Ripperologist 146 - October 2015

[Fisherman]

... it was revealed that Hutchinson’s statement had suffered a “very reduced importance”, and was “considerably discounted” very shortly thereafter.
All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben!

I donīt intend to go into this debate, but I have a question to ask where I would appreciate your answer. After that, I am out again.

Why do you suppose it was spoken about a "reduced importance" and why was it said that the statement had been "considerably discounted"?

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

What remained, and why?

I think it is fair to say that the police would have attached some little importance to the story and that they would not have discounted it on the whole. This is the implication of what was written.

What is your explanation to these slightly vague and very enigmatic formulations?

[Ben]

“Well, the "loitering" can be substantiated by Sarah Lewis, but what "lying" are we talking about?

What witness can you call on to substantiate Hutchinson "lying", and what was he lying about, according to this witness?”

I’m not sure you entirely understood my point, Jon.

You made the observation that plenty of people would have had non-murderous reasons for loitering and lying in the 1888 East End, and I acknowledged this. I then pointed out, however, that Hutchinson can be argued to have done both of these with things in the context of a ripper murder, thereby inviting suspicion. If you mean I can’t “prove” that Hutchinson lied, that would be a valid observation, but the “evidence” certainly “suggests” it, which is why a majority of people accept that he did precisely that – regardless of whether or not they believe he also loitered and/or also murdered people. Lots of people think he lied, and lots of people think he was Lewis’s loiterer; I happen to believe he did both, and regard him as a strong suspect in the Kelly murder for that reason.

“Hutchinson's vigil preceded the cry of "murder", but it did not precede Bond's estimated time of death. An estimate, that if correct, would implicate Blotchy not Hutchinson.”

That’s true, but there is no evidence that the police prioritised Bond’s suggested time of death to the exclusion of other evidence pointing to a different time.

“Agreed, which is why I think Sarah Lewis was chosen to testify, seeing as how we have two women who told similar tales, but only one of them saw this loiterer.”

If there was ever the remotest question of the coroner having to “chose” between Lewis and Kennedy (which there wasn’t, because the latter was quickly exposed as a phony), it would have been an absolute car-crash of a decision to go with Lewis on the basis that she was the one who had seen “the loiterer”. Kennedy claimed to have known the actual victim and to have seen her outside Ringers’ pub at 3.00am, which would have been the last known sighting of Kelly, had not the claim been bogus.

“The fact we, today, can make the connection between Hutchinson and Lewis's "loiterer", it goes without saying that Abberline would also make the connection.”

Nope, that is not remotely the case.

Show me the evidence that the connection was inferred by any latter-day student of the case at any point prior to the mid-1990s. Show me the evidence that the press of 1888 ever inferred such a connection.

“It is therefore "reasonable" to conclude the subsequent interrogation of Hutchinson was to allay any police suspicion of his involvement in the murder.”

Not even a possibility, Jon, let alone a “reasonable” one.

The “interrogation” of Hutchinson occurred before there was any time available to investigate Hutchinson’s potential culpability in the murder(s). They would have been relying entirely on his unverified and unverifiable (at that time) claims.

“We only possess one official opinion of Hutchinson's story, and there is not the slightest doubt expressed by police.”

Yes, there is – there is evidence of a proven communication between the police and a certain newspaper taken into their confidence, in which it was revealed that Hutchinson’s statement had suffered a “very reduced importance”, and was “considerably discounted” very shortly thereafter. Reinforcing this is the complete absence of any reference to Hutchinson in the later interviews and memoirs of senior police officials who would certainly have known the true fate of his evidence. A Jewish witness was described as being the only person to get a good view of the murderer, despite Hutchinson’s claim to have acquired a much better “view” than any of the Jewish witnesses.

But since this has nothing to do with the current discussion, and amounts to pure repetition of points that have already been covered extensively in generic Hutchinson debates (as thrashed out in 15,000 posts), I’ll happily accept that you are of a different opinion, and do not expect you to present a counter-rebuttal to any of the above on this thread.

