The Surly Man

[DVV]

Hi Richard,

please, don't keep Toppy for yourself, that would be selFISHness.
And forgive me for that horrible pun...

G'night !

[Garry Wroe]

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?

No, Fish. But given that I made no reference to Sweeney in my book, you have certainly misconstrued the thrust of my post.

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

Given my utter bewilderment regarding that final sentence, Fish, perhaps you might care to qualify it.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

“You see how much easier it is to get to the character of a person by getting them to speak?”

Absolutely, Claire! I’ve seen the light, and can now picture it really catching on. Have you noticed, though, that these internal monologues are only ever funny and engaging when they’re supporting my arguments, and not Fisherman’s?

“Could you please let the posters on here make their own calls, Ben? I have already said that I think that both the PC encounter and the Petticoat Lane incident could well be true, and I still stand by it.”

Don’t get me wrong, Fish. I’ve already acknowledged several times that everyone is free to make up their own minds, hence my previous observation that despite my amazement that certain theories can be considered even remotely plausible, I cannot “extort belief” out of the people who embrace these amazingly outlandish theories.

And what a dull world it would be if I could.

“But for the blatantly obvious fact that it is not until we work from that premise that Hutchinsons actions become a logical sequence”

Using the F-word in the wrong context again! Slap on wrist for Fish! Seriously, though, I have no problem with envisaging a sequence of events for Hutchinson, providing that sequence does not involve him failing to learn of Kelly’s murder until Sunday 11th November, because that isn’t remotely plausible, in my opinion. But as you say, to each his own.

“what I keep hammering in is that he could have heard of the murder WITHOUT having found out about the victimīs identity.”

But even if that suggestion was a reasonable one (which it isn’t, because Manchester newspapers were already mentioning Mary Jane Kelly of Millers Court, Dorset Street, Spitalfields as early as the 10th November), it would beg the question; why, if he had heard of a murder having taken place in the East End, did our hypothetically travelling Hutchinson fail to obtain - or attempt to obtain - further details?

“we have absolutely no idea about the extent of information he was able to take part in inbetween Friday and Sunday.”

I respectfully disagree. We have a fairly good idea, and that information was overwhelmingly likely to have included - at the very least - the detail that the victim Kelly was murdered in Spitalfields, and was a “ripper”-attributed murder.

“Because they firmly believed it was completely safe to let him go, since they were of the meaning that he was not their killer, thatīs why. They were able to remove him from their suspect board.”

Oh, no. No no no. Heavens to Betsy no. Come on, now. Please, let’s not depress me here, Fisherman. A Thousand times no to this suggestion that I’ve already scratched my head in disbelief at when I heard it advanced on the other threads. The police were most assuredly not “able to remove him from their suspect board”. Firstly, we have absolutely no evidence that the police ever considered him in the capacity of a suspect, and secondly, even if they did suspect him at some stage, they were very unlikely to have been in a position to convert those suspicions into concrete proof of guilt or innocence, which is a problem that continues to confront investigating authorities even today. But didn’t we discuss this is rather extensive detail on a recent Hutchinson thread?

“Thatīs a very long speach for a lost cause, Ben.”

What’s lost, Fisherman? There was almost certainly never any negligent nincompoop of a policeman who didn’t pass on relevant details pertaining to Hutchinson’s discredited account.

“It would be like deciding that Hutchinson was the Ripper, and keep claiming that no matter what evidence that surfaced, pointing away from it. Iīm sure youīd avoid such a thing at all costs...”

I would, 100%, but if I were to compile a list of credible suggestions that might just point away from Hutchinson being the ripper, the idea that Hutchinson did not hear about the killing until Sunday would not belong on that list.

“Inertia? He had spoken to the police - what else was he supposed to do?”

Then why bother relating the "lodger" communuication at all? “Hey, Hutch, maybe this copper was a negligent ninny who didn’t pass on your crucial and fascinating information? Maybe you should try again, now that the inquest has JUST finished?”.

