Ripperologist 146 - October 2015

[Fisherman]

many valid points Fish!
But at this point I'll just have to agree to come to different conclusions.

That being said Im extremely interested on what more can be found out about Aussie George-especially that prior conviction! And Pat marshalls wandering vagrant groom hutch.

Btw I have always considered Toppy a valid candidate for witness hutch and still do. Just wish he hadn't surfaced during a royal conspiracy fiasco.

You need to free yourself of the royal conspiracy fiasco - what is left is quite, quite enough to declare Toppy the only truly credible candidate, methinks.

As for the prior conviction for Aussie George, I think we would all love to see it. And maybe it can turn it all upside down (after all, he IS Aussie George )

But until that happens, I think we need to disagree, just as you say. I know I must, at least.

[Abby Normal]

Abby Normal:

we know serial killers can change their usual MO/sig and victimology.

This we know from experience. But where is the experience pointing to a serialist having made this kind of leap? Before we find it, there is no precedence, and if there is no precedence, then we donīt know it can happen.

You say there were a lot of George Hutchinsons around. Really? its not that common of a name and of the George Hutchinsons that have been found most have been ruled out. I believe there are only three valid candidates for Hutch at this time- Toppy, Aussie George and Vagrant Groom hutch(from researcher Pat Marshall). And no, we don't need a world wide perspective-Place of origin listed was "England".

Once we apply a generous age group, there will be a good number of George Hutchinsons in Britain. I think you are speaking of a very confined area, Abby, and we certainly canīt say that Aussie George would have been a Londoner.

wheres the link to witness hutch? here:

Name

Not uncommon at all

age

We donīt know how old the witness was!

was in the London area

No, he sailed from Tilbury, and he could have come there from anywhere in Britain (including John OīGroats)

was a "wanderer"

Common. They came in tens of thousands.

Laborer class/changing occupations

Common. They came in tens of thousands.

Leaving for Australia fits with witness hutch falling off the face of the earth.

But Hutchinson never fell off the face of earth, Abby. If you recognise the three candidates you listed yourself, then you will know that one of them has been tracked down extensively. And far from falling off the face of earth, he was in the East End throughout.

Fits description of Sarah lewis Hutch.

She only described the general body composition. And she said short and stocky. In 1870, the average height of a Victorian man was 5 ft 5. Aussie George was 5 ft 5 1/2. He was therefore not short.
As for weight, he would on todays BMI index end up in the borderland between normal weight and overweight.

So whatīs left, Abby?

link to ripper? above and:

fits many witness descriptions in age, build, attire, height and physical appearance.

We donīt know what to compare to, Abby.

Was in (or at the very least near) London/East end. and according to witness hutch Tillbury dock would not even be as far as a stroll from Romford.

Tilbury is twice the stretch from the East End, compared to Romford. Durward Street-Tilbury along the A13 (the nearest route) measures 37 kilometres, and Durward Street-Romford measures 21 kilometres along the same route. And 20 along the A118.
And in the end, neither village is in the East End. Far from it. He canīt be placed in the East End, Abby!

From the mug shot you can see that this is a very stout and powerfully built man-which the ripper probably must have been very strong.

A mountaineer is extremely strong - and anything but stocky. Strength does not have to show on the outside. Lean men can be strong, stocky men can be weak.

Convicted of a sex crime.

That differs WILDLY from the crimes JtR perpetrated!

Crime involved vulnerable victims

... of another gender and age than the JtR victims!! And NO violence was inflicted. The crimes are extremes, both of them - but on either side of the sex offence line.

According to record, Aussie George also has a prior conviction. It will be very interesting to see what this is. many serial killers have police record other than their serial murders.

... and others have not.

Leaving for Australia coincides with the end of the murders. (alice Mckenzie, who was a ripper victim, or Jackson and Pinchon torso, if you are willing to entertain that possibility-which I think you do.)

But why would he flee? He was not a suspect, and nobody looked for him.

He was classified as having an Able Seaman station and was in the Merchant marines-this could explain the pattern to the ripper murders re timing.

He travelled on a ship bound for Australia. The trip took 42 days between Tilbury and Sydney. If he sailed regularly on the Ormuz, it rules him out, not in.

On the night of the double event most of the witnesses describe a man wearing a sailor type cap and having the appearance of a sailor.

How many sailors were there, Abby? And how many men were there who wore peaked caps without being sailors?

