The Surly Man

[Ben]

Just to recap, everybody, nobody here really thinks this Petticoat Lane/PC happened, at least not to my knowledge.

We're only discussing this because, as Fisherman sensibly advocates, it's all about exploring those pesky "possibilities".

Hi Fisherman,

“But the longer we move him away from Commercial Street, the larger the chance will be that he did not get the news.”

But that’s only a change from barely possible to wildly improbable, and thus still not worth considering as a viable explanation for his delay in coming forward. I certainly don’t buy the suggestion that the further the news travelled from Dorset Street, the more garbled the details became. That might well have been true in the very immediate aftermath of the murder, but by Sunday, the fact that Dorset Street and someone named Mary Kelly was involved had been very well established. An even worse suggestion is that Hutchinson read about the detail involving Kelly having a child, and assumed that the victim must have been someone else, despite all the other details matching up to the individual he claimed to have encountered very early on Friday morning.

If people are willing to accept as gospel that he really did return from Romford (13 miles or so) only to loiter for a further 45 minutes, before doing some more “walking about all night”, then it is logical to assume that he headed for the Victoria Home “as soon as it opened in the morning” for the purposes of sleep. By the time he was likely to have slept off the night’s implausible excesses, the news of the murder would already have been the talk of the locality. In other words, Hutchinson was likely to have woken up to news of the murder.

“We do not know what he did on most of the Friday and on the Saturday, and until we do, we cannot tell to what extent he was able to take part of the news from Miller´s court. It´s simple logic”

What’s “simple logic”? The acknowledgement of an “outside possibility”? Fair enough, but in this instance we’re talking about a possibility that is so incredibly “outside” that it is barely possible, and while I acknowledge the existence of a barely possible explanation, I prefer to deal in terms of what rational people would consider probable.

“Absolutely. But in such a case, my guess is that if Hutch could not produce any contact or evidence confirming that he had been to Romford, then that would have made the police turn him into a suspect.”

I don’t see why this should follow. Hutchinson could have come up with any number of crap reasons for the non-existence of a Romford alibi; that we went there seeking work only to find the establishment closed; that he went there to meet up with family only to find nobody home, and so on and so forth. In such a scenario, the police were powerless to contradict him.

“But why would Abberline first merrily accept the reason Hutch gave for coming forward that late - and then suddenly decide NOT to accept it?”

I don’t know, but that’s clearly what happened with the whole account, let alone the issue of the delay. He was initially of the opinion that the statement was true, and yet the statement was discredited shortly thereafter. As I mentioned elsewhere, it’s clear from Abberline’s later observations that he did not place any value in Hutchinson’s description of Astrakhan man.

“and therefore there remains a possibility that he first saw and recognized the man (something that seemed to spark only an off-hand interest in him), then found out about Kellys death from one or many of the marketers, and only thereafter realized that he needed to speak to the police. Now, please observe that I am not suggesting any percentages of credibility on this suggestion. The only thing of which I am certain is that if the latter applies, it suddenly rushes up to 100 per cent truth!”

But this is one of those “If my Auntie had bollocks she’d be my uncle” scenarios. In other words, if X vastly improbable explanation turned out to be the correct one, we can arrive at Y conclusion. Yes, in practice, but I’d hazard a guess that we both prefer to examine the more probable explanations, and in this case, those more probable explanations lead me to the conclusion that Hutchinson probably fabricated the Petticoat Lane encounter, which, just to remind you, is a conclusion you also favour. Hooray! We’re in sync.

All the best,
Ben

[DVV]

David:

"I'm really amazed to see how (some) people are ready to accept this Sunday encounter as possible."

Aha - it was impossible? And we know this because...?

Without weighing possibilites, David, I think that even you must admit that whatever the odds of it, it was never impossible as such.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish

Impossible or not, it's frankly unbelievable to me.

And why didn't Hutch tell Abberline about, although his statement ends with :"Can be identified."

Amitiés
David

[Ben]

“... I can only urge you to realize that the detail in question moves from "provably false" in the beginning, to an "indication" at the end.”