Stop it, Claire!

“My contention is that he found out about Kelly on Sunday morning, and before that he had no idea of any suspected killer. And what did he do? He found himself a PC. Is that letting the trail grow cold? Not in my world, it ainīt.”

It used to be an “outside possibility” rather than “your contention” (remember?), but my point was that if Hutchinson found himself a PC and then thought he spotted Astraponce again, why didn’t he find himself another, or (better still) the same, PC and alert him to this possible and potentially crucial second encounter?

“Which effectively means that he may first have seen the Petticoat Lane man, THEN have found out about Kelly, and THEN spoken to the PC about his Dorset Street sighting, and - perhaps - about the Petticoat Lane man.”

Oh dear, no, this is far worse than any sequence of events suggested so far, in my opinion. So your preferred “contention” now is that he’d got as far as Petticoat Lane on Sunday 11th November, and yet was still oblivious to news of the Kelly murder?

“The Jewish connection, is it not? Should be interesting!”

Should be, considering that contemporary police officials including Charles Warren, Donald Swanson and Henry Smith noted the same connection, as have latter-day historians Philip Sugden and Martin Friedland. But I would, of course, value and appreciate your thoughts with regard to my article's conclusions.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"given that I made no reference to Sweeney in my book, you have certainly misconstrued the thrust of my post."

Iīm sorry if that it what you think, Garry - I would not intentionally misconstrue anything, coming from you or anybody else. I mentioned Sweeney since you wrote that the perpetrators you had on line who had claimed they were the Ripper, had also all used violence or a threat of it, thus providing the law enforcement with an excellent reason to jail them. Sweeney, on the other hand, used no violence or any threat of it. In a drunken state, he claimed he was Jack the Ripper, and he was sentenced for it.

"Given my utter bewilderment regarding that final sentence, Fish, perhaps you might care to qualify it."

You quote TWO sentences, Garry, but since you speak only of the latter one, I take it you disagree that Sweeney (for example) belongs to the Hutchinson discussion. My stance is that he does, since he seemeingly exemplifies the danger involved in taking up valuable police time with false Ripper-related information.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Using the F-word in the wrong context again! Slap on wrist for Fish!"

Ouch!!! But that was not my wrist. It was your argument, Ben. For it IS a fact that it is not until we work from the premise that he did not know of Kellys death until Sunday morning that Hutchinsons actions become a logical sequence.

"even if that suggestion was a reasonable one (...) why, if he had heard of a murder having taken place in the East End, did our hypothetically travelling Hutchinson fail to obtain - or attempt to obtain - further details?"

We must not surmise that people read the papers aloud to him, Ben. And when the murder was related by those who had read it, they would probably not have spoken of "that poor Marie Jeanette Kelly of room 13, Millers Court, Spitalfields". They would more likely have spoken of "that poor East end woman that was killed by the Ripper, and who was cut to pieces", so they would likely not provide the name, address and such. And if they also added - for example - that she had a little son, then they would have had Hutch derailed in a jiffy. But since there is little use in my exemplifying this over and over again - you seem to use it more for a good laugh than for any serious afterthought - I think we had better agree to disagree, quite simply.

"I respectfully disagree. We have a fairly good idea..."

Ehrm, no - you THINK you have a fairly good idea, Ben. And if you are going to criticize me for even using the word "fact" when I speak of an undisputable such, I think you need to spend some time self-reflecting about your own propensity to transform a complete abscence of knowledge into a fairly good idea.

"There was almost certainly never..."

Almost. A_L_M_O_S_T. Meaning that I have been correct all along when I state that it cannot, and never could, be proven false that Hutch spoke to a PC, just like he said. You are free to offer your very own interpretation of how ridiculous, how insane, how outlandish, how frickin unbe-****inī-lievable it is - and all the while, that will remain a suggestion of yours that can, should and will be challenged.

