The Surly Man

[Abby Normal]

Can anyone provide an example,a verified case of a suspect being created with the attention to detail that Hutch showed. Surely, if Hutch wanted divert attention away from himself then he would have created something more believable?.

Hi Scorpio

-His story of A-man was initially totally believable by Abberline
-In his mind maybe Hutch thought the more detail he gave the more believable A-man would be
-what Ben said
-If Hutch was the murderer, he wanted to divert attention far away from himself, so much that he would even offer to aid the police in finding this A-man. Therefore he needed to bolster his claim to them with detail that he could indentify again.
-If trying to blame jews, the more detail he could provide other than saying he looked jewish, would make A-man more beleivable

[Scorpio]

Well, i am arguing that an ordinary Joe would probably do that, but your Hutch shows much more imagination.

[Ben]

I just wonder if Hutch possesed adequate motivation and the cognitive skills to achieve it. A feat worthy of Moriarty.

I thought you were arguing the exact opposite, Scorpio - that a sensible and intelligent "suspicion-deflector" would construct a more "believable" suspect? Hutchinson's obvious failure in this regard would mean that his was not a feat worthy of Moriarty.

[Scorpio]

This is engaging theory;Composite fake suspects are a new concept for me as these bogeymen/scapegoats are usually pretty basic. I just wonder if Hutch possesed adequate motivation and the cognitive skills to achieve it. A feat worthy of Moriarty.

[Ben]

"However,the general rule in the creation of invented suspects, tends toward more conventional criminal stereotypes"

Yes, but those stereotypes change over time, Scorpio. There are compelling compelling indications that Hutchinson sought to incorporate as many "suspicious" elements as possible into the Astrakhan man creation, and in that regard, it appears he borrowed from both press reports and other witness descriptions. There had been widespread suspicion against the Jews in the wake of "Leather Apron", so he made him Jewish and surly looking. There was suspicion that he might have been a medical man, so he made him well dressed and wealthy-looking, also giving him a black package of potentially knife-shaped dimensions in accordance with several other press accounts.

I agree, it is most assuredly a tough call to both notice and memorize all that Hutchinson alleged, which means he simply over-egged the pudding a bit when constructing his "suspect.

Best regards,
Ben

[Scorpio]

Thanks for pointing out the short sightedness in my arguement. However,the general rule in the creation of invented suspects, tends toward more conventional criminal stereotypes,but with few distinguishing features, as most people of normal intelligence realise quickly that remembering so many details on multiple occasions is a tough call. I believe Hutch could have given us such a limited description but provide a simple reason for loitering. Consider Dr Sam Sheppard's " Bushy haired man ", and Sam was considered an intelligent man. Sheppard was convicted,then later acquited of his wife's murder, but the weight of opinion still considers him guilty.

[Ben]

Hi Scorpio,

Surely, if Hutch wanted divert attention away from himself then he would have created something more believable?

As I've pointed out on a number of occasions, it simply doesn't follow that if the lie is particularly unconvincing, it cannot have been a lie at all. As such, it cannot be argued that the "unbelievability" of Hutchinson's description lends weight to him not having lied about it and not having used it as a means of "diverting attention away from himself".

It was necessary for the suspect to "stand out" in order to legimitize Hutchinson's interest in following him. Remember that the man's appearance was the reason he gave Abberline for his Miller's Court vigil. This reason would obviously have been invalidated if Hutchinson had described someone who looked more like Blotchy, who would not have been conspicuous either in the area or consorting with a common prostitute. It would also have defeated the purpose of deflecting suspicion in a different direction if he described someone of a similar physical appearance to himself.

All the best,
Ben

[Scorpio]

Can anyone provide an example,a verified case of a suspect being created with the attention to detail that Hutch showed. Surely, if Hutch wanted divert attention away from himself then he would have created something more believable?.

[Ben]

Hi all,

I agree entirely with Sally and Abby. The publicity seeker explanation simply had an established precedent for the police as far as false witnesses were concerned, and it would be entirely understandable for them to have cast Hutchinson in this mould, even if they did so erroneously. Significantly, Emanuel Violenia was a “witness” who, despite claiming to have been at the crime scene at a time relevant to the murder, was not apparently investigated as a suspect, but simply dismissed as a publicity seeker. If we’re not castigating the intelligence of the police for this “oversight”, we shouldn’t really change the goalposts for Hutchinson.

I don’t dismiss Caz’s suggestion that the police “sought to ascertain a new reason for Hutch to have been there innocently, or failing that, to ascertain that he wasn't there as previously stated, and could be safely allowed to drop off their radar”, but there’s a crucial difference between “seeking” to ascertain something and actually ascertaining it, and I can guarantee you that the latter is a lot less common in criminal investigations. The likelihood is that if (a big “if” for which we have no evidence) the police ever came to suspect Hutchinson of ripping, they would not have been able to convert suspicions into proof. But the reality, I suspect, is that Hutchinson was dismissed as yet another bull$hitter and cast into the burgeoning bull$hit basket without the possibility of his guilt ever being considered.