Ah no, Fish. Sorry, I may not have been clear on this point. If Hutchinson had reported this communication with the Sunday policeman to Abberline, it would immediately beg the question; why, then, are we only hearing of this account now? Why didn’t this Sunday policeman immediately alert us to an account of this potential magnitude? He would then ask Hutchinson for further details – specifically the time and location of the encounter in order for the policeman in question to be tracked down. This was made possible by the fact that the police patrolled a delineated beat in those days. There were two possible outcomes:

1) Abberline could find no trace of anyone at that time or location, or he did, and learned from the policeman in question that nobody had communicated any witness sighting to him. In which case, Hutchinson clearly lied about the Sunday policeman, the recognition of which is consistent with his subsequent discrediting.

Or 2) Abberline discovers that there really was a policeman who really did fail to pass an account of Hutchinson’s potential importance. Not at all consistent with Hutchinson’s subsequent discrediting.

I know which explanation I prefer, and it certainly isn’t the one that involves a mysterious negligent copper who failed to pass on crucial information relating to one of the biggest manhunts in history, let alone London, despite knowing for certain that his identity was certain to be discovered if the account came to light later.

This is what I mean when I say that Abberline was in a position to prove the claim false.

But!

And it’s a very crucial but: we’ve no evidence that any of this happened at the time of the initial interview on 12th, and we know that Hutchinson’s account was discredited a few days later, which means that he cannot have told the police about the Sunday copper, but reserved this claim for the press, who he knew were not in a position (unlike the police) to start tracking down non-existent negligent coppers. Obviously, the police would have got wind of this claim eventually, i.e. when the press accounts were published, and the “discrediting” happened shortly afterwards. Coincidence? Probably not.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

I hope the above answers some of your “How do we know?” type questions, Sally.

You speak of various claims that “could have easily been checked out” and cite the fact that “Abberline was convinced by Hutchinson's story, at least to begin with” as evidence for this. The problem here, of course, is that Abberline’s missive of approval was penned on the afternoon or evening of the 12th November, and Hutchinson had only approached the police station at 6.00pm that evening.

Quite simply, Abberline’s approval message could only have been sent before any “checking out” could realistically have occurred. Whatever investigations occurred subsequently clearly did not pan out in Hutchinson’s favour, because we learn from the Echo that the veracity of the account was still doubted the next day. Two days later, he was “discredited” according to the Star, and this would hardly have happened if the “checking out” process had confirmed Hutchinson’s claims. On the contrary, the discarding of Hutchinson’s account is a very strong indicator that it acheived the opposite.

It doesn’t follow, by the way, that anything unrelated to the sighting of Kelly and the Astrakhan man would not have been included in the recorded version. We can see clearly that other details were mentioned, and Abberline’s accompanying report touches on some of them, such as his habit of giving Kelly money on occasions and having known her for three years, for example. We also know that he did not tell the police "exactly" what he told the press as a quick comparison between the press/police Astrakhan descriptions will reveal, to say nothing of the various other embellishments and contradictions.

“Maybe the policeman didn't take him seriously.”

It wasn’t his decision to make, as a policeman on beat. But the mysterious policeman episode is obviously nonsense, as I hope my post above demonstrated. I can’t beg people to change their minds if they seriously think otherwise (which, blissfully, most people don’t) but positing the existence of a negligent bobby-on-beat who failed to pass on information critical information to the largest manhunt in history when he knew full well how easy it would be for his superiors to track him down, is just not worth doing.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Just to recap, everybody, nobody here really thinks this Petticoat Lane/PC happened, at least not to my knowledge."

Sorry, Ben, but I actually think it completely possible. I am not prepared to call Hutch a liar about this, although I am convinced that he did not tell the truth about Friday morning. Make of that what you will.

"that’s only a change from barely possible to wildly improbable, and thus still not worth considering as a viable explanation for his delay in coming forward."

Not agreed. But your suggestion is as justified as mine, of course.

"I certainly don’t buy the suggestion that the further the news travelled from Dorset Street, the more garbled the details became."

Ever played that old game where people sitting in a ring whisper a message from ear to ear, Ben? Then you will know what happens with that message ...

"Hutchinson was likely to have woken up to news of the murder."

Likely - yes. Certain - no.

"I prefer to deal in terms of what rational people would consider probable."

Fine by me - I am VERY rational.

"I don’t see why this should follow. Hutchinson could have come up with any number of crap reasons for the non-existence of a Romford alibi; that we went there seeking work only to find the establishment closed; that he went there to meet up with family only to find nobody home, and so on and so forth. In such a scenario, the police were powerless to contradict him."

