The Surly Man

[Rubyretro]

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

The best,
Fisherman[/QUOTE]

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

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

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

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

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

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Rubyretro:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

I posted the bit of film earlier in this thread.

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

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

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

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

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

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

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

.

...and thatīs that!

The best,
Fisherman[/QUOTE]


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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jon Guy]

Hi Fisherman

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

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

Jon

[Fisherman]

Ben:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...and thatīs that!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

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

So much for swearing to the man "anywhere".

[Rubyretro]

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

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

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

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

[Sally]

Hi Sally ! -my Post got replicated because my computer got 'blocked' on that thread and I went into 'Basil Fawlty' mode...manically hitting the 'Post' button whilst threatening my laptop (" right ! I'm warning you..you'd better reply to to Sally before the conversation has moved on, or I'm going to smash you to pieces and throw you out the window from the third floor..and you will never
correct me again..). I evidently got it's back up, because not only did it -(can't think why)- Post 6 times, but it then blocked again so I couldn't 'delete' 'cancel' or even reply anything else.....Grrrrrr..

Otherwise...well, Hutch-as-JtR wasn't so bright as all that...he would have effectively knobbled himself from ever risking being seen near a murder site again...

...the reason why the murders stopped ?

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

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

[Sally]

Yes, I agree, Abby does have a good point. I think it warrants some explanation. There actually does appear to be an incongruity here.

I don't accord so much weight to the change in Surly Man's clothing once Hutchinson's story hit the press, because that could have been journalistic licence as easily as Hutchinson changing his mind.

But I do think it's curious that a person who made such an impression on him in the dark was not wholly recognisable to him in the day.

Something doesn't fit here. It could be as inoccuous as Hutchinson having exaggerated his impression in the first place, of course - and not really getting the good look at Surly Man that he claimed. Or it could point to something more dubious.

[Rubyretro]

I think that Abby has a very good point.

Not only that, Fish, but Hutch seemed to have remembered the clothing far better than the features of the man, which he changed when talking to the Press.

So funny that when he fancied that he saw this man again -wearing different clothing -that he didn't pay even more attention to the man's features ( whilst trying to decide whether it was indeed the same person).

This local man must have been very rich indeed if he didn't use the same watch (did he change his jewellery for his various outfits ?), nor even the same tie pin.

I have to say that I am amazed that Hutch would inventory every aspect of Surly/A Man in the dark with a fleeting glimpse, yet be so hazy on the man (after he was aware of Mary's murder), when he 'maybe' saw him in broad daylight.

[Fisherman]

Abby:

"How could someone who has a good enough memory to describe in such detail A-man on the night of the murder could not be sure if he saw him again, regardless of if he was wearing the same clothes or not? Especially by this time that GH was aware of MK's murder and that his A-man her likely killer.
"oh there he is again I think-oh well".

We make our preconceived guesses, and we are sometimes amazed, Abby. Keep in mind that we know next to nothing about the cirumstances involved!

What if Hutchinson saw a man fifty yards away in the crowd, and getting into a carriage as Hutch thought "wait a sec, wasnīt that ...?" If we are not sure in such situations, what do we do? Run off to the nearest police station to tell them that we have seen a man that MAY have been the same man, and who by that time is halfways to Banbury?

We know nothing of the levels involved here, please remember that! If you think things over, youīll realize that there are very many possible scenarios that lend themselves to perfectly innocent solutions to what you see as a red flag alert.

The bottom line is that Hutchinson was uncertain whether the Petticoat Lane man was the Dorset Street man. And most people do not yell for the police until they are certain!

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Hi Sally ! -my Post got replicated because my computer got 'blocked' on that thread and I went into 'Basil Fawlty' mode...manically hitting the 'Post' button whilst threatening my laptop (" right ! I'm warning you..you'd better reply to to Sally before the conversation has moved on, or I'm going to smash you to pieces and throw you out the window from the third floor..and you will never
correct me again..). I evidently got it's back up, because not only did it -(can't think why)- Post 6 times, but it then blocked again so I couldn't 'delete' 'cancel' or even reply anything else.....Grrrrrr..

Otherwise...well, Hutch-as-JtR wasn't so bright as all that...he would have effectively knobbled himself from ever risking being seen near a murder site again...

...the reason why the murders stopped ?