"Oh, no. No no no. Heavens to Betsy no (...) The police were most assuredly not “able to remove him from their suspect board”."

Iīm afraid I think they were, Ben. Though you are of course correct that he would never have been much of a suspect, since the police at an early stage found that he would reasonably have been innocent of any such accusation. My apologies to Betsy.

"If I were to compile a list of credible suggestions that might just point away from Hutchinson being the ripper, the idea that Hutchinson did not hear about the killing until Sunday would not belong on that list."

Well, itīs a good thing, then, that you havenīt engaged in compiling such a list. In that case, I suspect weīd never be able to wawe our goodbyes to Hutchinson and go home.

"Then why bother relating the "lodger" communuication at all? “Hey, Hutch, maybe this copper was a negligent ninny who didn’t pass on your crucial and fascinating information? Maybe you should try again, now that the inquest has JUST finished?”.
Stop it, Claire!"

Stop it .... Claire?

"my point was that if Hutchinson found himself a PC and then thought he spotted Astraponce again, why didn’t he find himself another, or (better still) the same, PC and alert him to this possible and potentially crucial second encounter?"

..and MY point was that we do not know that he had spoken to the PC BEFORE he saw the Petticoat Lane man, Ben. He tells us that he saw this man on Sunday morning, and he tells us that he spoke to the PC on Sunday morning. Tell me why it follows from this that he FIRST spoke to the PC..?

"Oh dear, no, this is far worse than any sequence of events suggested so far, in my opinion. So your preferred “contention” now is that he’d got as far as Petticoat Lane on Sunday 11th November, and yet was still oblivious to news of the Kelly murder?"

Yes - but that is just because I am trying to look away from the Mary Kelly information desks at all entrances to the market, as well as the neon signs on the rooftops saying "Paging Mr Hutchinson - it was Mary Kelly!"
My humble suggestion is that if he for some reason had not gotten word of Mary Kellys death before Sunday morning, then the market would be a very reasonable place to find out about it. There were many people there, and Kellys death would have been a major topic of conversation. If you find it hilarious, be my guest! Iīm too fascinated with how things all fall in place in this scenario to be too annoyed about it.

"I would, of course, value and appreciate your thoughts with regard to my article's conclusions"

You shall have them, Ben. You know my stance on the issue, but I fully expect you to serve a healthy helping of information to topple me over!

The very best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David:

"forgive me for that horrible pun"

No.

Well, okey ... yes, then.

F/ound
I/dentical
S/ignatures of
H/utch

[DVV]

[Rubyretro]

We must not surmise that people read the papers aloud to him, Ben. And when the murder was related by those who had read it, they would probably not have spoken of "that poor Marie Jeanette Kelly of room 13, Millers Court, Spitalfields". They would more likely have spoken of "that poor East end woman that was killed by the Ripper, and who was cut to pieces", so they would likely not provide the name, address and such. And if they also added - for example - that she had a little son, then they would have had Hutch derailed in a jiffy. But since there is little use in my exemplifying this over and over again - you seem to use it more for a good laugh than for any serious afterthought - I think we had better agree to disagree, quite simply.

"

Since we're down to invented scenarios and dialogues, here's a few :

Hutch sleeps Friday morning, and wakes up in the Victoria. The very first
person he sees says to him " you'll never guess mate ! Another prostitute was killed by leather apron last night..just round the corner from here..in Miller's Court of all places, fancy that ! You should see the commotion outside !"
"Miller's Court ?" says Hutch "I know a prostitute who lives there ! What was her name ?"

Hutch walks into the communal room downstairs. Men are standing or sitting about in small knots discussing animatedly "here, Hutch.." one calls over"..did you hear about that brass that got slashed last night ? It was that tall red haired one that always
over at the ten bells...you MUST have seen her...bloke here, Barnett, has a brother that lived with her...".