“I appreciate you choose to believe that Lloyds did not know the difference between "term of imprisonment", and "held in custody", but a laborious search of BNA archives of Lloyds does not support your conjecture.”

This is your Isaacs theory, though, isn’t it? It has nothing to do with the recently proposed identity theory for Hutchinson. So I’ll just address this latest point, and then it’s no more Isaacs for this thread, please. “Term of imprisonment” is precisely what Isaacs would have been undergoing if he was remanded to a prison to await his sentencing. If you are sent to prison following an arrest, emerge from it briefly to be sentenced, and return to prison immediately following that sentence, you are effectively “in prison” from the arrest onwards.

“I occasionally receive invites to join Linkedin by email, just recently, attached to the page was a list of, "names you might know".
There was a Ben Holme listed.
I kind of wondered, how so?”

Curiouser and curiouser! I’ve a dim recollection of someone sending me an invitation to join Linkedin a while back, and I clicked yes without giving it much thought. I’ve done very little with it since. Do we have a mutual chum somewhere either from my Ontario visits or from Casebook?

All the best,
Ben

[John G]

Hi JohnG
Re de-escalation. Albert deSalvo went from a rapid rate murdering spree to raping only.

Serial killers are complicated, the ripper was a type of serial killer -a post mortem type-even rarer among serial killers. He was odd among the odd.

I think we have established that serial killers can lay dormant, de-escalate, quit, change victimology, change MO, evolve signatures, change sexes targeted, enough that there really can be no hard and fast rules to count anyone out solely based on this.

So based on all this, I don't think we can rule out the ripper being one and the same with Aussie George-not at all.

Hello Abby,

Yes, there is, if course, controversy over de Salvo's murder confession-I believe he was only imprisoned for the rapes which, of course, still represent violent offences. Regarding the murders, I believe he confessed to 13 victims, who were all strangled, mainly with a nylon stocking, so that at least represents a high level of consistency.

Nonetheless, it's certainly true that some serial killers can be very unpredictable. Gary Taylor, for example, had an MO that was all over the place. He started off by hitting women over the head with a wrench at bus stops. Then he started shooting women with a rifle. He then developed a ruse to get women out of their apartments, usually phoning them pretending that there was some sort of emergency, I.e. at work, and then attacking them when they got into their car. And with one victim he posed as an FBI agent. Eventually, he kidnapped two women, tied them up in the basement, shot them in the head, and buried them in the backyard. He then stopped killing altogether and went round the country committing a series of rapes but letting his victims live! Mind you, one obvious link is that they were all violent assaults.

I suppose it all comes down to instinct in the end. If we accept JtR was response fir the C5 and Tabram then there is a clear pattern of escalation: from multiple stabbing, to throat cutting and evisceration, organ removal, facial injuries, and finally severe facial disfigurement and multiple organ removal. And all of this occurred within Judy a few weeks. Personally, I find it difficult to believe that such a killer would suddenly de-escalate, even to the extent of McKenzie or Coles. Of course, Dahmer stopped killing for 9 years after his first horrific murder, but once he started again he was pretty consistent. And JtR certainly seemed to have serious difficulty in controlling his urges, as evidenced by the risks he took, the escalation, and the rapid rate at which he killed.

I also agree with Harry. There is nothing to link Aussie George to Whitechapel, let alone any murders, apart from a name and the fact that he once sailed from London.

Of course, there's nothing that completely eliminates him, but the same could be said of Michael Maybrick...Oh, wait a minute. Apparently, he actually was JtR-Bruce Robinson's just solved the whole thing!

[Harry D]

So based on all this, I don't think we can rule out the ripper being one and the same with Aussie George-not at all.

Contrariwise, there's no reason to rule him IN, either.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Yes, Dahmer was certainly an unusual serial killer. Randall Woodfield also committed several offences of indecent exposure before progressing to serial murder. There's also an interesting study by Dietz, Hazzlewood and Warren (1990), of 30 sexually sadistic criminals-although I don't regard JtR as a sadist. This study found that 43% of them had a known homosexual experience. And 20% committed minor sex offences such as peeping, indecent exposure and obscene telephone calls.