It falls flat, no matter how we look upon it. Even with the most optimistic of approaches, we are left with no case at all.
We donīt identify all smiling men with a beard and a big belly as Santa Claus, do we?

many valid points Fish!
But at this point I'll just have to agree to come to different conclusions.

That being said Im extremely interested on what more can be found out about Aussie George-especially that prior conviction! And Pat marshalls wandering vagrant groom hutch.

Btw I have always considered Toppy a valid candidate for witness hutch and still do. Just wish he hadn't surfaced during a royal conspiracy fiasco.

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal:

we know serial killers can change their usual MO/sig and victimology.

This we know from experience. But where is the experience pointing to a serialist having made this kind of leap? Before we find it, there is no precedence, and if there is no precedence, then we donīt know it can happen.

You say there were a lot of George Hutchinsons around. Really? its not that common of a name and of the George Hutchinsons that have been found most have been ruled out. I believe there are only three valid candidates for Hutch at this time- Toppy, Aussie George and Vagrant Groom hutch(from researcher Pat Marshall). And no, we don't need a world wide perspective-Place of origin listed was "England".

Once we apply a generous age group, there will be a good number of George Hutchinsons in Britain. I think you are speaking of a very confined area, Abby, and we certainly canīt say that Aussie George would have been a Londoner.

wheres the link to witness hutch? here:

Name

Not uncommon at all

age

We donīt know how old the witness was!

was in the London area

No, he sailed from Tilbury, and he could have come there from anywhere in Britain (including John OīGroats)

was a "wanderer"

Common. They came in tens of thousands.

Laborer class/changing occupations

Common. They came in tens of thousands.

Leaving for Australia fits with witness hutch falling off the face of the earth.

But Hutchinson never fell off the face of earth, Abby. If you recognise the three candidates you listed yourself, then you will know that one of them has been tracked down extensively. And far from falling off the face of earth, he was in the East End throughout.

Fits description of Sarah lewis Hutch.

She only described the general body composition. And she said short and stocky. In 1870, the average height of a Victorian man was 5 ft 5. Aussie George was 5 ft 5 1/2. He was therefore not short.
As for weight, he would on todays BMI index end up in the borderland between normal weight and overweight.

So whatīs left, Abby?

link to ripper? above and:

fits many witness descriptions in age, build, attire, height and physical appearance.

We donīt know what to compare to, Abby.

Was in (or at the very least near) London/East end. and according to witness hutch Tillbury dock would not even be as far as a stroll from Romford.

Tilbury is twice the stretch from the East End, compared to Romford. Durward Street-Tilbury along the A13 (the nearest route) measures 37 kilometres, and Durward Street-Romford measures 21 kilometres along the same route. And 20 along the A118.
And in the end, neither village is in the East End. Far from it. He canīt be placed in the East End, Abby!

From the mug shot you can see that this is a very stout and powerfully built man-which the ripper probably must have been very strong.

A mountaineer is extremely strong - and anything but stocky. Strength does not have to show on the outside. Lean men can be strong, stocky men can be weak.

Convicted of a sex crime.

That differs WILDLY from the crimes JtR perpetrated!

Crime involved vulnerable victims

... of another gender and age than the JtR victims!! And NO violence was inflicted. The crimes are extremes, both of them - but on either side of the sex offence line.

According to record, Aussie George also has a prior conviction. It will be very interesting to see what this is. many serial killers have police record other than their serial murders.

... and others have not.

Leaving for Australia coincides with the end of the murders. (alice Mckenzie, who was a ripper victim, or Jackson and Pinchon torso, if you are willing to entertain that possibility-which I think you do.)

But why would he flee? He was not a suspect, and nobody looked for him.

He was classified as having an Able Seaman station and was in the Merchant marines-this could explain the pattern to the ripper murders re timing.

He travelled on a ship bound for Australia. The trip took 42 days between Tilbury and Sydney. If he sailed regularly on the Ormuz, it rules him out, not in.

On the night of the double event most of the witnesses describe a man wearing a sailor type cap and having the appearance of a sailor.

How many sailors were there, Abby? And how many men were there who wore peaked caps without being sailors?

It falls flat, no matter how we look upon it. Even with the most optimistic of approaches, we are left with no case at all.
We donīt identify all smiling men with a beard and a big belly as Santa Claus, do we?

[Abby Normal]

A valiant effort, Abby - but letīs not stray too far from the focus we need to have on Aussie George.