...and that would STILL leave us with a scenario where Hutch had noting to show for his claim, and it would STILL make the police very suspicious. If he could not find one single man or point to one single thing he had seen in Romford, then he would turn into a suspect in the wink of an eye. And rightly so!

"it’s clear from Abberline’s later observations that he did not place any value in Hutchinson’s description of Astrakhan man."

Once again, it was the statement ON THE WHOLE that was discarded, and when the ship sank, it took astrakhan man - and everything else in it - with it down to the bottom of the ocean of oblivion.

"But this is one of those “If my Auntie had bollocks she’d be my uncle” scenarios. In other words, if X vastly improbable explanation turned out to be the correct one, we can arrive at Y conclusion. Yes, in practice, but I’d hazard a guess that we both prefer to examine the more probable explanations, and in this case, those more probable explanations lead me to the conclusion that Hutchinson probably fabricated the Petticoat Lane encounter, which, just to remind you, is a conclusion you also favour. Hooray! We’re in sync."

We are not, I´m afraid. And my aunt HAS balls. Brass balls. You would know that if you had met her ...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David:

"Impossible or not..."

Not. Definitely not.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

"Ah no, Fish. Sorry, I may not have been clear on this point."

Correct - you were not.

"If Hutchinson had reported this communication with the Sunday policeman to Abberline, it would immediately beg the question; why, then, are we only hearing of this account now? Why didn’t this Sunday policeman immediately alert us to an account of this potential magnitude? "

Those are interesting questions - that do not alter the fact that there is NO proof that Hutchinson lied about it.

"I know which explanation I prefer"

If there HAD been proof to corroborate your claim, Ben, it would not have been a question of preferences, would it?

"This is what I mean when I say that Abberline was in a position to prove the claim false."

Well, yes, he may have been, more or less. But that was not what you said. What you said was:

"Hutchinson’s claim to have encountered a policeman on the Sunday following the murder is provably false, yes. "

And I fail to see that you can provide anything to show for that claim, Ben - the possible fact that Abberline may once have been in the position to prove it is another thing, is it not?

"we’ve no evidence that any of this happened at the time of the initial interview on 12th"

We don´t, no. And no proof to the contrary either.

"and we know that Hutchinson’s account was discredited a few days later, which means that he cannot have told the police about the Sunday copper, but reserved this claim for the press, who he knew were not in a position (unlike the police) to start tracking down non-existent negligent coppers"

Eh - no. We do not know this at all. We only know that it did not figure in the police report, but we DO know that Abberline questioned Hutch at length - interrogated him, as it were - and we only have three meagre pages of information about it. More, much more, would have been said at that interrogation than we can read in the report.

"Obviously, the police would have got wind of this claim eventually, i.e. when the press accounts were published, and the “discrediting” happened shortly afterwards. Coincidence? Probably not."

There is no coincidence in the correlation between press reports and the discrediting, the way I see it. But I look at other parametres than you do, Ben. More on that in the future!

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

David:

"Impossible or not..."

Not. Definitely not.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish,

this kind of hypo-criticism isn't just like you my dear.

Amitiés
David

[Rubyretro]

...and if he had wished to make an impression that helped the police to believe him, he would certainly have at least claimed to have done everything in his power to cath up with the Petticoat Lane man. Instead, what he says about it makes a very casual impression - and that would not have impressed the police, would it? Thus it would in no way have helped his cause, no matter if there was never any Astrakhan or Petticoat Lane man to catch, as you will have it.
Why would he diminish his own chances to impress the police on this point?

The best,
Fisherman[/QUOTE]

he was evidently obliged to downplay the whole event -othrwise it would have looked even more ridiculous the fact that he didn't do everything in his power to help capture this man..

[Rubyretro]

.

And my aunt HAS balls. Brass balls. You would know that if you had met her ...!

The best,
Fisherman[/QUOTE]

...with bells on them, no doubt !

It undoubtedly runs in the family..

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"he was evidently obliged to downplay the whole event -othrwise it would have looked even more ridiculous the fact that he didn't do everything in his power to help capture this man.."

He was no such thing, Ruby. He stood to loose the confidence of the police with such a manouvre, I think. I see no logic in it whatsoever.

the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David:

"this kind of hypo-criticism isn't just like you my dear."

