The Surly Man

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe writes:

"The incidents to which Fisherman referred, Ruby, did not involve timewasters, but rather individuals who claimed to be Jack the Ripper. I enumerated a number of these in my book, and each, without exception, was a drink-fuelled event which involved actual or threatened violence. Accordingly, they are of no relevance whatever in any endeavour to gain an insight into Hutchinson-related police thinking."

Then you may have missed for example George Sweeney, Garry?

"George Sweeney, twenty seven, labourer, of 20 Chigwell street, Camberwell, was charged at the Southwark Police court with being drunk and disorderly in the Borough High street. Police constable Robert Walsh stated that he found the prisoner in the Borough shouting that he was "Jack the Ripper." A crowd assembled and became very much excited, and consequently the witness asked the prisoner to go away. The prisoner said it was all through the toothache. Mr. Slade said the man's conduct was disgraceful, and fined him 40s. or fourteen days' hard labour."

No violence or threat of it involved in that one, as you may notice.And of course it is relevant in the Hutchinson discussion. As is Packer and Violenia.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

And, seeing as I´m no Chestertonreader, I don´t know why Father Brown would have thought such a thing suspicious. I don´t, that´s for sure!

Fisherman

That's why you'll be forgiven my friend.

Amitiés
David

[Scorpio]

For a fellow who supposedly walked silently, Surly man created a powerful echo. Hutch may have given us the most enigmatic criminal ghost, after the second gun man on Elm St. Ghosts are not really in the realm of science though, since there existence is untestable. Why hasnt more thought gone into the only surly man we can prove existed, the one born from inside a mans head. The psychological processes of creating a bogey man like this.

[Ben]

I think it’s time for a quick update.

Despite the fact that we’re still arguing at amazing length over this issue, we’re essentially back to square one insofar as nobody really believes that this Petticoat Lane or policeman encounter actually occured. This hasn’t changed, but because it’s occasionally tempting to become entrenched in a sort of “must challenge”, "must argue” mentality, the boundary between what is probable and what was conceded previously to be only an “outside possibility” tends to become blurred.

My position is that these various claims are possible, yes, but they are also vastly improbable.

Hi Fisherman,

“I can´t get degrees of possibility?”

No. You can’t. You can get degrees of probability, and that’s what we’re arguing over. My position hasn’t changed – the suggestion that Hutchinson had not heard of the murder by Sunday is incredibly outlandish, and it beggars belief that anyone can seriously contemplate otherwise. It makes no difference whether or not Hutchinson remained “close to his residence”. Obviously it isn’t very likely that after a sleepless night involving miles of walking in miserable conditions, he’d emerge up and at’ em, bright and early on Friday morning and disappear from the district before news of the murder was discovered. So we’re already in “incredibly likely” territory when it comes to Hutchinson almost certainly being in the district when news of the murder hit the local populace, but even if he did disappear to new pastures for two days, it’s unthinkable that he didn’t hear of another “ripper” murder committed in the East End.

For any individual who actually was in the heart of the murder district on the night in question, it’s equally unthinkable that he didn’t seek to inquire further, and that he did not consequently learn of the Mary Kelly and Miller’s Court details, which were available as early as the 10th November in far-flung Manchester. No amount of fill-in-the-blanks or “what ifs” can ever hope to obfuscate these obvious probabilities.

“Is it outlandish to remind you that he was out of work”

Yes, it is. Because, once again, you’re using Hutchinson’s claims to back up Hutchinson’s claims, which is very circular reasoning, and which is something I cautioned against only a few posts ago. Hutchinson claimed to be out of work, and such a claim is not wholly consistent with his being a “usual” resident at the four-pence a night Victoria Home. And I’ve already explained why it doesn’t bear scrutiny that “He may have gotten up Friday morning, unaware of what had happened, and left in search of a job” because it would mean he bypassed both the free newspapers, the talk in the Victoria Home AND the excitement on the streets outside, until Sunday.

“In November, Ben, people were sent down for four weeks of hard labour for stating that they were the Ripper.”

Hutchinson never stated that he was the ripper. After his account was discredited, he was probably thrown into the same “false witness” bin into which Matthew Packer and Emanuel Violenia had previously been consigned, and significantly, neither of these men appear to have been penalized for their false claims. The likely reason for this is that the police were never in a position to disprove their assertions, however contradictory or unlikely they seemed, and I strongly suggest that the same was true of Hutchinson. If they thought he lied about the Astrakhan encounter, a reasonable assumption to a police force beleaguered with many such individuals would have been “publicity-seeker” who, like the vast majority of their time-wasting ilk, wasn’t even anywhere near the crime scene.

If they then came to the conclusion that he had fooled them and hindered the investigation, he would have spent a hurtful part of his future doing hard labour, courtesy of the state.