Hutch decides that he needs to buy some food, and walks onto the street. The road is filled with far more people than usual, all flooding in the direction of Dorset Street, where some policeman are holding back a crowd, and Hutch has to fight his way across the street. seeing him coming away from the Victoria, someone stops him and says "here, mate...that postitute that was done for off Dorset Street, did you know her ? She was a young one they say...got murdered in her own room !"

Hutch walks into a food shop. An old woman is talking to the shopkeeper behind the counter " serves her right I say, filthy prostitute.."
" no.."replies the shopkeeper "..Mary Kelly was alright...she used to come in here sometimes...pretty girl...and ever so nice when she hadn't been at the gin.."

Hutch decides to go for a drink and fights his way into the Ten Bells (or any other pub). The place is teeming with 'sightseers'
who have been trying to view Miller's Court, and have given up and gone for refreshments. The atmosphere is almost party-like, and the excitement is feverish "come and have a drink mate ! We're drinking to the memory of poor Mary Kelly !
murdered in her bed last night by leather apron..this place will never be the same without her sweet singing of a night !
Have you seen all the coppers down at Miller's Court ? They had to scrape her off the bed, they're saying..and she such a looker ! Hey, don't you lodge in the same place as Joe Barnett's brother ? -what did he say ? Does he know anything ?".

By the time Hutch weaves his way out onto the streets, newspaper vendors are already touting for business outside the pub
"Read All About It ! Another prostitute murdered in Whitechapel !" (seeing Hutch) " want to buy a paper, mate ? another victim for leather apron..just down the road from here, in Miller's Court.."
"nah" replies Hutch" if I hear one more person mention Mary Kelly and Millers Court today, I'll go off me bloody rocker !"


I could go on and do an alternative scenario for a Hutch NOT in the Victoria (where he most probably was), but that is enough for now...

[Fisherman]

I think, Ruby, that most of us always realized that Hutch could have picked up on the news about Kelly. As far as I can tell, nobody has at least claimed that this could not have happened.

The notion that he may not have been aware of it, due to reasons unknown to us, is more controversial, and since it has been thrown forward that it is an impossible suggestion, I have provided theoretical scenarios to show it is nothing of the sort.

Surely you can see the difference?

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Very, well ..if you insist...

Hutch wakes up late afternoon in Itchy Park, after an uncomfortable nap, and decides to look for work to earn some pennies.

By now it is the afternoon and too late to look for a labouring job for the day. Never mind, he has already earned a few pennies humping beer barrels up from pub cellars, so he decides that the obvious place to earn a bit of cash, and maybe scrape enough together for a bed is in a pub, so he sets off to look for one.

Although he knows the landlords in the pubs in his immediate area, they had turned him down when he was desperate for money before, so, despite being dog tired, cold from the November day in London, and hungry, he decides to walk away
from Whitechapel and into the heart of the city.

People in the park, and on the way out onto the street, seem to be excitedly gossiping about something, but he is too tired and
fixed on getting work to be interested in what they are saying..

On the street newspaper vendors are already calling "Read All About it ! Another prostitute murdered in Whitechapel !'
Never mind, thinks Hutch, although I lodge most of the time in Whitechapel, and I know prostitutes (well, at least one),
I am too fed up to want to find out who the victim is, and whether I knew her,...so I will continue to look for work.

Hutch walks into a pub to ask the landlord whether he needs any help for a bit of cash. In the pub, people are congregated around one man, who has got a paper and can read..

" looking for any help , tonight ?" Hutch asks the Landlord

"Ssssh.." the man replies "...there's been another dreadful murder in Whitechapel ! Fred's just reading about it !..."

"the victim was a Mary Kelly of 13, Millers Court -just off Dorset Street, Whitechapel, mother of a young son, who was murdered in the early hours of yesterday morning, in her room"...intones Fred, beer frothing over his luxuriant mustache.

