Ripperologist 146 - October 2015

[Abby Normal]

But we don't know if Aussie George was close by. All we know for sure is that he embarked on a boat from London., probably weeks after McKenzie's murder. At least there's proof that Bury actually lived in the East End, I.e during 1888. And considering clear evidence of escalating violence there has to be some significant doubt, maybe considerable doubt, that McKenzie was a Ripper victim. In fact, it seems to me that Ellen Bury was as much of a Ripper victim as McKenzie. Well, apart from location, of course, but then maybe her the Ripper relocated from London to Scotland!

Hi johnG
Is bury your favored suspect?

[John G]

Hi John,

In view of this particular Hutchinson's listed occupation as a "tinsmith" and a "labourer", the chances of him stumping up for costly travel fares taking him unnecessary miles across the country to his "port of preference" were obviously very slim, especially if he planned to make a day of it the "big city" beforehand, as you unrealistically suggest. The idea that a man in such circumstances would deliberately select a port of embarkation miles away from the nearest one is similarly ludicrous.



Which wouldn’t be anywhere near as fallacious as “your logic” that an individual using modern transport and having the leisure and the funds available to select his favourite airport, is in any way comparable to the predicament of an impoverished labourer with severely limited transport options in 1889.

I’m not claiming to be in possession of evidence that this particular Hutchinson ever lived in London. I’m simply observing that since he boarded the Ormuz in Tilbury, the likelihood is that he took the boat train there from Liverpool Street; which means that in contrast to a whole host of candidates proposed for the identity of George Hutchinson, this one can at least be shown to have a connection with London, and to share the same occupation as the man who gave evidence to Abberline.



I haven’t done any such thing; I’ve merely rejected your gross misinterpretation of those arguments. You say “I accept that serial killer rituals can sometimes evolve”, which is reassuring, but who has claimed that the assaults on those boys belonged to any sort of “ritual”, “evolved” or otherwise? You might as well argue that the real ripper would never shop-lift because it is too significant a departure from his “ritual”. What’s wrong with the basic notion that he committed a different crime, albeit still a sexually motivated one, because - for unknown reasons - the opportunities for "escalating" that "ritual" were not so readily available?

If you’re truly interested in absorbing the opinions of “experts”, you might want to heed the findings of the “Ripper Project” – conducted by Ressler, Douglas and others – which concluded:

“Generally, crimes such as these cease because the offender has come close to being identified, has been interviewed by the police, or has been arrested for some other offence”

Except those experts must be wrong because, according to you, serial killers with “signatures” and “rituals” never commit any other crimes.

Regards,
Ben

Hello Ben,

Well, it's comforting to note that you accept there's zero evidence that Aussie George ever lived in London. However, your argument that he would necessarily elect to travel to his nearest port is, I'm afraid, unsustainable. In fact, we can't even assume that it would be less costly to do so, particularly as there were numerous rail companies operating at the time, and we can't assume they all charged the same prices. Anyway, rail travel was relatively inexpensive at the time, especially if you travelled third class.

I haven't suggested that a serial killer couldn't commit other crimes. However, the idea that a perpetrator who has hitherto focussed on adult female victims, targeting the breast area and organs of regeneration would, several years later, re-emerge as a perpetrator who commits sexual assaults against young boys, is frankly ludicrous, which is presumably why you can't cite any precedents.

In any event, in respect of JtR there is clear evidence of escalating violence, so I hardly think that such a killer would suddenly become a retired serial killer, let alone transform into a flasher. In fact, it seems to me that the vast majority of serial killers have so little control over their urges that they continue until they are caught or incapacitated: Ted Bundy even committed a murder after he escaped from pridon, and even Dennis Rader said he was planning to commit further murders.

[Fisherman]

And I would say the chances of him living in London are pretty good.

But based on WHAT, Abby?

[John G]

Bury was as about as far away from ripper victim Alice mckenzie as you can get!
And he was never placed near any of the others which is also a main argument against him. Which is why people claim he could have used his cart to get back and forth.

No we don't know if Aussie George was ever in London but we do know he was very close by, beating a hasty retreat shortly after the last ripper victim was killed.

And I would say the chances of him living in London are pretty good.

But we don't know if Aussie George was close by. All we know for sure is that he embarked on a boat from London., probably weeks after McKenzie's murder. At least there's proof that Bury actually lived in the East End, I.e during 1888. And considering clear evidence of escalating violence there has to be some significant doubt, maybe considerable doubt, that McKenzie was a Ripper victim. In fact, it seems to me that Ellen Bury was as much of a Ripper victim as McKenzie. Well, apart from location, of course, but then maybe her the Ripper relocated from London to Scotland!

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

Bow is in the East End of London! In fact, both Bow and Whitechapel are in the same small borough: Tower Hamlets. Or put another way Bow is 4.6 miles east of Charing Cross, and Whitechapel 3.4 miles east of Charing Cross. Tower Hamlets, by the way, is just 7.6 square miles in area.

Sorry Abby, but I'm guessing that London geography isn't one of your stronger points. However, the good news is that, furnished with this new information, you can now reconsider William Bury as a strong suspect!