But in that event, it would have been an unproven conclusion, and as such, they could not have subjected him to “hard labour” any more than they could with Packer or Violenia.

This qualifies as a very good “explanation to why Hutchinsons story was discredited that allows for the police not to blame Hutchinson for having given them incorrect information”, but this really was discussed in extensive detail, and very recently, over on the Hutchinson threads.

“Hutch said he contacted a policeman, we are still faced with the very clear possibility that this PC may have had the audacity to lie and say, "Sorry, sir, but I´ve never seen the fellow before" even if he DID recognize Hutch.”

This is vastly implausible on two levels. Firstly, it would have been pretty impressive for Hutchinson to have correctly pinpointed a time and location where there would really have been a policeman, and the authorities would certainly have confronted the naughty copper with this oddity, and secondly, it would mean that this same naughty copper essentially ignored a witness of Hutchinson’s potential importance despite knowing that he could be tracked down and identified if necessary. Honestly, it really depends what people are prepared to believe. If positing the existence of a naughty, negligent self-incriminating bobby-on-beat is preferable to accepting that Hutchinson lied and was accordingly discredited, it’s up to them. Wow, though.

“I´m sorry, Ben, but no - this is not true. What I am saying, is that I firmly believe that Hutchinson did not tell the truth about Friday morning. What I am NOT saying, though, is that he fabricated it or lied about it.”

Then why did you argue on a previous thread that Hutchinson was discredited because he had some sort of alibi in Romford (or somewhere) when he claimed to be monitoring Kelly in Spitalfields? Was this another one of those “outside possibilities” that you don’t buy into for a moment, but which needs mentioning anyway because we owe it to history? Damn, I wouldn’t have got so annoyed about it at the time if I knew you didn’t believe it! Because if so, this wasn’t made clear at the time, and once again, there seems to be this strange confusion as to what you actually DO believe to be true. I certainly look forward to your reading article, where all this will doubtless be explained!

“And that provides a strong reason for my argument that he had not heard of Marys death until then (though he may have been very well aware that a murder as such had taken place), since we can see full activity on his behalf AFTER that stage in time, but no activity at all BEFORE it.”

Well leaving aside the absurdity of the suggestion that Hutchinson did not learn of Kelly’s murder until Sunday morning, which I’ve dealt with in detail already (and which you don’t believe to be true anyway) the sequence of events we’re left with is an inexplicable inertia on the part of Hutchinson between the morning of the murder and Saturday night. Then on Sunday morning, he's suddenly firing on all cylinders; Astrakhan-spotting, PC-contacting and generally in "concerned citizen" mode, but then what happens? He then goes back to inertia again, and does nothing until 6.00pm the following day where he suddenly requires motivation from a fellow lodger to contact the police despite having done so already.

If you think the sequence of events in that of “responsible and dutiful” man, then I can only disagree. It is neither responsible nor dutiful deliberately to allow the trail of a suspected killer to grow cold, and to time your decision to contact the police “properly” with the end of the inquest, which is clearly what happens unless we prefer loopy unrealistic coincidence as a preferred explanation.

Also, if we accept your interpretation of the sequence of events, why didn’t Hutchinson seek out a policeman again if he even “fancied” he had seen the same man in Petticoat Lane? At least the other way round doesn’t present this problem, although both are wildly improbable, and discredited.

"I was out on Monday night until three o'clock looking for him. I could swear to the man anywhere. I told one policeman on Sunday morning what I had seen, but did not go to the police station"

There we go, then. The press can’t have been working in chronological order if the events of Monday were discussed before the events of Sunday, so it’s a safer bet that we have no evidence for which of the Sunday morning encounters came first, not that it really matters.

“But do we want to do the job sloppily, Ben?”

Not at all, Fisherman. I was only presenting an overview of what I consider to be the most plausible and least complicated explanation.

“Hutchinson probably didn´t lie (though he may have), and the discrediting owed to something else.”

Well, all the very best luck with that particular argument, as I suspect you’ll need it, particularly if you're going the distinctly Dewy "mistaken date" route. But I’m certainly not stopping you from “looking for other suspects than George Hutchinson”. In the meantime, I look forward to reading your article and do hope you enjoy mine. At the moment, though, I think we’re in peril of giving a few too many clues as to the content of our respective articles.

Best regards,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

We know that he apparently didn't have the cash to stay in an alternative lodging to the Victoria on Thursday night (or so he said !).

All we know, Ruby, is that Hutchinson claimed to have told Kelly that he couldn’t lend her sixpence on account of his having spent all of his money in Romford. In reality, though, he must have had money if there was any truth in his assertion that he attempted to gain access to the Victoria Home at two o’clock or thereabouts.