If we take a really close look at him, precisely whay is it that purportedly makes him a red-hot candidate for the witnesses role - and the role of Jack the Ripper?

I think - correct me if I am wrong - that you have suggested that there may not even have been any sexual element involved in what the Ripper did. If so, then where is the connection to the flashing Aussie George made himself guilty of? Would it not be like comparing shoplifting to drunken driving? Or insurance fraud to physical assault?

The two types of crimes are worlds apart. One involves women and extreme physical violence. The other involves young boys and no physical violence at all.

If this was enough to make the connection, then we can easily deduct that ANY crime could equal any other crime. And that is not so, we know that, both of us.

So there has to be more.

And what is there? The name? It was a very common one.

No link to London and the East End has been established. No record of violent crime has been established. No likeness in signatures has been established. No confessing to the role of the Whitechapel witness has been established, no relative has commented on him in this respect. No other example can be found where a serial killer downgraded from extreme violence to no violence at all, changing gender on his target group in the process.

As for the name, we seemingly have a worldwide perspective, involving the other side of the globe. Just how many George Hutchinsons would the world have contained at that stage, who were of a viable age? And the viable age is not around 28 years only, since there is absolutely no evidence anywhere that the witness of Ripper fame WAS 28 years old. It is a myth. A viable age will stretch from below 20 to past 30 years of age. There must have been hundreds or even thousands of George Hutchinsons in that scope...

So once again: where is the link, Abby? I canīt see it.

good counterpoint Fish-seriously.

I totally see the point you are making but all I can say is that we know serial killers can change their usual MO/sig and victimology.

You say there were a lot of George Hutchinsons around. Really? its not that common of a name and of the George Hutchinsons that have been found most have been ruled out. I believe there are only three valid candidates for Hutch at this time- Toppy, Aussie George and Vagrant Groom hutch(from researcher Pat Marshall). And no, we don't need a world wide perspective-Place of origin listed was "England".

wheres the link to witness hutch? here:
Name
age
was in the London area
was a "wanderer"
Laborer class/changing occupations
Leaving for Australia fits with witness hutch falling off the face of the earth.
Fits description of Sarah lewis Hutch.

link to ripper? above and:

fits many witness descriptions in age, build, attire, height and physical appearance.
Was in (or at the very least near) London/East end. and according to witness hutch Tillbury dock would not even be as far as a stroll from Romford.
From the mug shot you can see that this is a very stout and powerfully built man-which the ripper probably must have been very strong.
Convicted of a sex crime.
Crime involved vulnerable victims
According to record, Aussie George also has a prior conviction. It will be very interesting to see what this is. many serial killers have police record other than their serial murders.
Leaving for Australia coincides with the end of the murders. (alice Mckenzie, who was a ripper victim, or Jackson and Pinchon torso, if you are willing to entertain that possibility-which I think you do.)
He was classified as having an Able Seaman station and was in the Merchant marines-this could explain the pattern to the ripper murders re timing.
On the night of the double event most of the witnesses describe a man wearing a sailor type cap and having the appearance of a sailor.

Many links Fish-Many.

[Fisherman]

P.S. Could those requesting evidence that this man was "ever" in the East End please try to understand that in order to have boarded the ship that took him to Australia, he had to have been in the East End, even if he’d taken the boat train from John O’Groats the night before departure.

Of course I can try to understand it, Ben. I always do.

But the Ormuz - the ship on which Aussie George sailed - was a ship belonging to the Orient Line. It sailed from Tilbury.

Tilbury is situated on the northern shore of the Thames, right across from Gravesend. It is twentyfive miles downstream from London Bridge.

That is why I say that there is no evidence at all that Aussie George was ever in the East End. Or in London.

I hope you have no further objections to that by now...?

[Abby Normal]

Yes, great points, Abby and Mike.



Sorry to hear that, John. I thought I’d been reasonably clear and concise, but evidently not. I’ll briefly summarise the five paragraphs of my previous post, and we’ll try again to “identify the salient points”.

1) It’s completely circular to rule out “Aussie George” on the basis that Jack the Ripper’s crimes were very consistent. If Jack the Ripper was “Aussie George” then they weren’t. Simple as that.

2) Aussie George’s crimes and those of the ripper both belong in the “sexual” category, at least according to the experts whose work you cite, whereas Klosowski’s (for instance) don’t.

3) You don’t tend to acknowledge the evidence I provide in the form of known examples of offenders whose crimes spanned different ages and genders, nor do you provide any actual statistics to back up your assertion that such offenders are “exceptionally rare”.