Interestingly, the definition of a cockney-native of East London-is being born within hearing distance of Bow Bells.

Bury was as about as far away from ripper victim Alice mckenzie as you can get!
And he was never placed near any of the others which is also a main argument against him. Which is why people claim he could have used his cart to get back and forth.

No we don't know if Aussie George was ever in London but we do know he was very close by, beating a hasty retreat shortly after the last ripper victim was killed.

And I would say the chances of him living in London are pretty good.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

...in contrast to a whole host of candidates proposed for the identity of George Hutchinson, this one can at least be shown to have a connection with London...

And what connection is that, Ben?

That you personally think that he may well have gone by train from Liverpool street Station to Tilbury? Is that what you are telling us is a connection to London?

Just being curious here.

[Wickerman]

Jon,

In your zeal to wade heavily into any Hutchinson thread going, you overlook some fairly obvious realities.

Do you realize in the last 24 hours there have been five Lechmere threads on the go, pull yours socks up man!

Let’s start with this one:

If there was a “definite connection”, we wouldn’t be looking for a mere “candidate” would we?

Any author who published a theory is expected to have done his research before he puts the theory to print. If Senise is suggesting Aussie-George & Witness-George are one and the same, then it is expected he has made a potential connection even in some small way.

Where was Aussie-George in 1888?

[Wickerman]

Jon,
Again Ben has demolished,in detail,all points set by you.
My objection was to your claim that all suggestions should be supported by evidence.Utterly wrong.
What law enforcement training teaches,is that when evidence is not present,suggested methods of seeking that evidence,is quite valid.
Now do not bring other personalities into the discussion.There are numerous law enforcement agencies,and thousands of law enforcement officers.Not all policemen,but all equally well trained and knowledgeable.
Whether I am better or worse than any of those bothers me none,but the fact that you continually use other people,shows a definite lack of confidence in yourself.

It's called "referencing your sources", it indicates you have done some research. Something you should try every once in a while.
Stewart Evans is an author and a legitimate source.

Responding to arguments that consist solely of opinion, uninformed opinion at that, especially from one who has refused to read relevant sources, is less than worthless and a complete waste of time.

Do some research, provide some quotes from your sources, demonstrate in some small way that you have even the smallest idea as to what you are talking about.

[Ben]

Hi John,

In view of this particular Hutchinson's listed occupation as a "tinsmith" and a "labourer", the chances of him stumping up for costly travel fares taking him unnecessary miles across the country to his "port of preference" were obviously very slim, especially if he planned to make a day of it the "big city" beforehand, as you unrealistically suggest. The idea that a man in such circumstances would deliberately select a port of embarkation miles away from the nearest one is similarly ludicrous.

“However, applying your logic, you no doubt would argue that this is evidence that I once lived in Gatwick, when in actually I've never lived within a 150 miles of the place!”

Which wouldn’t be anywhere near as fallacious as “your logic” that an individual using modern transport and having the leisure and the funds available to select his favourite airport, is in any way comparable to the predicament of an impoverished labourer with severely limited transport options in 1889.

I’m not claiming to be in possession of evidence that this particular Hutchinson ever lived in London. I’m simply observing that since he boarded the Ormuz in Tilbury, the likelihood is that he took the boat train there from Liverpool Street; which means that in contrast to a whole host of candidates proposed for the identity of George Hutchinson, this one can at least be shown to have a connection with London, and to share the same occupation as the man who gave evidence to Abberline.

“It's interesting the way you seem to reject the arguments of criminologists.”

I haven’t done any such thing; I’ve merely rejected your gross misinterpretation of those arguments. You say “I accept that serial killer rituals can sometimes evolve”, which is reassuring, but who has claimed that the assaults on those boys belonged to any sort of “ritual”, “evolved” or otherwise? You might as well argue that the real ripper would never shop-lift because it is too significant a departure from his “ritual”. What’s wrong with the basic notion that he committed a different crime, albeit still a sexually motivated one, because - for unknown reasons - the opportunities for "escalating" that "ritual" were not so readily available?

If you’re truly interested in absorbing the opinions of “experts”, you might want to heed the findings of the “Ripper Project” – conducted by Ressler, Douglas and others – which concluded:

“Generally, crimes such as these cease because the offender has come close to being identified, has been interviewed by the police, or has been arrested for some other offence”

Except those experts must be wrong because, according to you, serial killers with “signatures” and “rituals” never commit any other crimes.

Regards,
Ben

[John G]

he never lived in the east end either John G. Bow is the closest he ever got. I at one time when I was a noob, thought he was a viable candidate too. except he was dead as a door nail when Alice McKenzie was murdered by the ripper.

try again.

Hello Abby,

Bow is in the East End of London! In fact, both Bow and Whitechapel are in the same small borough: Tower Hamlets. Or put another way Bow is 4.6 miles east of Charing Cross, and Whitechapel 3.4 miles east of Charing Cross. Tower Hamlets, by the way, is just 7.6 square miles in area.

Sorry Abby, but I'm guessing that London geography isn't one of your stronger points. However, the good news is that, furnished with this new information, you can now reconsider William Bury as a strong suspect!

