Ripperologist 146 - October 2015

[Ben]

“I prefer to say that we cannot possibly know how he got to Tilbury.”

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

[John G]

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.

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.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Christer.
Precisely, and that lack of understanding is the cause of more time wasting posts than anything else.
Aussie George could have come from anywhere in England, if anyone chooses to suggest a specific location in order to substantiate a theory, that suggestion must be supported with evidence.

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.

[Fisherman]

Jon,Fisherman,
A suggestion should be supported by evidence.Pleased you have written that.
I mean,hasn't it been suggested that Cross,to take one instance,left home earlier than he says.Where is the evidence for that.Then of course there is the missing Aberline report.Not a shread of evidence for that suggestion.
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.

Nobody is saying that the point at which Lechmere left home is a proven thing, Harry. There are many possibilities, two of them suggested by the carman himself. These points of time are therefore both in evidence. None must be true as such. End of.

It is no harder than that. And it does not help put Aussie George in the East End.

You need to read Jons post. It could help us all to save valuable time and space.

[John G]

The problem that I see here is that you can't really say whether the killer's deeds are thematically consistent without knowing what those deeds meant to him, in his own mind. I daresay that everyone would agree that any serial killer is satisfying some obsessive desire that can't be accomodated legally, but exactly what the nature of that desire is, we can't know unless he tells us. We can make guesses from the evidence, certainly, and draw inferences from parallels to other cases, but in the end, we never know for sure.

Hi Ginger,

Well, as a natural sceptic I accept there's no such thing as absolute certainties, for example, see Hume's theory of inferential deduction. In fact, this is precisely why I haven't completely ruled out Jill the Ripper, the mad midwife, although she's pretty low on my list of suspects!

[harry]

Jon,Fisherman,
A suggestion should be supported by evidence.Pleased you have written that.
I mean,hasn't it been suggested that Cross,to take one instance,left home earlier than he says.Where is the evidence for that.Then of course there is the missing Aberline report.Not a shread of evidence for that suggestion.
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.

[Wickerman]

What you describe as sheer madness is therefore all about accepting good old, traditional research and the demands that follow with it....

Hi Christer.
Precisely, and that lack of understanding is the cause of more time wasting posts than anything else.
Aussie George could have come from anywhere in England, if anyone chooses to suggest a specific location in order to substantiate a theory, that suggestion must be supported with evidence.

[Ginger]

As Schlesinger (2010), notes, serial killer rituals do sometimes evolve or become more elaborate. However, they still remain "behavioural and thematically consistent".

The problem that I see here is that you can't really say whether the killer's deeds are thematically consistent without knowing what those deeds meant to him, in his own mind. I daresay that everyone would agree that any serial killer is satisfying some obsessive desire that can't be accomodated legally, but exactly what the nature of that desire is, we can't know unless he tells us. We can make guesses from the evidence, certainly, and draw inferences from parallels to other cases, but in the end, we never know for sure.

[Fisherman]

There is no evidence that I ever set foot in East London either,before emigrating to Australia,but I did.Relying on statements of that calibre as applying to proof is sheer lunacy.

I donīt think you have understood the issue at hand, Harry. Nobody is saying that Aussie George never set foot in London. What is being said is that there is no evidence to prove that he did.
If he had had proven East End - or at least London - connections, he would of course have been a better candidate for the role of the witness from the Kelly case.
But no such connections can be pointed at, at least not as of now.

Ben makes the point that he may well have travelled to Tilbury from Liverpool Street station, and that is of course a possibility. But even if we had had a train ticket that proved such a journey on Aussie Georges behalf (which we do not), it would still apply that we would not know whether he had just passed through London, coming from another place altogether, or if he actually lived in London.

Since the main contender for the role of the Kelly witness is George William Topping Hutchinson, we can see that Toppy has the upper hand in this respect, regardless of what we otherwise think of his candidature - we at the very least know that he WAS a Londoner, and that he went on to live his life in the East End.

What you describe as sheer madness is therefore all about accepting good old, traditional research and the demands that follow with it. When we name a candidate for a role in the Ripper saga, the geographical ties will always be a main concern.

