Ripperologist 146 - October 2015

[Ben]

Then theres Issacs,but no I will not go on,will be all day describing the suggestions without evidence there.Then again Ben's doing a terrific job in that regard.

Appreciate the kind words, Harry.

You'll notice that Jon is now attempting to create a suspect-comparison between the Australia-bound Hutchinson and Joseph Isaacs, which is a somewhat pointless exercise considering that the latter was absolved of all suspicion and later released by the police investigating the Mary Kelly murder, after it was proven beyond doubt that he could not have been responsible.

There is no evidence that "Aussie George" was ever once interrogated as a suspect, let alone adjudged innocent as one.

There is, as you also sensibly note, no evidence of any "missing report" from Abberline on the subject of Hutchinson either - only an extant report that accompanied the statement, which would unquestionably have contained a reference to any important revelations that might have supported the latter's credibility while under "interrogation". The fact that no such juicy bombshells appear in the report tells us that they never existed.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Jon,

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

Let’s start with this one:

“Shouldn't a "compelling" candidate have some form of definite connection, beyond the name?”

If there was a “definite connection”, we wouldn’t be looking for a mere “candidate” would we? A “definite connection” would establish the identity of the real George Hutchinson beyond question, wouldn't it? Unfortunately, until that “definite connection” arrives, the rest of us will have to be content with the odd potential link.

No, the possibility that the individual in question provided a false name has not “gone out of the window”. That too remains a “compelling” possibility, as I’ve argued for several years now; although, should further research lend additional weight to the candidature of “Aussie George”, I’ll be forced to eat my wideawake hat and abandon my previous suspicion that the real Hutchinson used a false name.

“So now in order to show support for Aussie-George being witness-George, he has to be responsible for McKenzie, Pinchin & Jackson.”

What are you talking about?

Since when did accepting the aforementioned three as ripper victims become an essential criterion “in order to show support for Aussie-George being witness-George”? I don’t recall Abby ever suggesting that he “has” to be responsible. For my part, I have shown support for the contention that “Aussie George” might have been the witness-George, just as I have recognised the obvious merit in the suggestion that witness-George might have been ripper-George, but I have never argued that the ripper was responsible for “Pinchin & Jackson”. McKenzie was very possibility a ripper victim, she doesn’t “have” to be “in order to show support for Aussie-George being witness-George”.

[Wickerman]

Jon
A suggestion should be supported by evidence.Pleased you have written that.
.
.
Then of course there is the missing Aberline report.Not a shread of evidence for that suggestion.

Police duties, procedures & responsibilities are not always subject to the same scrutiny. Officers are trained to follow rules & guidelines, day after day, year in year out. Abberline is not just any rookie officer, and as I pointed out to you months ago, Stewart Evans brought this same issue up a decade ago.
Of all people involved in Ripperology, wouldn't you think Evans is in the best position to know what procedure Abberline must follow, and what his responsibilities were?

I know, you have a different opinion, but what precisely is that "opinion" based on, is it an informed opinion?
Would it be comparable to Stewart's opinion?

Then theres Issacs,but no I will not go on,will be all day describing the suggestions without evidence there.Then again Ben's doing a terrific job in that regard.

Isaacs is a better comparison, but even so, the author Senise has found no evidence to place Aussie-George in the East End in 1888.

However, we have a direct statement from Mary Cusins that Isaacs was resident in Paternoster Row, just off Dorset St.
So, he can be easily placed in the vicinity of the murder, at the time of the murder - that is evidence.

Senise has nothing comparable to that.

[Wickerman]

Well that's a tad bit misleading. Its pure speculation he .."could have come from anywhere in England.." while we know its a FACT he was at the very least in Tilbury, a few miles and walking distance from the east end.

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.

[John G]

Thankyou John, I think you covered all the bases.

So now in order to show support for Aussie-George being witness-George, he has to be responsible for McKenzie, Pinchin & Jackson.

How much burden can this new hypothesis carry?

Yes, Jon, it does seem to be a tenuous link. 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!

[Wickerman]

Thankyou John, I think you covered all the bases.

So now in order to show support for Aussie-George being witness-George, he has to be responsible for McKenzie, Pinchin & Jackson.

How much burden can this new hypothesis carry?

[John G]

Hi John G

Yes it was. walking distance from the east end.

Only a couple of months after the McKenzie murder, and days after pinchon and Elizabeth Jackson.

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.

[Wickerman]

All credit to Mr. Sinese for a fascinating and superbly written article, and for providing such a compelling candidate for he of Miller's Court notoriety.