'Why, how uncanny !' thinks Hutch 'I know a Mary Kelly who is a prostitute and has her own room in Miller's Court, and in the early hours of yesterday morning I saw her enter the room with a man who fits the popular image of Leather Apron, and was
a very surly looking chap..carrying a mysterious parcel, what's more ! What a coincidence ! -still this one had a young son, and Miller's Court being so huge, it can't possibly be the same woman...I don't think that I'll bother trying to find out any more details, even though the whole of London seems to know about the murder..'.

[Fisherman]

I think, Ruby, that most of us always realized that Hutch could have picked up on the news about Kelly. As far as I can tell, nobody has at least claimed that this could not have happened.

The notion that he may not have been aware of it, due to reasons unknown to us, is more controversial, and since it has been thrown forward that it is an impossible suggestion, I have provided theoretical scenarios to show it is nothing of the sort.

Surely you can see the difference?

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Sorry, Fish...I thought that my second scenario illustrated your 'theory' -a Hutch away working out of Whitechapel, not affording or reading a paper,
not discussing the murder with anyone, and hearing that the victim had a child -and so discounting her as the Mary he knew.

I tried to make it as plausible as possible in your sense, but obviously, in a city teeming with people, and with vast amounts of extra newspapers coming off the presses (so by inference, some people who could read them), I couldn't believably include a Hutch that wouldn't come up against some news of a murder in Whitechapel..even if he actually took pains to avoid it.

[Fisherman]

Ruby, the whole and only point that applies in this discussion is that we are presenting scenarios since we have not access to the real thing. We do not know what situation Georg Hutchinson was in between Friday morning and Sunday morning. Ergo - like it or not - we can not tell to what extent he was able to take part of the news from Millers Court. End of story.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

NO! not end of story', Fish

We know some FACTS :
We know that Hutch lived in a city with a vast ant like population.
We know that wherever Hutch went between Friday and Sunday, he would have come into contact with some of those people.
We know that people were all talking about Mary Kelly's murder.
We know that the popular press were selling lots of extra copies about the murders.
We know that some people bought and read the papers, and the news in them was then relayed by word of mouth.
We know that most of the facts relayed by the papers were correct, even if a few weren't.

Where could Hutch have possibly been, in the time given, not to have known ?

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"We know some FACTS"

Careful with the F word, Ruby, least you want to have Ben straightening you out.

"We know that Hutch lived in a city with a vast ant like population."

I would have thought they looked mostly like we do, Ruby.

"We know that wherever Hutch went between Friday and Sunday, he would have come into contact with some of those people."

So, Ruby, you are saying that he could not possibly have gotten beyond the city boundaries? I know that Avignon is the city where the bridge does not reach all the way to the other side of the water, but please ...!

"We know that people were all talking about Mary Kelly's murder."

Eh - no. But we can reasonably speculate that most of the people were talking a lot of the Dorset street murder.

"We know that the popular press were selling lots of extra copies about the murders."

Point scored, Ruby. At last!

"We know that some people bought and read the papers, and the news in them was then relayed by word of mouth."

...which could spell disaster for your thinking, yes.

"We know that most of the facts relayed by the papers were correct, even if a few weren't."

Aha? And we know that Hutch read the papers? And we know that he got the relevant ones?

Incidentally, you forgot to mention that Hutch gave his address as the Victoria Home, which would have placed him extremely close to the actual murder site, further enhancing his possibilities to hear about Mary. Not that it makes any difference, though, since, and I quote:

"...the whole and only point that applies in this discussion is that we are presenting scenarios since we have not access to the real thing. We do not know what situation Georg Hutchinson was in between Friday morning and Sunday morning. Ergo - like it or not - we can not tell to what extent he was able to take part of the news from Millers Court. End of story."

Of course, you can prolong the story by adding other things that canīt prove that he knew about Mary, and you can add the odd "preposterous" and "highly unlikely", and in that respect, it would take things beyond the "end of story" I recommend you accept. Either way, it will make no difference.

The best,
Fisherman