Ripperologist 146 - October 2015

[Sally]

Also there was a George Hutchinson that was on a training ship when young. He was born in Whitechapel and I believe his mums name was Kezia...
Pat..

Hi Pat

Yes there was. as evidenced in the 1881 census - but from memory probably too young to have been the bloke currently under discussion. It's been a long time since I've looked at it, but I think he remained in the Royal Navy beyond that point.

Anyway, doubtful they're one and the same, I think.

[Paddy]

Australian Hutchinson 1898

I found this chap below in the New South Wales Police Gazette 1898. He seems to have ran off with a married woman. His description is similar to blotchy...

Also there was a George Hutchinson that was on a training ship when young. He was born in Whitechapel and I believe his mums name was Kezia...
Pat..

[Fisherman]

Hi Abby,

The difficulty for me is that in certain respects serial killers are highly predictable. For instance, in respect of the gender of the victims they target, and whether they attack children or adults. Peter Kurten is a very rare exception as he targeted both girls and women. Arthur Shawcross is an exceptionally rare serial killer because he killed two children-one of them male-before he went on to murder 11 adult females.

Nonetheless, as always we have to assess what's likely, rather than what's possible, and on that basis I see Aussie George as a very unlikely candidate for JtR.

There are a number of matters that make him an unlikely candidate. I agree that this is one of them - or two, to be more exact. It is not only the differing victims, it is also the character of the offence.

It can be argued - as I did myself - that there ARE examples of serialists fleeting between victim types, but they are rare in comparison with the group that keeps roughly focused on a specific age and gender.

In this case, we need to make sense of comparing a killer who focused on the insides of women in combination with extreme and excessive physical violence, and a flasher, who typically inflicts no physical damage and who focuses on himself rather than on the victims. And we have to accept a downgrading, instead of a progression.

It is not a very good suggestion, looking at it in those terms.

[mklhawley]

Great dialogue on serial killers. The problem I see with JtR murdering anyone other than harlots is his pattern is harlots. Any serial killer murdering boys, girls, women, etc., didn't have a pattern then change. The pattern was always the pattern. ...but if you can find one, that would be great.

Sincerely,

Mike

[John G]

With all due respect, John, very little of what you say is true.

If Arthur Shawcross was an "exceptionally rare serial killer", I'd be interested to see an example of an "ABC bog-standard serial killer". It is quite simply not "exceptionally rare" for serial killers to target boys as well as adult females - Arthur Shawcross is one example; there is also Nathaniel Code, Andrei Chikatilo, William Hare, Joseph Vacher, and Dennis Rader, among others.

There's also nothing remotely "rare" about a serial killer targetting girls as well as woman.

All the best,
Ben

Hello Ben,

Well, it would certainly be rare for a serial killers to attack children and adults as well as women and men. As an example of the predictability I was referring to Luis Gustavo may have killed 400 victims all children, and Pedro Lopez may have killed 300, all children.

I'm also willing to bet that for every serial killer that attacked both genders, I could name at least ten that didn't. Similarly with serial killers who attacked both women and children.

It has also been persuasively argued, i.e. by Keppel, that JtR was a lust killer. In that regard I'm not aware of any sexually motivated serial killer who attacked both genders.

[Ben]

With all due respect, John, very little of what you say is true.

If Arthur Shawcross was an "exceptionally rare serial killer", I'd be interested to see an example of an "ABC bog-standard serial killer". It is quite simply not "exceptionally rare" for serial killers to target boys as well as adult females - Arthur Shawcross is one example; there is also Nathaniel Code, Andrei Chikatilo, William Hare, Joseph Vacher, and Dennis Rader, among others.

There's also nothing remotely "rare" about a serial killer targetting girls as well as women.

All the best,
Ben

[John G]

Hi JohnG
At first I kind of thought the same-for the reason you mentioned.
However-there are exceptions to the norm, as Fish rightly points out.
And keep in mind that the ripper was a very, very odd serial killer to begin with.
And there was no obvious sexual element (maybe more curiosity) to the ripper crimes.
Also, this is eight years after the ripper crimes. Who knows what transpires in the life and mind of an already very twisted individual over that period.

