Ripperologist 146 - October 2015

[PaulB]

Paul Begg is in the House!!

Thank you sir, look forward to reading it!

If I may be so bold-whats your take on Aussie George article?

To be honest I haven't had much time to read and digest it. The last couple of months have been full of long books to read and review, including Bruce Robinson's 800-page tome. Once my reviews are written and finished, I'll be able to settle back and give my attention to the Rip's articles.

[Semper_Eadem]

Just my 2cents worth.

If anyone is wondering about this article in Ripperologist 146 which we are offering as a preview of what the total issue has to offer, you can download "Terror Australis: Whatever Happened to George Hutchinson" by Stephen Senise here:

http://www.ripperologist.biz/pdf/146GeorgeHutchinson.pdf

Best regards

Chris

Awesome, I always thought George Hutchinson was just a dirty perv pestering Mary Kelly so she would put out just to get rid of him. However, it would make perfect sense for Hutch The Ripper to try to throw the Police off by coming forward as a witness and giving a false description to the Police.

[Abby Normal]

It should be out Friday night/Saturday morning I think.

Paul Begg is in the House!!

Thank you sir, look forward to reading it!

If I may be so bold-whats your take on Aussie George article?

[Pcdunn]

Good news!

It should be out Friday night/Saturday morning I think.

Hurray! Something to read over the weekend! Thank you!

[PaulB]

Does anyone know when Ripperologist 146 will be fully published?
I look forward to downloading and reading the rest of the magazine with interest.

It should be out Friday night/Saturday morning I think.

[Abby Normal]

Since the author addressed the question of Hutchinson’s potential culpability in the McKenzie murder specifically, I thought it worth considering the location of his recorded residence in 1888 - the Victoria Home on the corner of Wentworth and Commercial Streets - in relation to the discovery of the body in Castle Alley. Suffice it to say that the Home was located a mere stone’s throw away from the alley in question, and although the murder itself was committed nearer the southern end of the short passage, it appears more than likely that a hypothetical Victoria Home-based murderer, fleeing the scene, had the option of a sneaky cut-through to the rear entrance to the building, thus accounting for Sargent Badham’s failure to notice anyone emerging from the Wentworth Street end.

I’m indebted to “Lechmere” for posting the following image on another thread:

http://forum.casebook.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=12318&stc=1&d=1311725235

if the killer happened to live in the home - along with 500 others on a nightly basis - it seems he had the option of bolting right into Chess Court, avoiding Badham stationed at the northern end of Old Castle Street, and making his way through open courtyards to what appears to have been an alternative entrance to the building. Unfortunately, the map in question does not indicate the presence of doors within walls or fences, and we have no means of determining if a solid wall separated Chess Court from the yard directly adjacent to the rear of the Victoria Home, but this seems unlikely considering that the vast amount of waste generated by the home necessitated a large storage area, conveniently situated for ease of collection by the bin men, and our location fits the bill very admirably in that regard.

In light of the forgoing, it may or may not be a coincidence that the man who gave a suspicious account of his activity in relation to the previous mutilation murder of a prostitute had a bolt hole situated in very close proximity to the latest such atrocity; a bolt-hole to which he could conceivably have fled in under two minutes following the murder of Alice McKenzie.

All the best,
Ben

Interesting. Thanks Ben! I wonder if the close proximity to where Hutch lived had anything to do with the "weak" manner in which Mckenzie was cut, or in his leaving/murders ending or had to do with him losing it mentally. Or all the above?

[Ben]

They would probably be equally as stinky, Scott!

[Scott Nelson]

...had a bolt hole situated in very close proximity to the latest such atrocity...

Unlike that which holds Frankenstein's head to his shoulders?

[Ben]

Since the author addressed the question of Hutchinson’s potential culpability in the McKenzie murder specifically, I thought it worth considering the location of his recorded residence in 1888 - the Victoria Home on the corner of Wentworth and Commercial Streets - in relation to the discovery of the body in Castle Alley. Suffice it to say that the Home was located a mere stone’s throw away from the alley in question, and although the murder itself was committed nearer the southern end of the short passage, it appears more than likely that a hypothetical Victoria Home-based murderer, fleeing the scene, had the option of a sneaky cut-through to the rear entrance to the building, thus accounting for Sargent Badham’s failure to notice anyone emerging from the Wentworth Street end.

I’m indebted to “Lechmere” for posting the following image on another thread:

http://forum.casebook.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=12318&stc=1&d=1311725235

if the killer happened to live in the home - along with 500 others on a nightly basis - it seems he had the option of bolting right into Chess Court, avoiding Badham stationed at the northern end of Old Castle Street, and making his way through open courtyards to what appears to have been an alternative entrance to the building. Unfortunately, the map in question does not indicate the presence of doors within walls or fences, and we have no means of determining if a solid wall separated Chess Court from the yard directly adjacent to the rear of the Victoria Home, but this seems unlikely considering that the vast amount of waste generated by the home necessitated a large storage area, conveniently situated for ease of collection by the bin men, and our location fits the bill very admirably in that regard.

In light of the forgoing, it may or may not be a coincidence that the man who gave a suspicious account of his activity in relation to the previous mutilation murder of a prostitute had a bolt hole situated in very close proximity to the latest such atrocity; a bolt-hole to which he could conceivably have fled in under two minutes following the murder of Alice McKenzie.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

Does anyone know when Ripperologist 146 will be fully published?
I look forward to downloading and reading the rest of the magazine with interest.

im wondering that also!!!
hopefully, it will include the full mug shot which includes the side view because from that you can really see the size and shape of the man-he was a very powerfully built man!

