individual, as he most assuredly would have been in the Petticoat Lane scenario. He was clearly in a position to obtain a “proper look”"

Actually, Ben, I think the more absurd thing here is your demand that Hutchinson must be able to swear to the man he saw, no matter of angle or distance. The reason I took the argument all the way to the North Pole, was that I am interested in the boundaries you apply here - for they seem non-existent to me.
Now, Petticoat Lane - you´ve been there, have you not? Then you will know that it contains a very considerable length of the street (or streets, to be more exact). That means that Hutchinson and the man may have been hundreds of yards apart as he saw him, at least theoretically. And at any rate, the distance may have been such that no positive identification was even remotely possible. The same thing may well have applied if Hutchinson only caught a fleeting glimpse, perhaps from an awkward angle at that; there are many, many possibilities that would have meant that no positive identification was possible to make. So your saying that "He was clearly in a position to obtain a “proper look”" may be totally wrong, Ben. I think you will have to admit that, as we both know that none of the parametres distance, angle and crowd obscuring can be even guessed at. They could range from a yard to hudreds of them, from face-on to a look from behind and so on.

"given his previous fascination with the man before he had learned of the murder, it seems unthinkable that this should dilute to a “maybe it’s him, but I won’t bother checking” afterwards"

But that has got nothing to do with any diluting, Ben - it all lies in the conditions afforded by the specific situation. Even if he knew the man down to the birthmarks, what good did it do if the conditions of the sighting did not allow him to check for them?
I think that Hutchinsons assertion that he could swear to the man anywhere tells us that he was very, very sure that he would recognize him if given a proper look. Given that insight, it stands to reason that the Petticoat Lane sighting was not of the kind of quality that allowed for a positive confirmation. And that would reasonably have meant that Hutch did NOT get as good a look as he needed to be sure.

"what we can tell is that there was very unlikely to have been any insurmountable obstacle on Petticoat Lane that could have prevented him from getting a better look at the man if he really cared."

Depends, I should say. If he caught a glimpse from a distance, and then lost track of the man, there was only so much he could do. You can elbow your way through the crowds, but when you get to the point where you saw the man, and cannot see him anymore - well, then that´s pretty much it, isn´t it?
Likewise, as I have stated, we have no certainty that Hutchinson knew on Sunday morning that Mary Kelly had been killed! And if he did not know this, well then it makes a huge difference, does it not? Why would he take any interest in the man in such a case? It would just have been the odd "Hmm, wasn´t that...?" and then the "I fancied I saw him in Petticoat Lane on Sunday morning..." Nothing too strange about that!

"the suggestion that Hutchinson didn’t know about the murder two days after it was committed ventures into as yet unprobed realms of improbability"

I don´t know, Ben. We know precious little about Hutchinsons movements inbetween the very early Friday morning and Sunday morning. We DO know that he went to Romford and back again before that, and it seems a reasonable suggestion that he did this in search of work. I fail to see why he could not have gone on a similar mission on Friday/Saturday. He was reportedly out of work, and any opportunity must have been tempting. As far as I know, we cannot place him in the Victoria home on the night of Friday-Saturday, so maybe he was not in the vicinity of the murder at that stage. And if so, who´s to say that he got word of the murder where he was?
Moreover, if he did get word of it, it may well have been in a garbled version. For exemple, it was stated in articles that the victim had a young son. If Hutchinson got word of that, to him it would mean that it could not have been Mary. Verbal versions may well have gotten it all just as wrong, if not more, both in the address and the description of the victim.
And then he is back home on Sunday morning, he goes to the market, and somewhere along the line the day after, he picks up on the fact that Kelly was the victim on the 9:th.
What would he do in such a situation? Exactly, he would put two and two together, and come up with the insight that he may well have seen Jack the Ripper. After that, he goes to the police.

Such a scenario appeals quite a lot to me, I must say. I really don´t see it as much of a stretch. And it would explain a good deal!

Abberline must have asked old George why he did not come forward until three days after the slaying. He would have gotten an answer, and we know full well that he accepted that answer. And if it was not along either the lines "I was unable to pop over due to circumstance X" or "I simply did not realize that it was Mary until earlier today", I fail to see what it could have been. Any sharpwitted suggestions are welcomed though, Ben!

"That’s not evidence that Hutchinson didn’t know about the murder, though, because that’s a nigh on impossible explanation for his delay"

Of course it is no such evidence, Ben! Nor did I suggest that. What I say is that there is no evidence EITHER WAY. And I really don´t think that it is anywhere even near impossible that Hutch was at least misinformed about the killing. Lots of people would have gotten things wrong, owing to the mixed versions of the newspapers and the djungle telegraph.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"I'm throwing down the gauntlet to you to invent a BELIEVABLE scenario explaining how Hutch could not of known that a women had been murdered in Miller's Court."