What part of that article makes this particular Aussie-George a "compelling" candidate for the Witness-George?
Shouldn't a "compelling" candidate have some form of definite connection, beyond the name?

Due to anyone being unable to find the witness Hutchinson, one suggestion posed by a few people, including one or two of the vocal minority was, that George Hutchinson (the witness), may not have been his real name.

Has that gone out the window now?

[Fisherman]

Hi John G

Yes it was. walking distance from the east end.

Only a couple of months after the McKenzie murder, and days after pinchon and Elizabeth Jackson.

Any distance is walking distance, provided enough time is afforded...

[Abby Normal]

There is no evidence that the George Hutchinson in question was a "sailor" - he was merely listed as such, in all probability, because he was discovered as a stowaway and put to work as a member of the crew, as was apparently typical at the time. His actual profession prior to embarking on the Ormuz was listed as "tinsmith" and a "labourer", which would make him one of the very few George Hutchinsons from the period whose occupation corresponded with that of Abberline's informant.

I never claimed it was "proven" that "Aussie George" was in London - I'm simply pointing out that he was unlikely to have avoided being in London on the way to Tilbury.

Hi Ben
but he was listed as an able seaman, probably had been in Merchant marines at some point in his recent past, not necessarily during the fall of 1888.

which might explain why most witnesses the night of the double event described the man as wearing a sailor cap and/or appearance of a sailor.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

But wasn't that simply the port from where he embarked on a journey to Australia? And wasn't it about a year after Kelly's murder?

To put things into perspective, I once caught a plane from Gatwick airport , even though that's about 200 miles away from where I actually live.

Hi John G

Yes it was. walking distance from the east end.

Only a couple of months after the McKenzie murder, and days after pinchon and Elizabeth Jackson.

[Fisherman]

There is no evidence that the George Hutchinson in question was a "sailor" - he was merely listed as such, in all probability, because he was discovered as a stowaway and put to work as a member of the crew, as was apparently typical at the time. His actual profession prior to embarking on the Ormuz was listed as "tinsmith" and a "labourer", which would make him one of the very few George Hutchinsons from the period whose occupation corresponded with that of Abberline's informant.

I never claimed it was "proven" that "Aussie George" was in London - I'm simply pointing out that he was unlikely to have avoided being in London on the way to Tilbury.

There is no way that we can assess how likely or unlikely he was to have traversed London, Ben.
There is only the fact that he cannot be placed there. Nothing else.

I wonīt go into the rest of your post, since it does not alter this.

[Ben]

There is no evidence that the George Hutchinson in question was a "sailor" - he was merely listed as such, in all probability, because he was discovered as a stowaway and put to work as a member of the crew, as was apparently typical at the time. His actual profession prior to embarking on the Ormuz was listed as "tinsmith" and a "labourer", which would make him one of the very few George Hutchinsons from the period whose occupation corresponded with that of Abberline's informant.

I never claimed it was "proven" that "Aussie George" was in London - I'm simply pointing out that he was unlikely to have avoided being in London on the way to Tilbury.

[Fisherman]

As you wish, Fish.

All I'd say is that the boat train from London has more to recommend it as a likely route to Tilbury than yomping over the Essex countryside (stopping off at Romford, for old time’s sake, of course). Liverpool Street, where Aussie George was likely to have boarded the Tilbury-bound train from (regardless of where he actually lived), is located in an area with rather more “ripperological” significance than, say, Toppy’s haunts of Norwood and Eltham.

It’s interesting to note that the most vociferous critics of Sinese’s article so far have been a) supporters of Crossmere’s candidacy, and b) those who have already nailed their colours to the Toppy mast years ago.

Predictably, we also find that adherents of a) are the most vocal champions of b).

All the best,
Ben

We can of course turn this issue into just about anything we want to.
The bottom line nevertheless remains - Aussie George cannot be placed in the East End or in London.

As a small aside, I would point out that sailors who frequent the same lines and ships have a tendency to live nearby where these ships sail from. For practical reasons, of course.
But overall, I donīt want to get drawn into any discussion about any likelihoods for Aussie Georgeīs having visited this or that place.

We must look at the evidence only, and that evidence does not involve any proven connection at all between Aussie George and the East End or London. That and that only was the question, and it has had itīs answer.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Fancing seeing you here on a Hutchinson thread of all places.

Aussie George could have come from anywhere in England, if anyone chooses to suggest a specific location in order to substantiate a theory...(etc etc)

Who's done that, then?

Who has "chosen to suggest" a specific place where this particular person lived prior to departing for Australia? All I've pointed out is that anyone who boarded an Australia-bound vessel from Tilbury docks was likely to have made their way there either from or via London.