Interestingly, the definition of a cockney-native of East London-is being born within hearing distance of Bow Bells.

[John G]

...Which is a self-defeating argument if ever I read one, John.

If there were "many UK ports from which travel to Australia was possible", then the very fact that our George happened to use one the ports closest to London is an obvious indication that he can't have lived particularly far away from that port; otherwise, he would have used one of the "many UK ports" that better suited the location of his home.



It would help if you could clarify who you're comparing Bury to - the as-yet-unidentified man who introduced himself as a witness in 1888, or do you mean "Aussie George", with or without the suggested connection to the 1888 "witness"?



But your reasons for rejecting "Aussie George" have been extremely unconvincing, and appear to have their basis in a hugely distorted understanding of serial killer psychology, or rather what the "experts" have inferred about same.

Regards,
Ben

Hello Ben,

Are you seriously arguing that he must have lived close to London, because he elected to sail from there? Yes, I do believe you are! Surely you must realize that argument is easily demolished. I mean, as there were surely only a few ports from which travel to Australia was possible in the late nineteenth century he might have conceivably lived 100 miles or more from any of them.

And why would he necessarily use the port closest to his home? There could be many alternative reasons why he elected to travel from London, I.e convenient transport links, wanted to see the big city before departing dear old Blighty for good...

And, as I mentioned bin my previous post, I once travelled from Gatwick Airport, even though it's about 200 miles from where I live and by no means the closest airport. However, applying your logic, you no doubt would argue that this is evidence that I once lived in Gatwick, when in actually I've never lived within a 150 miles of the place!

It's interesting the way you seem to reject the arguments of criminologists. Now, I accept that serial killer rituals can sometimes evolve- Schlesinger gives an example of a serial killer who began with post mortem genital mutilation and progressed to dismemberment-but where on earth is the evidence that a throat slashing mutilator and organ remover,whose level of violence appears to be showing clear signs of escalation, is remotely likely to reemerge several years later as a flasher who indecent assaults young boys? This is all the more incomprehensible when you consider the strength of JtR's compulsive urge to carry out post mortem mutilations. After all, he took tremendous risks by remaining at the crime scenes for significant periods in order to fully satisfy his compulsive urges.

Anyway, back to the crux of the matter. Where is the evidence that Aussie George ever lived in London?

[harry]

Jon,
Again Ben has demolished,in detail,all points set by you.
My objection was to your claim that all suggestions should be supported by evidence.Utterly wrong.
What law enforcement training teaches,is that when evidence is not present,suggested methods of seeking that evidence,is quite valid.
Now do not bring other personalities into the discussion.There are numerous law enforcement agencies,and thousands of law enforcement officers.Not all policemen,but all equally well trained and knowledgeable.
Whether I am better or worse than any of those bothers me none,but the fact that you continually use other people,shows a definite lack of confidence in yourself.

[Abby Normal]

What is misleading Abby is, to suggest a connection between Aussie-George & Witness-George, on the strength of Aussie-George being in Tilbury at one moment in time full year after we last hear of Witness-George.
That is misleading.

lame.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

I've a feeling we might slightly disagree as to whether JtR was responsible for any of the Torso murders/mysteries! Alice McKenzie's a reasonable candidate though.

Anyway, it seems to me that there's not a shred of evidence that he ever lived in London; the Tilbury connection simply relates to where he travelled to Australia from. However, even in this regard, I wouldn't have thought there were many UK ports from which travel to Australia was possible; he therefore may have lived a considerable distance from London.

To put all of this into perspective, William Bury is hardly most people's favoured candidate, and he did live in the East End at the relevant time, arguably committed a Ripper-style murder, and possibly indirectly confessed to being JtR.

he never lived in the east end either John G. Bow is the closest he ever got. I at one time when I was a noob, thought he was a viable candidate too. except he was dead as a door nail when Alice McKenzie was murdered by the ripper.

try again.

[Ben]

However, even in this regard, I wouldn't have thought there were many UK ports from which travel to Australia was possible; he therefore may have lived a considerable distance from London.

...Which is a self-defeating argument if ever I read one, John.

If there were "many UK ports from which travel to Australia was possible", then the very fact that our George happened to use one the ports closest to London is an obvious indication that he can't have lived particularly far away from that port; otherwise, he would have used one of the "many UK ports" that better suited the location of his home.

To put all of this into perspective, William Bury is hardly most people's favoured candidate, and he did live in the East End at the relevant time, arguably committed a Ripper-style murder, and possibly indirectly confessed to being JtR.

It would help if you could clarify who you're comparing Bury to - the as-yet-unidentified man who introduced himself as a witness in 1888, or do you mean "Aussie George", with or without the suggested connection to the 1888 "witness"?

In fact, I'm beginning to think that Bruce Robbinson's candidate is more promising, not that he's a remotely plausible candidate either- just slightly more likely than Aussie George!

But your reasons for rejecting "Aussie George" have been extremely unconvincing, and appear to have their basis in a hugely distorted understanding of serial killer psychology, or rather what the "experts" have inferred about same.

Regards,
Ben