If Aussie George was found through some other way, that didn't involve a sex crime against Boys-would you think more or less hes a candidate for the ripper. In my mind-much much less. This is a crime, its a sex crime against a victim(s), and against a more defensless victim-young boys(like drunk destitute prostitutes).Like the ripper, its a cowardly crime.

Hi Abby,

The difficulty for me is that in certain respects serial killers are highly predictable. For instance, in respect of the gender of the victims they target, and whether they attack children or adults. Peter Kurten is a very rare exception as he targeted both girls and women. Arthur Shawcross is an exceptionally rare serial killer because he killed two children-one of them male-before he went on to murder 11 adult females.

Nonetheless, as always we have to assess what's likely, rather than what's possible, and on that basis I see Aussie George as a very unlikely candidate for JtR.

[Abby Normal]

I agree, an excellent article and a very strong candidate for Hutch. However, in my opinion indecent assault charges against two young boys, virtually rules him out as JtR. Serial killers who attack males are not generally interested in females, and serial killers who assault children are rarely interested in adult victims.

Hi JohnG
At first I kind of thought the same-for the reason you mentioned.
However-there are exceptions to the norm, as Fish rightly points out.
And keep in mind that the ripper was a very, very odd serial killer to begin with.
And there was no obvious sexual element (maybe more curiosity) to the ripper crimes.
Also, this is eight years after the ripper crimes. Who knows what transpires in the life and mind of an already very twisted individual over that period.

If Aussie George was found through some other way, that didn't involve a sex crime against Boys-would you think more or less hes a candidate for the ripper. In my mind-much much less. This is a crime, its a sex crime against a victim(s), and against a more defensless victim-young boys(like drunk destitute prostitutes).Like the ripper, its a cowardly crime.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

No offense, but have you had a single original thought in the last three years that hasn't been put there by Edward Stow (with whom, funnily enough, you originally made friends on a Hutchinson thread)? If "yeah...what Ed said" hasn't been working for you so far as a debating strategy (and it hasn't), I can't see it availing you now. What are your independent thoughts on the issue?



I sincerely hope you're misquoting them, as they would both be factually in error. How you suppose the George Hutchinson in question managed to board the Ormuz if not from the East End of London, where the port of departure was located? Unless you're suggesting he swam to the ship from another English country, we have proof of his presence in the East End in 1889, which is precisely what we don't have for Toppy - who had no real connection to the East End until 1895, when he met his East End wife.

The author made it quite clear that his George Hutchinson was not necessarily a genuine "A.B.", but merely listed as one when he was discovered as a stowaway and put to work as a member of the crew. This is reinforced in his 1897 prison record which listed his occupation pre-departure from London as a "tinsmith", or a "labourer" according to another record. In no respect is there any obvious discrepancy with 1888 "witness's" press claim to be a former groom, now working as a labourer. The chances of the real Hutchinson's real occupation being investigated in any depth was slim.



Find a bogus discredited royal conspiracy book that was ultimately disavowed by its own author, find an interview with a son alleging a sighting of Lord Randolph Churchill, find mismatching signatures according to the only document examiner to have inspected the original documents, and Sinese's candidate will be consigned by the doldrums with Toppy.

But until that happens...

Nope. The new candidate remains a very bad one. No wriggling of yours will change that, I´m afraid.

I´m sure Edward would agree, by the way.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

No offense, but have you had a single original thought in the last three years that hasn't been put there by Edward Stow (with whom, funnily enough, you originally made friends on a Hutchinson thread)? If "yeah...what Ed said" hasn't been working for you so far as a debating strategy (and it hasn't), I can't see it availing you now. What are your independent thoughts on the issue?