[hanway3]

Does anyone know when Ripperologist 146 will be fully published?
I look forward to downloading and reading the rest of the magazine with interest.

[John G]

I think it's important to recognize that some serial killers are far more consistent than others. I've already mentioned Gary Taylor, who was extremely inconsistent, killing in different ways, and eventually giving up serial killing, becoming a serial rapist instead.

Dahmer , on the other hand, was pretty consistent once he started killing on a regular basis. And Kemper was very consistent: as I've noted, even his own mother didn't merit different treatment.

I see JtR as falling much more into the consistent camp, particularly regarding issues of escalation and overkill. For that reason McKenzie seems an unlikely victim, particularly as she was killed several months later.

However, there are clearly too many variables to be sure, and as Abby has correctly pointed out, situational factors need to be considered. As I've noted on the Bury thread Sutcliffe had a distinctive signature-hitting his victims over the head with a hammer and then inflicting a deep wound to the abdomen-and this may have amounted to acting out a fantasy, which could explain the consistency: he'd become fascinated in an exhibit showing a series of female torsos with windows in their bellies depicting the nine stages of pregnancy; and it's been argued by Professor Glenn Wilson that he was trying to replicate this hole in the belly when inflicting the injuries.

Nonetheless, he significantly deviated from this signature when he attacked Dr Bandura and attempted to strangle her with a rope. Sutcliffe Subsequently explained this anomaly on the grounds that he "didn't have any tools to finish her." In fact, Sutcliffe not only allowed the victim to survive, he even apologized to her!

Margaurite Walls, a previous murder, was also initially ruled-out as a possible Yorkshire Ripper victim, I.e. because she wasn't stabbed but strangled with a ligature, like Bandura. Sutcliffe explained the reason for this:"Because the press and media had attached a stigma, I had been known as the Yorkshire Ripper which to my mind didn't ring true at all. It was just my way of killing them but actually I found the method of strangulation even more horrible and took longer. "

So there you have it. The apparent de-escalation with McKenzie might be explained by JtR forgetting his black bag, and therefore having the wrong type of knife, or because he found being called "Jack the Ripper" offensive!

[Ben]

Many thanks for the information concerning Suff, Abby - most appreciated.

And I agree with your suggested reasons for the possible "de-escalation" that resulted in the McKenzie murder, if indeed she was one of the ripper's, which is by no means unlikely.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

Hi Fisherman,



What remained was an absence of proof that Hutchinson lied and gave a false account of his movements. If such proof had been available, the story would naturally have been totally discounted (to borrow your expression), but because the police had only strong suspicions to go on (as they had with Violenia and others), they had to content themselves with "reducing" the importance of Hutchinson's statement, as opposed to eradicating it altogether.

With reference to some of the recent observations here, I don't think we can be too purist and rigid with regard to the "escalation" theory. Considering the nature of the Kelly murder, it is obvious that the ripper couldn't keep "escalating" in terms of violence and extent of mutilation - that would be almost impossible. Realistically therefore, he could only have "de-escalated" or plateaued, and if they were only very reduced opportunities for a continuation of Kelly-type murders after the 9th November (as we might reasonably assume), the ripper might have been forced to "de-escalate" if he wanted to continue killing (or committing any type of "sexual" offense) at all.

Regards,
Ben

Hi Ben
Re de escalation-that is a good point. I have recently come to the conclusion that Alice McKenzie was a ripper victim for many reasons-but of course some on here discount Mckenzie because it is too much of a de escalation.

And discount her Regardless of all the reasons she fits with the previous ripper crimes and regardless of the probability that any de escalation could have been not because of any psychological reasons, but simply circumstances-he was disturbed, was extremely intoxicated, was sick, etc.

related to the idea of de-escalation and many discussions on this thread re serial killers changing victimology, MO, etc. on another thread we had been discussing William Suff, the Riverside prostitute killer, whos first kill was his infant child. He then went on to kill and mutilate many women.
Talk about a major change in victimology!

Another pertinent example for the argument that Aussie George as the ripper could have changed victimology.

BTW-its also interesting regarding Suff and changing MO, victimology etc.-He is the closest I have ever found (with Dahmer-who also changed from killing an adult to flashing children) in similarity to the ripper.
So not only Suff and Dahmer have similarity to the ripper but similarity to Aussie George as the ripper in regards to extreme changes in their methods and victims.

I just find it interesting that the two serial killers most like the ripper also have that extreme change in victimology that Aussie George as the ripper also displayed.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Why did not ALL of the importance wear away? Why was the story "considerably" discounted instead of totally discounted?

What remained, and why?

What remained was an absence of proof that Hutchinson lied and gave a false account of his movements. If such proof had been available, the story would naturally have been totally discounted (to borrow your expression), but because the police had only strong suspicions to go on (as they had with Violenia and others), they had to content themselves with "reducing" the importance of Hutchinson's statement, as opposed to eradicating it altogether.

With reference to some of the recent observations here, I don't think we can be too purist and rigid with regard to the "escalation" theory. Considering the nature of the Kelly murder, it is obvious that the ripper couldn't keep "escalating" in terms of violence and extent of mutilation - that would be almost impossible. Realistically therefore, he could only have "de-escalated" or plateaued, and if they were only very reduced opportunities for a continuation of Kelly-type murders after the 9th November (as we might reasonably assume), the ripper might have been forced to "de-escalate" if he wanted to continue killing (or committing any type of "sexual" offense) at all.

Regards,
Ben