4) I used the example of Nathaniel Code (and he was one in several, in fact) to counter your claim that Shawcross was “exceptionally rare” to target both woman and boys, and now, all of a sudden, you’re acquainted with that seldom discussed Louisiana serial case.

5) Fanciers of the discredited “Astrakhan man” as Kelly’s killer tend, from my experience, to be those who haven’t quite relinquished the outdated idea of the Ripper as a Dashing Doc in a top hat – or variations on that theme.

The problem is that you continue to misappropriate criminological buzzwords such as “signature”. You say, for instance: “are you seriously arguing that the crime signature of a flasher…”, but this makes absolutely no sense. A “signature” is a strictly personal calling card wherein the offender puts his personal, depraved stamp on a crime, just as our written signatures are unique to us. Since we are not in possession of any evidence to suggest that Aussie George put a personal stamp on his child abuse, it follows that his were not “signature” crimes.

Jack the Ripper had a crime signature, of course, but to apply it he needed a prostitute, her internal organs and a sharp knife. If, for whatever reason, these components were unavailable, or he wanted to “lie low”, or if there was something about the environment that prevented the efficient commission of that type of crime, there was nothing physically preventing him from committing a different type of sexual offense. It’s really rather silly to insist otherwise; akin to arguing that a professional javelin thrower would never go skiing.

Incidentally, I don’t accept the argument that the ripper focussed exclusively on “what makes women women”. Besides the uterus and the breasts (and there’s no evidence that the latter were especially prioritized), he also focussed on the non-gender-specific face, bladder, heart and kidneys. There is a good deal to be said for the argument that female prostitutes were targeted because they were the most readily available at that time and place. I’m not suggesting that women were not his victim type of preference, but on the other hand, pre-teen boys tended not to litter the streets of the East End at 2.00am.



The only thing we discard – and “happily” at that - is your misapplication of the term “signature”. Since there is not the slightest evidence that the known crimes of “Aussie George” contained “signature elements”, I consider myself absolved of any necessity to explain what you erroneously regard as a huge “transformation”. The best you can argue is that the ripper demonstrated a consistent signature when he was murdering and eviscerating prostitutes.

Regards,
Ben

P.S. Could those requesting evidence that this man was "ever" in the East End please try to understand that in order to have boarded the ship that took him to Australia, he had to have been in the East End, even if he’d taken the boat train from John O’Groats the night before departure.

excellent Post Ben, as usual.

[Fisherman]

actually Mike, its an excellent point really. Theres a lot of gray area. and its almost as much of an an art as it is a science-there are certainly no hard and fast rules like other branches of science.

There are scores of serial killers who have had boys, men, women, girls as victims, let alone ones who have employed differing MOs and evolving sigs.

To rule out candidates, like chapman and Aussie George,who otherwise have many other valid reasons to consider, but whos MO/sig/victim might differ from the WC victims, is just plain wrong headed.

To go strictly by the book on this way of thinking:

Rader couldn't have killed Mr.Ortega or his little girl
Bundy couldn't have been the one to rampage in the sorority house
kemper couldn't have killed his mother or grandparents
Shawcross couldn't have killed any males
Carl panzram couldn't have killed boys
The boston strangler couldn't have gone back to raping women
The beltway sniper couldn't have been the two black men
The original night stalker couldn't have also been the Visalia ransacker
Albert Fish couldn't have murdered those boys
The Zodiac could not have killed the cab driver
Nilsen never could have changed his MO
ETC
ETC
ETC


To try to pin down or label or quantify the extremely complicateded mind of a serial killer is futile. theyre not robots, though im starting to think some posters way of thinking on here may be.

A valiant effort, Abby - but letīs not stray too far from the focus we need to have on Aussie George.

If we take a really close look at him, precisely whay is it that purportedly makes him a red-hot candidate for the witnesses role - and the role of Jack the Ripper?

I think - correct me if I am wrong - that you have suggested that there may not even have been any sexual element involved in what the Ripper did. If so, then where is the connection to the flashing Aussie George made himself guilty of? Would it not be like comparing shoplifting to drunken driving? Or insurance fraud to physical assault?

The two types of crimes are worlds apart. One involves women and extreme physical violence. The other involves young boys and no physical violence at all.

If this was enough to make the connection, then we can easily deduct that ANY crime could equal any other crime. And that is not so, we know that, both of us.