I´m a sucker for oneliners, David - it´s an occupational hazard in my line of business. But if you need an answer to your question, it is in my post to Ben - not everything that was said between Abberline and Hutchinson ended up in the police protocol, methinks.

I just read up on Stewart Evans "Suspect and witness - the police wiewpoint" and found this passage:

"It is patently obvious that Hutchinson should have been quizzed to bring out greater detail and verification of various points. Many of these questions may have been cleared by Inspector Abberline when he subsequently 'interrogated' Hutchinson at Commercial Street Police Station, after the taking of the statement, on the evening of Monday 12th November 1888. Abberline would certainly have read the statement and had it in front of him when he 'interrogated' Hutchinson. Unfortunately Abberline's notes of that interview have not survived the passage of time, although we do have his covering report, which does supply a few extra details. What is for certain is that Abberline would have cleared up with Hutchinson as to why he had come forward so late. That Hutchinson had a good reason must be assumed as Abberline made no comment on this point and still felt happy with Hutchinson's statement. It is only possible to guess at Hutchinson's reason or reasons, but he was seeking a job and may have gone visiting out of town for the weekend, returning on the Monday and then learnt of the murder."

Of course, Hutchinson places himself in town on the Sunday, but overall, this pretty much resembles what I am talking about.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Hello Ben

I hope the above answers some of your “How do we know?” type questions, Sally.

Er, Well...

You speak of various claims that “could have easily been checked out” and cite the fact that “Abberline was convinced by Hutchinson's story, at least to begin with” as evidence for this. The problem here, of course, is that Abberline’s missive of approval was penned on the afternoon or evening of the 12th November, and Hutchinson had only approached the police station at 6.00pm that evening.

Hmm? Abberline penned his missive of approval in the afternoon? That would be before Hutchinson came in though... wouldn't it? Abberline kind of was convinced though, wasn't he? Why else would he have written his missive, eh?

Quite simply, Abberline’s approval message could only have been sent before any “checking out” could realistically have occurred. Whatever investigations occurred subsequently clearly did not pan out in Hutchinson’s favour, because we learn from the Echo that the veracity of the account was still doubted the next day. Two days later, he was “discredited” according to the Star, and this would hardly have happened if the “checking out” process had confirmed Hutchinson’s claims. On the contrary, the discarding of Hutchinson’s account is a very strong indicator that it acheived the opposite.

Who says? Do you know exactly when Abbeline wrote that message of approval? How long do you think it would have taken to check those details out then? Days? I wouldn't have thought so.

It doesn’t follow, by the way, that anything unrelated to the sighting of Kelly and the Astrakhan man would not have been included in the recorded version. We can see clearly that other details were mentioned, and Abberline’s accompanying report touches on some of them, such as his habit of giving Kelly money on occasions and having known her for three years, for example.

No, see, those details are relevant. Very. Other details less so. I wouldn't expect to see an account of how he spoke to some other bloke he knew in the Victoria Home about it. For example.

We also know that he did not tell the police "exactly" what he told the press as a quick comparison between the press/police Astrakhan descriptions will reveal, to say nothing of the various other embellishments and contradictions

.

Yes, alright, some differences. But they're trivial ones. I'm not sure it's important. And what other embellishments? Do tell.

It wasn’t his decision to make, as a policeman on beat. But the mysterious policeman episode is obviously nonsense, as I hope my post above demonstrated. I can’t beg people to change their minds if they seriously think otherwise (which, blissfully, most people don’t) but positing the existence of a negligent bobby-on-beat who failed to pass on information critical information to the largest manhunt in history when he knew full well how easy it would be for his superiors to track him down, is just not worth doing.

I think too much is being made of this. I would explain, but I fear I'd be here all night.

These little details, whilst all very entertaining, are in danger of obscuring some obvious reasons for concern where Hutchinson is concerned. Now, he obviously said to the police something in the line of what he said to the press regarding the locality of Surly Man - or else he and the coppers wouldn't have been spending the whole day looking for him.

I'd be more concerned over the apparent lack of concern Hutchinson apparently felt throughout this whole process. It's striking.

He says he sees a man, dressed in a fashion which is noticeably out of character for the time and place; is clearly suspicious of the man to the extent that he hangs around waiting for him to come out for 45 minutes – yet by his own account it never occurs to him that the man could be a killer. What then, does he suspect him of, exactly?