[harry]

There is no evidence that I ever set foot in East London either,before emigrating to Australia,but I did.Relying on statements of that calibre as applying to proof is sheer lunacy.

[Fisherman]

Thanks for the information on the location of the port, Fisherman. I notice that the author referred to it in the article, but I must have missed it - that'll teach me to read these things on an iphone! Unless Aussie George came from somewhere like Gravesend, the likelihood is that he arrived at Tilbury Docks on the boat train from London, which departed from Liverpool Street.

I prefer to say that we cannot possibly know how he got to Tilbury. And no matter where we may think he came from and what route we may think he took, it nevertheless applies that there is absolutely no evidence that Aussie George ever set foot in the East End. Or in London.

[Ben]

Thanks for the information on the location of the port, Fisherman. I notice that the author referred to it in the article, but I must have missed it - that'll teach me to read these things on an iphone! Unless Aussie George came from somewhere like Gravesend, the likelihood is that he arrived at Tilbury Docks on the boat train from London, which departed from Liverpool Street.

[Ben]

Many thanks for those details, Pat.

To address some earlier points:

Jeffrey Dahmer went from violent murder, to indecent non-violent exposure, back to violent murder again. He evidently found himself unconstrained by the Rule Book from which some people are basing their “knowledge” of criminology, and accordingly was able to commit murder (which in this case included the “signature” or cannibalism and trophy-taking) and indecent exposure – presumably because they both fall under the canopy of bad things to do to other people against their will for one’s own sexual gratification. I’m afraid it’s straight back to basics for anyone who finds such a reality taxing, or who continues to insist that the two sorts of crimes are “worlds apart”, because they’re really not.

Some people appear to be grossly exaggerating how common the name “George Hutchinson” was, i.e. not particularly, according to anyone who has ever bothered to look the name up in the census records over the relevant period. John Smith is a “very common” name, whereas “George Hutchinson” produces about 200 hits in the 1881 census for anyone with that name born between 1850 and 1870, using Dew’s reference to a “young man” as a tentative guide. This good news this presents for anyone wishing to trace “Aussie George” in that set of records is that 200 is not so overwhelming a number as to deter a researcher from ruling out those "George Hutchinson's" whose details also crop up in the 1891 census, when our man was in Aus, thus reducing that number. It might be a job for someone like Fisherman, whose renewed interest in the topic of Hutchinson I hope we can sustain (sincerely meant, by the way).

Toppy remains a non-starter, of course, and I’m afraid the idea that he turns into a good candidate once you extricate him from the royal conspiracy, is as bootless as the idea that if you extricate Jack the Ripper from the murders, he’s actually quite a nice bloke.

[Paddy]

Ships Lists for Geo Hutchinson

Here are some earlier ships lists for Geo Hutchinson I put in one J and a D ? Hutchinson as the profession and origin was the same.
These are NSW Arrivals The writing is not too good on some All are crew except the first.
The J Hutchinson Carpenter from London seems to have done a lot of short haul trips on the Bullara he also is called R Hutchinson in one.
Where it says origin below this is the person not the ship....

Geo Hutchinson Born 1860
24 Jan 1882 ship: Northumberland ..... Passenger

G H Hutchinson Born 1861
10 Apr 1885 ship:Pathan Origin:Wisbeach Cambridgshire
(also Feb 1884 and sept 1887) assistant steward and Gen s*t?

G Hutchenson born 1858
1 Oct 1886 ship:Elamang Origin:British ......ships Trimmer

J Hutchinson Born 1859
8 Mar 1898 ship: Willyama Origin:London ......ships Carpenter

G Hutchinson Born 1860
5 Oct 1899 ship: Bullarra Origin: London .....ships carpenter

T Hutchinson Born 1860
22 Sep 1899 ship:Bullarra Origin: London .....Carpenter

J Hutchinson born1861
29 Jan 1900 Bullarra Origin:London ......Carpenter

I will see if I can check out any other lists. There was none in 1888

Pat

[Paddy]

Previous Conviction?

This is another earlier possible conviction under an alias of Arthur Dent in may 1896 ?
Pat....