So there has to be more.

And what is there? The name? It was a very common one.

No link to London and the East End has been established. No record of violent crime has been established. No likeness in signatures has been established. No confessing to the role of the Whitechapel witness has been established, no relative has commented on him in this respect. No other example can be found where a serial killer downgraded from extreme violence to no violence at all, changing gender on his target group in the process.

As for the name, we seemingly have a worldwide perspective, involving the other side of the globe. Just how many George Hutchinsons would the world have contained at that stage, who were of a viable age? And the viable age is not around 28 years only, since there is absolutely no evidence anywhere that the witness of Ripper fame WAS 28 years old. It is a myth. A viable age will stretch from below 20 to past 30 years of age. There must have been hundreds or even thousands of George Hutchinsons in that scope...

So once again: where is the link, Abby? I canīt see it.

[Ben]

Yes, great points, Abby and Mike.

“I have read your last post several times, which unfortunately did seem to me to be a little incomprehensible at times.”

Sorry to hear that, John. I thought I’d been reasonably clear and concise, but evidently not. I’ll briefly summarise the five paragraphs of my previous post, and we’ll try again to “identify the salient points”.

1) It’s completely circular to rule out “Aussie George” on the basis that Jack the Ripper’s crimes were very consistent. If Jack the Ripper was “Aussie George” then they weren’t. Simple as that.

2) Aussie George’s crimes and those of the ripper both belong in the “sexual” category, at least according to the experts whose work you cite, whereas Klosowski’s (for instance) don’t.

3) You don’t tend to acknowledge the evidence I provide in the form of known examples of offenders whose crimes spanned different ages and genders, nor do you provide any actual statistics to back up your assertion that such offenders are “exceptionally rare”.

4) I used the example of Nathaniel Code (and he was one in several, in fact) to counter your claim that Shawcross was “exceptionally rare” to target both woman and boys, and now, all of a sudden, you’re acquainted with that seldom discussed Louisiana serial case.

5) Fanciers of the discredited “Astrakhan man” as Kelly’s killer tend, from my experience, to be those who haven’t quite relinquished the outdated idea of the Ripper as a Dashing Doc in a top hat – or variations on that theme.

The problem is that you continue to misappropriate criminological buzzwords such as “signature”. You say, for instance: “are you seriously arguing that the crime signature of a flasher…”, but this makes absolutely no sense. A “signature” is a strictly personal calling card wherein the offender puts his personal, depraved stamp on a crime, just as our written signatures are unique to us. Since we are not in possession of any evidence to suggest that Aussie George put a personal stamp on his child abuse, it follows that his were not “signature” crimes.

Jack the Ripper had a crime signature, of course, but to apply it he needed a prostitute, her internal organs and a sharp knife. If, for whatever reason, these components were unavailable, or he wanted to “lie low”, or if there was something about the environment that prevented the efficient commission of that type of crime, there was nothing physically preventing him from committing a different type of sexual offense. It’s really rather silly to insist otherwise; akin to arguing that a professional javelin thrower would never go skiing.

Incidentally, I don’t accept the argument that the ripper focussed exclusively on “what makes women women”. Besides the uterus and the breasts (and there’s no evidence that the latter were especially prioritized), he also focussed on the non-gender-specific face, bladder, heart and kidneys. There is a good deal to be said for the argument that female prostitutes were targeted because they were the most readily available at that time and place. I’m not suggesting that women were not his victim type of preference, but on the other hand, pre-teen boys tended not to litter the streets of the East End at 2.00am.

“To summarize, tilt seems to me that your argument has narrowed to the issue of age and gender, I.e you simply argue that as some serial killer's target victims of both genders, and accross all age groups, then Aussie George cannot be ruled out as JtR. However, as I've pointed out they are not signature elements so happily such arguments can be views as incidental and can be safely discarded.”

The only thing we discard – and “happily” at that - is your misapplication of the term “signature”. Since there is not the slightest evidence that the known crimes of “Aussie George” contained “signature elements”, I consider myself absolved of any necessity to explain what you erroneously regard as a huge “transformation”. The best you can argue is that the ripper demonstrated a consistent signature when he was murdering and eviscerating prostitutes.

Regards,
Ben

P.S. Could those requesting evidence that this man was "ever" in the East End please try to understand that in order to have boarded the ship that took him to Australia, he had to have been in the East End, even if he’d taken the boat train from John O’Groats the night before departure.