Whilst he is standing on the corner, he sees a policeman going past on his beat. Does he alert this policeman? Apparently not. It’s all very curious.

He says he tells a policeman about it on the Sunday, but doesn’t manage to report to the police station. He says he tells a fellow lodger about it, who advises him to do this very thing – so Hutchinson does, having been coaxed into it - apparently still quite unconcerned that he may have witnessed a murderer.

He comes across as not attaching any real significance to what he says he has seen.

This leads me to think that he was either remarkably dim, or extremely intelligent. Or a Drunk – the third way!

His apparent emotional detachment and lack of concern could also indicate that he wasn’t there, and never saw anything of the kind – he couldn’t be expected to be concerned about somebody he hadn’t actually seen; or it could be seen in another light, I suppose – that of psychopathic detachment.

I think it is that - his apparent lack - almost of interest, even - in what he says he has witnessed, which really makes him stand out.

All the best,
Ben

Likewise.

[DVV]

Of course, Hutchinson places himself in town on the Sunday, but overall, this pretty much resembles what I am talking about.

Fisherman

Not really, Fish.

The Sunday encounter isn't mentioned in Hutch statement nor in Abberline report, although both contain the important detail that the suspect "can be identified" (= "he can identify the man" in Abberline report).

It's then safe to assume that Hutch said nothing about Petticoat Lane to Abberline on Monday evening.

Why ?

Because such extraordinary encounter (most probably) never occured.

Amitiés
David

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"He says he sees a man, dressed in a fashion which is noticeably out of character for the time and place; is clearly suspicious of the man to the extent that he hangs around waiting for him to come out for 45 minutes – yet by his own account it never occurs to him that the man could be a killer. What then, does he suspect him of, exactly?
Whilst he is standing on the corner, he sees a policeman going past on his beat. Does he alert this policeman? Apparently not. It’s all very curious."

It IS kind of curious, Sally. What Hutch says is "My suspicions were aroused by seeing the man so well dressed, but I had no suspicion that he was the murderer." Anyway, whatever it was Hutchinson did not like about the fellow, he had no reason to alert the polce walking by, did he? Nothing had happened at all, as far as he knew, and he would be aware that Mary Kelly probably would not take kindly to him making a late night call in the company of a PC as she was plying her trade!

"He comes across as not attaching any real significance to what he says he has seen."

Only in Petticoat Lane, if we work from the assumption that he was not aware of Kellys demise until on Sunday morning. Once again, have a look at the timeline suggested by the news articles:

"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 police station, which I did at night. (...) I believe that he lives in the neighbourhood, and I fancied that I saw him in Petticoat lane on Sunday morning, but I was not certain."

He FIRST makes his Dorset Street sighting, THEN tells a police about it, THEN tells us that he followed that up by taking his fellow lodgers advice to go to the police station, and THEN - finally - adds that he fancied he saw the man in Petticoat Lane, but was not certain of it.

To me, the sequence spells:

He A/ did not know that Kelly was the victim of the murder, and therefore he had no reason to do anything at all from the outset. He then B/ found out that Mary was the murdered woman, and therefore he C/ told the police that he had seen her with a man on Friday morning. This did not result in anything as far as he could tell, and in order not to let it slip away, he D/ went to the police station to reiterate his story.

This sequence is in line with the wording in the articles. The one thing it does not account for is E/ that he fancied he saw the man in Petticoat Lane on Sunday morning. And at that point, his story seems to portray an uninterest, but I think we may identify two different explantions to this:
1. He may not have had knowledge about Kelly being the victim as he saw the man. We only know that he made his observation and spoke to the PC on Sunday morning, BUT WE DON´T KNOW WHAT CAME FIRST!
2. He may have decided on the spot that he was mistaken on the identity. It may well be quite telling that he does not sa that "I fancy I saw him in Petticoat Lane" but instead "I FANCIED I saw ...". This may implicate that this fancy was something he accounted for as a passing stage.

Any which way, if this is what went down, then suddenly Hutchinson´s alledged uninterest is completely dissolved! Instead we get a picture of a man that seems quite concerned to bring his message over to the police - once he knew what had happened in Miller´s court.

The one interpretation the articles do not suggest is that he fancied he saw the Petticoat Lane man, and contacted a PC as the result of this. The timeline in his story travels in a directly opposing direction, and the PC is knit to the Dorset Street sighting.

the best,
Fisherman