We know that it might have been possible for him to return to the Victoria on Friday, if he had enough paying nights to his credit to qualify for a freebie …

Yet again, Ruby, this is one of those canards that all too often creep into Hutchinson discussions and which come to be accepted as fact. The truth of the matter is that the Victoria Home adhered to what at the time was a relatively widespread policy amongst landlords in that it offered long-term patrons a weekly rate (payable in advance) covering Monday to Saturday with Sunday thrown in gratis. As such, Hutchinson could not have returned from Romford on the Friday morning in anticipation of a ‘freebie’. If, on the other hand, he had paid in advance (either on a daily or weekly basis), he could have gained admittance at any time. This, therefore, would appear to suggest that he had money in his pocket but failed to secure a bed because he arrived after 1-00am, the point at which cash-for-beds transactions ceased for the night. This being the case, one is left wondering why he felt the need to walk about all night rather than access a bed in one of the many local lodging houses which imposed no such restrictions.

I am very interested to know that 'timewasters' in the Ripper case were 'sent down' for a few months....

The incidents to which Fisherman referred, Ruby, did not involve timewasters, but rather individuals who claimed to be Jack the Ripper. I enumerated a number of these in my book, and each, without exception, was a drink-fuelled event which involved actual or threatened violence. Accordingly, they are of no relevance whatever in any endeavour to gain an insight into Hutchinson-related police thinking. In this context, one is better served by examining the cases of Packer, Violenia or even Mary Malcolm.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[richardnunweek]

Hi
Question.
If he could not gain admittance to the Victoria home on the friday morning at 2am, where did he sleep for the remainder of the night on tuesday morning as he states he was out till 3am.
Possibility of course that it was arranged by the police to allow entry after he had done his walkabout.
Did he have a weekly pass , although in that case he would have been allowed in after 2am on the 9th.
The more I look at Hutchinsons statements to the police and press, the more I believe him.. how strange?
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

David:

"Understood, Fish, but if the "bobby episode" is unrelated to the Sunday sighting, Hutch is more unreliable than ever.
Just ask Father Brown."

Not "if", David - it clearly is. And, seeing as I´m no Chestertonreader, I don´t know why Father Brown would have thought such a thing suspicious. I don´t, that´s for sure!

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

If he was at the Victoria Home on Friday morning, and there on Sunday, that only really leaves him Saturday and a bit to go elsewhere. He couldn't have gone so far as all that. We could go down a path of possibilities here, but I think they'd be slight ones.

I think that there are some very interesting questions thrown up, and Abberline must (well, I hope so !) have asked them...for instance, where did
Hutch get the money to be back in the Victoria on Sunday ?

We know that he apparently didn't have the cash to stay in an alternative lodging to the Victoria on Thursday night (or so he said !).
We know that it might have been possible for him to return to the Victoria on Friday, if he had enough paying nights to his credit to qualify for a freebie
(which would place him so close to the murder site, that it defies all logic that he wouldn't know about it).
So where DID he get the money from on Saturday ? He can not have gone far, as Sally says. He also had to eat something during this time.
I certainly hope that Abberline checked it out. I've always thought that Hutch would have had Mary's last earnings in his pocket.
Such a shame that we'll never know.

I am very interested to know that 'timewasters' in the Ripper case were 'sent down' for a few months....do we know where to ??
Since Hutch appears to have disappeared off the face of the earth after
MJK, MIGHT he have been sent for a spot of hard labour ? How do we know that he wasn't ? Are there any court records ? Has anyone explored this line of research ?

If he wasn't -then WHY wasn't he ? If he had made up his story entirely
then he was seriously guilty of trying to lead the whole investigation down false avenues, never mind the wasted cost in money, time, and man power..

Of course -maybe he DIDN'T make it up entirely (only the unprovable bits like A Man), and he was discredited but not prosecuted..

[DVV]

Understood, Fish, but if the "bobby episode" is unrelated to the Sunday sighting, Hutch is more unreliable than ever.
Just ask Father Brown.

Amitiés
David

[Fisherman]

Here is the sequence again, this time as it was reported in the St James Gazette:

"I was out on Monday night until three o'clock looking for him. I could swear to the man anywhere. I told one policeman on Sunday morning what I had seen, but did not go to the police station. I told one of the lodgers here about it on Monday, and he advised me to go to the police station, which I did at night. The man I saw did not look as though he would attack another one. He carried small parcel in his hand about eight inches long, and it had a strap round it. He had it tightly grasped in his left hand. It looked as though it was covered with dark American cloth. He carried in his right hand which he laid upon the woman's shoulder a pair of brown kid gloves. One thing I noticed, and that was that he walked very softly. I believe he lives in the neighbourhood, and I fancied that I saw him in Petticoat lane on Sunday morning, but I was not certain."