[Abby Normal]

I think a signature is BS. If one believes that a serial killer has a signature, one can always keep it to a simple idea and then suggest that the signature was there but that there were embellishments, and when an "expert" does so, we are supposed to agree. This signature thing can be refuted in almost all serial killers and quite logically. The "experts" might also logically point the signatures out, but who's correct? Just because modern criminology has a label for something doesn't mean it's right. The MO is much more straight forward and may be seen much more easily and agreed upon....just arguing here....no point really.

Mike

actually Mike, its an excellent point really. Theres a lot of gray area. and its almost as much of an an art as it is a science-there are certainly no hard and fast rules like other branches of science.

There are scores of serial killers who have had boys, men, women, girls as victims, let alone ones who have employed differing MOs and evolving sigs.

To rule out candidates, like chapman and Aussie George,who otherwise have many other valid reasons to consider, but whos MO/sig/victim might differ from the WC victims, is just plain wrong headed.

To go strictly by the book on this way of thinking:

Rader couldn't have killed Mr.Ortega or his little girl
Bundy couldn't have been the one to rampage in the sorority house
kemper couldn't have killed his mother or grandparents
Shawcross couldn't have killed any males
Carl panzram couldn't have killed boys
The boston strangler couldn't have gone back to raping women
The beltway sniper couldn't have been the two black men
The original night stalker couldn't have also been the Visalia ransacker
Albert Fish couldn't have murdered those boys
The Zodiac could not have killed the cab driver
Nilsen never could have changed his MO
ETC
ETC
ETC


To try to pin down or label or quantify the extremely complicateded mind of a serial killer is futile. theyre not robots, though im starting to think some posters way of thinking on here may be.

[The Good Michael]

I think a signature is BS. If one believes that a serial killer has a signature, one can always keep it to a simple idea and then suggest that the signature was there but that there were embellishments, and when an "expert" does so, we are supposed to agree. This signature thing can be refuted in almost all serial killers and quite logically. The "experts" might also logically point the signatures out, but who's correct? Just because modern criminology has a label for something doesn't mean it's right. The MO is much more straight forward and may be seen much more easily and agreed upon....just arguing here....no point really.

Mike

[The Good Michael]

If the pattern was easy female victims - which I have no issues - it's still adult females. There are no boys, girls, and men. There were lots of old fart men who could have easily been victims, but were not.

My assumption certianly is the C5, but even minus one, it is still the same.

What you also need to take into account is, he attacked what makes women women, the womb. If he had time, Nichols would have experienced the same thing Chapman experienced. He cut the breasts off of Kelly. Sorry, I disagree with you and John (since he agreed with you on this).

Sadly, for your argument, there is a pattern against adult females, so have we ever seen a serial killer with a similar pattern then go for boys? I don't think so.

Yes as I said, a pattern for adult females, but you said "harlots". I disagreed that that was a necessity or that we could know that was a necessity. How in hell did you lump me in the 'going for boys' category?

Mike

[John G]

Hi John,



Ooh, but that’s a horribly circular argument, isn’t it?

If Jack the Ripper was “Aussie George” then he wasn’t “very consistent in respect of his MO and signature” because his crimes included those against boys. You can’t argue that he was “very consistent” on the basis of already having ruled out any possibility of him committing later offences that bore little similarity to earlier crimes; that's the very epitome of circular reasoning. You might argue that, as far as we know, the ripper only targetted prostitutes...

It was popular, at least for a time, to consider Severin Klosowski a lead runner for the ripper mantle, and yet his string of poisonings didn’t even have a sexual dimension to them, unlike the flashings (and whatever else) that Aussie George committed. You are quite wrong, therefore, to claim that the two sets of crimes were not "behavioural and thematically consistent". Pop along to the Klosowski threads if you’re looking for an example of a suspect whose crimes bore a genuine dissimilarity with the ripper's in terms of "behaviour" and "theme".

I was able to provide several examples, straight off the top of my head, of serial killers whose crimes targeted both boys and adult females, whereas you failed to cite any sources or statistics when pooh-poohing those examples as “exceptionally rare” or “not remotely likely” or “(insert inappropriate hyperbole here)”. You didn’t even acknowledge my correction of your mistaken impression that “sexual motivated serial killers” don’t “attack both genders”, which I thought was a pity.