Then read my post to Ben, Ruby.

"because somone wandering at a normal pace, browsing etc would make a slow progress in a crowd. On the otherhand, someone wanting to catch up, would clock the obstacles in advance and dodge around them instinctively and keep looking right and left not to pass the person."

Once again, read my post to Ben!

"You could address the argument though, instead of circumventing it with rhetoric."

You are placing words in my mouth, implicating that I have suggested that astrakhan man may have dressed down for the market and up for the slum. I called it ridiculous to even speculate about it, since we have nothing at all to go on in this context. That is addressing the issue, Ruby.
Or is it a guess on my behalf you are looking for? If so, you can have it: I don´t know. Nor do you.

"This is the sort of slippery nonsense that has got MP and advocats a bad name."

If it can be ruled out that Hutchinson saw the Petticoat Lane man under conditions that made it impossible for him to positively identify him, then you may have a point.
If it cannot be ruled out, then I submit that the kind of allegation you are making here, is based on an assumption on your behalf that is the same sort of nonsense that have gotten innocent people behind bars.

The very best, Ruby!
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE][QUOTE]

I don´t know, Ben. We know precious little about Hutchinsons movements inbetween the very early Friday morning and Sunday morning. We DO know that he went to Romford and back again before that, and it seems a reasonable suggestion that he did this in search of work. I fail to see why he could not have gone on a similar mission on Friday/Saturday.

He would have been totally shagged out, Fish.
Considering that after walking back from Romford (a trot of 6 hours or so), he was forced (according to him) to spend the night on the streets, it is safe to assume that he would have been sleeping (or wanting to sleep) on Friday. It is almost inconceivable to imagine that he would be up for another long trek on foot.
He was, after himself , in Petticoat Lane Market on Sunday morning, which leaves him Saturday to have worked ; he might well have done (although he may have had Mary's earnings to tide him over of course), but I don't think that time allows him to have gone out of London in the intervening period.
It is just loony to suggest that no one would mention MJK's murder on the Saturday.

I suggest that people would be talking about the murder well outside the immediate vicinity -and if he HAD (incredibly) been in some far flung isolated spot between Saturday and Sunday, then this would be written in the Police/Press reports.

Moreover, if he did get word of it, it may well have been in a garbled version. For exemple, it was stated in articles that the victim had a young son. If Hutchinson got word of that, to him it would mean that it could not have been Mary. Verbal versions may well have gotten it all just as wrong, if not more, both in the address and the description of the victim.

Just how wrong would it have to be, before he asked any questions ?
The surviving newspaper reports got things globally right as to the victims name and address.
Just the words Dorset Street, Miller's Court, would have been enough to put up flags, in view of his
suspicious sighting on Thursday night.

[Ben]

Fisherman,

This is just threatening to become tiresome.

If you don’t believe Hutchinson was anywhere near Miller’s Court, and that the Astrakhan man was therefore a complete invention, then surely it’s a waste of your time arguing at such incredible length in an entrenched position in what amounts to pure devil’s advocacy? Why not spend your posting time arguing the case for something you actually believe to be true?

I’ve already explained why your North Pole analogy fails to apply here. If the subject of the sighting was stationed many miles away on the North Pole, it naturally follows that the spotter cannot immediately seek to improve his sighting by moving to a better vantage point. In Petticoat Lane, this wasn’t remotely the case. If a spotter stationed somewhere on Petticoat Lane wasn’t certain if he recognised an individual from two days ago, he could have made certain, easily. No, it isn’t remotely likely that the sighting took place from several hundred yards away – that’s obviously outlandish. Firstly, the likely crowding in the streets was unlikely to have allowed for such visual range, and secondly, you’re not likely to recognise any physical particular about a man several hundred yards away. It is screamingly and overwhelmingly likely that a person on Petticoat Lane noticing somebody else on Petticoat Lane could easily take steps to confirm that sighting (or otherwise).

I really don’t like this unsuccessful nitpicking in the service of an argument that you don’t even subscribe to. Hutchinson’s statement was discredited – there’s our first clue in our quest to determine whether or nor this alleged Petticoat Lane sighting was anything other than super-added fabrication to an already fabricated account. Then we’re confronted with the lack of any indication that he delivered this news to the police, then there’s the provably false claim to have alerted a policeman about the Commercial Street encounter, and then there’s the observation, noted by Garry and several others – myself included – that his claim to swear to the man “anywhere” is inconsistent with his later professed uncertainty over this mysterious second sighting.