Edward Stow and Debra Arif (extremely accomplished researchers, both of them) point out that there is not a shred of evidence pointing to the suggested George Hutchinson ever having been in the East End

I sincerely hope you're misquoting them, as they would both be factually in error. How you suppose the George Hutchinson in question managed to board the Ormuz if not from the East End of London, where the port of departure was located? Unless you're suggesting he swam to the ship from another English country, we have proof of his presence in the East End in 1889, which is precisely what we don't have for Toppy - who had no real connection to the East End until 1895, when he met his East End wife.

The author made it quite clear that his George Hutchinson was not necessarily a genuine "A.B.", but merely listed as one when he was discovered as a stowaway and put to work as a member of the crew. This is reinforced in his 1897 prison record which listed his occupation pre-departure from London as a "tinsmith", or a "labourer" according to another record. In no respect is there any obvious discrepancy with 1888 "witness's" press claim to be a former groom, now working as a labourer. In any case, the chances of the real Hutchinson's real occupation being investigated in any depth was slim.

Find a relative of his who says that he was the witness

Find a bogus discredited royal conspiracy book that was ultimately disavowed by its own author, find an interview with a son alleging a sighting of Lord Randolph Churchill the Ripper, find mismatching signatures according to the only document examiner to have inspected the original sources, and Sinese's candidate will be consigned by the doldrums with Toppy.

But until that happens...

[Fisherman]

I see nothing in the linked thread that could be construed as remotely damaging to the author's premise. What I see is a promoter of a "rival" suspect theory - a heavily censured and highly controversial one - doing his damnedest to see off perceived "competition".

I am not all that surprised - we normally see different things, you and I. Edward Stow and Debra Arif (extremely accomplished researchers, both of them) point out that there is not a shred of evidence pointing to the suggested George Hutchinson ever having been in the East End.
Or in London, for that matter.

It is also pointed out that he was an able sailor, and he would therefore not be likely to present himself as a former groom with the police.

Debra Arif asks the question "In reality isn't it just a random man named GH who went to Australia and got banged up?"

And Edward answers - quite correctly - "Yes it is just a random George Hutchinson who happened to get arrested for flashing in Australia."

In your book, this is "not even remotely damaging" to the premise of the author.
I work from a different perspective.

It is also said that there is some VERY useful competition from George William Topping Hutchinson. Who DID live in London. And in the East End. And who DID have a son who said that his father was the witness of Ripper fame. And who DID apparently live a life in lodging houses, estranged from his home, after 1887. And who had a signature that is very similar to that of the witness.

A quick glance does put him eons ahead of the newcomer, thus.

Place Flash George in London, and he fares a bit better. Place him in the East End, and he starts to get interesting. Find a relative of his who says that he was the witness, and then all you have to do to come on level with Toppy is to find a signature from Flash George that a document examiner says is a close match to that of the witness, and you are on a roll.

But until that happens ...

[Ben]

I see nothing in the linked thread that could be construed as remotely damaging to the author's premise. What I see is a promoter of a "rival" suspect theory - a heavily censured and highly controversial one - doing his damnedest to see off perceived "competition".

[Fisherman]

I agree, an excellent article and a very strong candidate for Hutch. However, in my opinion indecent assault charges against two young boys, virtually rules him out as JtR. Serial killers who attack males are not generally interested in females, and serial killers who assault children are rarely interested in adult victims.

Ah, but there ARE exceptions to the rule - like Shawcross, for example. Not that it matters much in ths case, since the proposed new Hutchinson is not a very good candidate anyway. As I said in my previous post, have a look at

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=24408

... and you will see why.

[John G]

I agree, an excellent article and a very strong candidate for Hutch. However, in my opinion indecent assault charges against two young boys, virtually rules him out as JtR. Serial killers who attack males are not generally interested in females, and serial killers who assault children are rarely interested in adult victims.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Chris,

Many thanks indeed for this!

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. I've no doubt that it'll generate a good deal of discussion, and I anxiously await the updated version in Rip.

All the best,
Ben

You got that right. There's no doubt IMHO that this the best candidate for hutch by far. Can't wait till more comes out.