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi Fish, and everyone,
Because nobody then, and now. have any idea what occured on those nights,given all the statements given, the police then ,came to the conclusion that as things didnt fit, something like witnesses mistakes must have occured, something which has filtered down to the present.
But what if no mistakes occured.. what have we?
Kelly leaving the court at 9pm onthe 8th[ seen by Prater] wearing her jacket, and bonnet.
Cox seeing Kelly near midnight , but dressed differently.
Hutchinson seeing Kelly at 2am on the 9th.
Prater hearing a cry around 4am ' like awakening from a nightmare'
Maxwell seeing Kelly at 815am, and 845 am .
mentions she was talking to a middle aged market porter.
Maurice Lewis, admits to playing a illegal game of pitch in the court , when he saw kelly leave her room soon after 8am, and return shortly after with milk.
Lottie , interviewed by Kit Watkins , three years after, mentions that Kelly had a nightmare in which she was 'being murdered' [ note Praters comments] also note the cry 'Oh Murder' which is apt.
Maxwell describes as a 'Level headed woman' of good character, swears under a cautioned oath at the inquest.
So What have we ... make sense of all that.?
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal:

"Except that Sarah Lewis saw him there..."

That is in no way established. It is established that Sarah Lewis said she saw a man there, but I do not think she mentioned Hutchinson specifically. So we need to ask ourselves if it is possible that two different men can be standing at the same general point in a city of London´s size, at the same hour and on consecutive nights. And I have got a great answer for that one!

"... and apparently the police did not make the connection".

Well, that would depend how one reads the evidence. Try another hat on for size, Abby, just for a change:
1. Lewis says she was there at 2.30.
2. Hutchinson says that he only saw two OTHER people.
3. Ergo, the two are not describing the same occasion.
4. The police dropped Hutchinson.

Looking at matters that way, I think that something else than the police´s inability to make the connection becomes apparent. The very opposite, in fact.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"how could even the dimmest light bulb in the police force, never mind Abberline, not have seen it too and sought to ascertain a new reason for Hutch to have been there innocently, or failing that, to ascertain that he wasn't there as previously stated, and could be safely allowed to drop off their radar?"

That, Caz, is as good and as legitimate as any question is gonna get. And you know my answer to it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"My view (following several other, now discarded views) is that the police probably dismissed him as one time waster amongst many - albeit an initially convincing one."

And since he was the talk of the town, predominantly the parts of the town that represented police stations (we know that Abberline hasted to ensure that the districts were all given the information about the acceptedly truthful observation made by Hutchinson) - would a following discarding report not be something that the very same districts were in dire need of? In order to stop them from following a lead that had now been established to be useless, I mean? It would have saved them a lot of unneccesary trouble, methinks!

Of course, such a message MAY have been sent out, only to get lost to the world in years to come. But IF it was sent out, and IF it was common knowledge among the men who hunted the Ripper - then why did they forget to tell poor Dew? Why was he kept in the dark, and left to make his purportedly very private and totally unsupportable guess that Hutchinson had been dropped because the police had decided that he was wrong on the days?

Strange, is it not?

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Yes, but if we can all see the bleedin' obvious - that without Surly Man, Hutch's stated and signed reason for being there at all, never mind at that time on that night, falls apart, ceases to exist, dies a death and meets its maker - how could even the dimmest light bulb in the police force, never mind Abberline, not have seen it too and sought to ascertain a new reason for Hutch to have been there innocently, or failing that, to ascertain that he wasn't there as previously stated, and could be safely allowed to drop off their radar?

The very last possibility strikes me as being the one where Abberline and co merely assumed, without first looking closely at the alternatives, that Hutch was innocent and either mistaken or telling fibs about being there at all. One lie - concerning his curiosity about a surly man who wasn't there - would have been one too many for a police force hellbent on catching and stopping the man who was there in his tracks. One lie means not making any assumptions either way about anything else that Hutch claimed. It doesn't mean assuming everything else to be true, or that he lied about everything else and was therefore only a liar and no worse.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
Except that Sarah Lewis saw him there, and apparently the police did not make the connection, therfore increasing the possibility that the police thought Hutch was lying about not only Surly man, but about even being there that night, therefore making Hutch in the police's eye's a harmless timewaster-not a suspect.

[Sally]

Yes, but if we can all see the bleedin' obvious - that without Surly Man, Hutch's stated and signed reason for being there at all, never mind at that time on that night, falls apart, ceases to exist, dies a death and meets its maker - how could even the dimmest light bulb in the police force, never mind Abberline, not have seen it too and sought to ascertain a new reason for Hutch to have been there innocently, or failing that, to ascertain that he wasn't there as previously stated, and could be safely allowed to drop off their radar?

The very last possibility strikes me as being the one where Abberline and co merely assumed, without first looking closely at the alternatives, that Hutch was innocent and either mistaken or telling fibs about being there at all. One lie - concerning his curiosity about a surly man who wasn't there - would have been one too many for a police force hellbent on catching and stopping the man who was there in his tracks. One lie means not making any assumptions either way about anything else that Hutch claimed. It doesn't mean assuming everything else to be true, or that he lied about everything else and was therefore only a liar and no worse.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz - I broadly agree. My view (following several other, now discarded views) is that the police probably dismissed him as one time waster amongst many - albeit an initially convincing one. I think an attentive reading of the report in the Echo of the 13th November demonstrates clearly that this was already the case. The early appearance of this press report, whilst the other papers were still oohing and aahing over Hutchinson's technicolor suspect account; hints at inside information, I think.

Hutchinson would not necessarily have stood out as suspicious. He lived at the Victoria Home, that Mecca of all that was respectable, according to some - which had recently been described in glowing terms by none other than the Telegraph; he wasn't obviously a Jew, a lunatic, or anything else that appeared to be deviant.

I suppose the eternal (apparentlly) question is whether we accept that view today. Some do, some don't. I'm quite happy on the fence, although I do find him interesting.

Best regards

Sally