Now, David, don´t tell me that Hutch´s approacing the policeman came about as a result of the Petticoat Lane sighting! It very clearly relates to his experience in Dorset Street. One does not first say that one has told a policeman what one has seen, and then describe that something half a book further down the line.
Ask Chesterton.

The best
Fisherman

[DVV]

Nope - he spoke to that bobby about the astrakhan man. It is unrelated to the Petticoat Lane issue. The papers bear this out.

"I told one policeman on Sunday morning what I had seen but did not go to the police station. (...) I believe that he lives in the neighbourhood, and I fancied that I saw him in Petticoat Lane on Sunday morning."

What a sequence of events, Fish !!
The Sunday mornings of this guy are even more fantastic than his Friday nights.

Chesterton? Never read him, I´m afraid.

Lucky you ! the best is ahead !

Amitiés
David

[Fisherman]

From my earlier post to Ben:

"In November, Ben, people were sent down for four weeks of hard labour for stating that they were the Ripper."

This is not correct. It was fourteen days, not four weeks. Sorry about that detail! It still applies, though, that things like these received very harsh sentences in November of 1888.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David:

"You should at least note that the quality of this look was good enough to warn a bobby (if Hutch is to be believed)."

Nope - he spoke to that bobby about the astrakhan man. It is unrelated to the Petticoat Lane issue. The papers bear this out.

Chesterton? Never read him, I´m afraid.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Your logical reasoning is quite correct, taking his statement to the press in sequence. This is a perfectly reasonable stance to take, since it comes from the evidence."

Thanks, Sally!

"I do not see a direct correlation between Hutchinson's speaking to the Sunday Policeman and his 'fancy' that he saw Surly Man on the same day. B does not necessarily follow A. It comes across rather more as if he threw his fancied sighting in as an afterthought, wouldn't you say?"

Very much agreed - it´s thrown in as an aside, more or less, which is why I think the reasonable assumption to make is that he probably decided against the man being identical with astrakhan man after all.

" You posit the theory that he hadn't realised Kelly had been murdered. I have to concede that it is technically possible. I would see it as unlikely though. As we know, there were men staying at the Victoria Home who knew Kelly. Barnett certainly knew that she was dead. Even if he hadn't acquired this knowledge via the papers - possible - then I have difficulty in accepting that he hadn't heard by word of mouth. He lived in the immediate locality, and according to him, knew Kelly 'very well' - for three years."

I agree totally with you - the initial stance one must hold is that it would reasonably be unlikely.
But then there is the evidence - and the lack of it.
The cause of action that Hutch takes seems to imply to me that he fulfilled his duties as a citizen impeccably, starting from Sunday morning. He set out by talking to a policeman about his sighting in Dorset street, and then he goes to the police station the next day, after not having been contacted by the police (one must surmise that the PC asked him about his name and address). This all is a very commandable behaviour, is it not? Points to a responsible and dutiful man. But what about Friday and Saturday, then? Why was he seemingly a totally indifferent man at that stage? Why did he wait to report his sighting to the PC for two full days, if he knew that he would probably have seen the Ripper?
You know my answer to that question by now, Sally: Because he did NOT know it until Sunday morning. If we see it this way, the inconsistency of Hutchinsons behaviour dissolves into thin air, and we get an explanation to the unconcern you see in him.
As for the lack of evidence I spoke of, it concerns the time period between his waking up at the Victoria home on Friday, and his speaking to the PC on Sunday morning - for much as it is tempting to speculate that he stayed in the Victoria home on Friday and Saturday night too, spending the days speaking with his fellow Eastenders about the gruesome killing in Millers court and reading the papers, we have absolutely no evidence telling us that this was so.
He could have been virtually anywhere. And that means that he could have been subjected to virtually any level of Ripper-information. Of course, this is a silly thing to suggest, but just to clarify my stance: what if he went down to the Thames and found himself a boat and went to sea for two solitary days of fishing? Set aside the ridiculous element involved in such a suggestion and see what I am talking about, Sally - we have no idea about what information flow he was reached by for two full days, and that insight is vital to ponder before we try and fix the level of credibility of him not having found out about Mary Kellys death during that period. That´s all I will say.

The best, Sally!
Fisherman

[DVV]

Morning Fish

Aha. THAT argument. Again.

Yes. And that argument is obviously valid (although I won't hammer it anymore).

the quality of the look you

Aha. THAT argument. Again.
You should at least note that the quality of this look was good enough to warn a bobby (if Hutch is to be believed).

"The Poet and the Lunatics"?? By whom? And about what poet?

By my dear dear dear Chesterton, my dear. The fictional poet is called Gabriel Gale - as a distant echo of Gabriel Syme - "The Man who was Thursday".

Amitiés
David