I have no problem with your refusal to “buy” the idea of this particular George Hutchinson as ripper – especially as I never wrote the article, and thus have nothing to “sell” – but you should at least be prepared to bring more than the misunderstood results of a googled keyword search and misappropriated psychoanalyses to the table when you do. I brought up the case of Nathaniel Code in response to your erroneous claim that sexually-motivated crimes never span both genders (I’m the only person, as far as I’m aware, ever to bring up the case here), and then a couple of posts later, you’re waxing lyrical about the case. An uncharitable soul might be tempted to conclude that you researched the case online in response to the reference I made to him on this thread.



Well “frankly” that’s just silly, in my opinion, considering that both “Astrakhan man” and its author were discredited shortly after they were first introduced to the police, but then there exists a school of thought – usually restricted to the internet/hobbyist model of serial crime research – that continues to be titillated by the prospect of the ripper as a well-dressed dandy from the upper echelons. I’m not suggesting for a moment that you’re a card-carrying member of this fraternity, but it can be a geeky old game, this "ripperology" business, and since anyone can play, it’s not unusual to encounter the odd fancier of Gentleman Jack. An identifying feature of group, I've noticed, is a pretense towards having great insight into serial crime, as well as the frequent misuse of expressions such as “MO” and “signature”

Hello Ben,

Just to add to my last post, you refer to the "misuse of expressions such as MO and signature." I trust you noted that in my post to Abby I cited Keppel's definition of MO and signature, i.e to avoid such confusion. Keppel is, of course, a respected criminologist with many published works on the subject; it is therefore somewhat doubtful that he would be guilty of misusing the aforementioned expressions.

[John G]

Hello Ben,

I have read your last post several times, which unfortunately did seem to me to be a little incomprehensible at times. In fact, to be honest, I really am struggling to identify the salient points you were trying to make. I will therefore make an attempt to refocus the debate on to the main issues.

Firstly, a killer's signature is not, as you seem to think, determined by the age of victims he selects or the gender. No, it involved elements such as overkill, posing the victim, mutilations. It is this factor that remains broadly consistent; that's to say the ritual may not be identical at every crime scene but it remains "behavioural similar, thematically consistent."( Schlesinger, 2010).

Regarding Nathaniel Code. I had read up on this serial killer some time ago (yes, I know this may come as a shock, but other posters, apart from yourself, also have interest in serial killers apart from JtR.) The reason I referred to Code is that his signature remained remarkably consistent, despite the fact he targeted different genders and different age groups (a point I made very clear in my post to Abby, and which, for some reason, you seem to have completely ignored.)

Now are you seriously arguing that the crime signature of a flasher, who indecently assaults young boys, corresponds to a that of a mutilator like JtR? If so please site precedent? In fact it's worth noting that Keppel (2005) even rejected Coles and McKenzie as JtR murders I.e because of fundamental differences in signature.

You also seem to ignore Mike's excellent arguments in post 46, that JtR focussed on the organs of reproduction and breast areas, "what makes women women". I also argued that there was a sexual element to these crimes which, regrettably, you also failed to address.

To summarize, tilt seems to me that your argument has narrowed to the issue of age and gender, I.e you simply argue that as some serial killer's target victims of both genders, and accross all age groups, then Aussie George cannot be ruled out as JtR. However, as I've pointed out they are not signature elements so happily such arguments can be views as incidental and can be safely discarded.

I note,that you also seem to dislike the notion of posters undertaking their own research-there's a reference to "googled"in your post. Well, fortunately I am able to reassure you that, as a university graduate, I am quite capable of undertaking my own research.

By the way, I agree with you that George Chapman is a hopeless candidate for JtR, something I've stated numerous times on the message boards.

[Fisherman]

Why the long posts, Ben?

It is totally implausibe that Flash George was the Ripper, on account of the totally differing types of crimes.

That is all that needs to be said.

Trying to impress upon the boards how much more read up you are on these matters than I am, is going to take a radically different background.

It would help if you could prove that Aussie Flash was ever in the East End, for example. Or London, even. But you really canīt, can you?

[mklhawley]

But that's such a ludicrously detailed and specific set of criteria that the chances of it applying to more than one individual will always be laughably slim. Why don't you pop over to the Tumblety threads and employ that sort of reasoning there? Why don't you say "Hey Tumbletossers! Can you find me a single example of a serial killer who had a large moustache, rode a white horse, wore faux military uniform, came from Rochester NY and was gay? No? Then Tumblety wasn't the ripper".

Hey, my ears are ringing!