“Given that insight, it stands to reason that the Petticoat Lane sighting was not of the kind of quality that allowed for a positive confirmation.”

And I continue to reject that in the strongest possible terms. It only “stands to reason” if there were some impenetrable obstacle on Petticoat Lane that permanently thwarted Hutchinson’s efforts to seek a positive confirmation. It’s difficult to envisage such an obstacle even if we really go to town on those dreadful fill-in-the-blanks. Given Hutchinson’s fascination with the individual two night’s previously, it is scarcely credible to accept that he would not have taken his curiosity just as far, if not more so. Certainly if the crowds were so dense that Hutchinson was obliged to elbow through them, it is hardly likely that he spotted the man again from a great distance away.

“Likewise, as I have stated, we have no certainty that Hutchinson knew on Sunday morning that Mary Kelly had been killed!”

Fisherman, I’d sooner believe that Sir William Gull murdered Kelly than accept that Hutchinson – or anyone living in London at the time – did not know by Sunday of Kelly’s murder. You can think what you like, but I regard the suggestion as unutterably outlandish and scarcely possible. I mean, I’m normally against the Thought Police on principle, but they may be forced to intervene here.

“We know precious little about Hutchinsons movements inbetween the very early Friday morning and Sunday morning.”

Yes, but we can venture a guess that they didn’t consist of temporary isolation from any human contact for two or three days.

“We DO know that he went to Romford and back again before that”

No, we don’t.

You're trying to support what Hutchinson says with...what Hutchinson says.

We only have Hutchinson’s claim that he had anything to do with Romford. If he lied about that, there’s obviously no reason to suppose that he had any work-seeking motivation behind that non-existent visit. That aside, he didn’t need to be stationed at the Victoria Home or even stay in London between Friday and Sunday in order to learn about the latest murder. He just needed some form of human contact and be stationed in a vaguely urbanized environment. It wouldn’t matter if the version was garbled – providing the Miller’s Court location and the name Mary Kelly were mentioned, this would obviously cast his mind back to the events of Friday night, and he would certainly seek clarification. Also, remember that Hutchinson claimed to have returned to the Victoria Home as soon as it opened “in the morning”, so it’s a very safe bet that he was still there (or at the very least in the East End) when word of the murder did the public rounds.

“What would he do in such a situation? Exactly, he would put two and two together, and come up with the insight that he may well have seen Jack the Ripper. After that, he goes to the police. Such a scenario appeals quite a lot to me, I must say.”

It’s a catastrophe of an explanation, Fisherman, which is disappointing because you can do a lot better. Hutchinson may have wanted the police to embrace that version of events, but fortunately, it does not appear that they did, since the Echo article makes very clear that the authorities were still wondering why he delayed coming forward. That was on 13th November, after his first audience with Abberline, so he can’t have been satisfied with his explanation for not coming forward earlier.

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

It is apparently a trait of some serial killers to want to prolong the excitement that they felt during a murder by involving themselves in the investigation -thus keeping the killing 'fresh' in their minds.

Actually, what did he have to fear ? There were no DNA tests, he may have known nothing of fingerprinting, and there were no CCT cameras. In Ripper Lore there are witnesses to some murders -but only JTR would have been left to know if that was true, at the time ; maybe there weren't...

...or only (unwittingly) Mrs Lewis..

Two problems with this, Rubyretro. If the ripper injected himself to prolong the excitement he felt while murdering and mutilating, it was painfully short-lived, and showing his face seems to have effectively put paid to pushing his luck with any ‘fresh’ excitement from future ripping experiences.

If, on the other hand, the ripper injected himself as Hutch the innocent witness through fear of otherwise becoming a suspect, you said it yourself: what did he have to fear - in 1888? Finding Lewis’s lurker would have been a needle-in-a-haystack job if he was sufficiently determined not to be found; proving he was the man she saw would have been pretty much impossible; proving that he was not only the man but went on to enter Kelly’s room and do the deed would have been out of the question. The only really worrying scenario from the ripper’s point of view would be if he thought the police could be suppressing a full and accurate description of him with a previous victim or near another murder scene. But as you say, he’d be in a position to judge the likelihood. If he considered it a real possibility he would hardly have offered himself up as a perfect match; if not he had no need to offer himself up as anything.

So we are back to the sheer bravado motive, which comes with the distinct downside of early retirement or making damn sure he’s not seen next time. Seems he took the former path and had to sacrifice ripping for all of fifteen minutes of fame as a mere witness. What a twit.

And Fisherman is right about the many possibilities of losing anyone spotted in Petticoat Lane, from that day to this. How could anyone be sure if they merely fancied they saw someone from a distance before the figure disappeared down a side street or into a doorway?

Love,

Caz
X