Of course, JtR has been described as a lust killer: a killer who obtains sexual gratification through murder. And mutilating, evisceration and organ removal are typical of this type of serial killer.

The question, therefore is: once JtR, to put it crudely, got a taste for killing and mutilating, would he be content to satisfy himself through much more minor sexual offences, I.e. indecent assault, particularly as he had hitherto been killing at a rapid rate, with a fairly consistent signature and showing a pattern of escalating violence. Of course, after Dahmer's first murder he was able to control his urge to kill for 9 years, during which time he committed numerous offences,including indecent exposure and the indecent assault of a young boy. Nonetheless, once he started killing again he could seemingly no longer control his urges, murdering 16 victims in a three and half year period.

Hi JohnG
Re de-escalation. Albert deSalvo went from a rapid rate murdering spree to raping only.

Serial killers are complicated, the ripper was a type of serial killer -a post mortem type-even rarer among serial killers. He was odd among the odd.

I think we have established that serial killers can lay dormant, de-escalate, quit, change victimology, change MO, evolve signatures, change sexes targeted, enough that there really can be no hard and fast rules to count anyone out solely based on this.

So based on all this, I don't think we can rule out the ripper being one and the same with Aussie George-not at all.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

I should add that a question that is impossible to determine is whether serial killers are able to control their urge to kill indefinitely, or just for sustained periods. Did Zodiac or Jack the Stripper (Hammersmith Nude Murderer) stop of their own volition, or were they incarcerated for unrelated crimes, or simply die or become incapacitated?

Rader hadn't killed for 14 years at the time he was captured, but nonetheless claimed he'd been planning to murder again. And, of course, Dahmer didn't kill for for 9 years after his first horrific murder, before going on a spree which resulted in 16 more victims in just over 3 years. Ridgeway's last known murder before he was captured was 13 years earlier, however, it does seem that he may have committed numerous killings that are not known about: 49 victims were attributed to him-over a period of 3 and half years-but he claimed he committed 71 murders.

Of course, Ridgeway, Dahmer and Rader all committed numerous murders over a period of several years. On the other hand, JtR may have committed 6 or more murders in just a few months (in fact, even if you count McKenzie then there was less than year between her murder and Tabram's). Would such a killer, who may have committed numerous murders, and who seemed to derive excitement from mutilating and eviscerating his victims, even collecting organs as trophies, be able to suddenly control his urges after less than a year?

Thanks JohnG
I see your point about the flurry of killings but I think so. As you mentioned, theres precedent. Also, we don't know what his personal circumstances were that might have prohibited it. He may have gotten sick, his work made it prohibitive-who knows? it might not just had to do with being able to control urges.

And if its Aussie George, Able Seaman, maybe he was out to sea for a while?

[John G]

Hi JohnG
Thanks! I did not know that about Dahmer.

So he killed an 18 year old boy in 1978 and then went on to "flash" women and children in 1982 and two boys in 1986.

Sounds like Aussie George/ripper to me!


And it shows that serial killers can change from murder to indecent exposure (de-escalation)and that both sexes can be involved. And from adults to children. Its not impossible.

Another interesting note JohnG, is that Dahmer was a post Mortem mutilator, rare among serial killers, also like the ripper.

Of course Aussie George has another conviction prior to the indecent assault charge, in Australia, so interesting to know what that was!!

Hello Abby,

I should add that a question that is impossible to determine is whether serial killers are able to control their urge to kill indefinitely, or just for sustained periods. Did Zodiac or Jack the Stripper (Hammersmith Nude Murderer) stop of their own volition, or were they incarcerated for unrelated crimes, or simply die or become incapacitated?

Rader hadn't killed for 14 years at the time he was captured, but nonetheless claimed he'd been planning to murder again. And, of course, Dahmer didn't kill for for 9 years after his first horrific murder, before going on a spree which resulted in 16 more victims in just over 3 years. Ridgeway's last known murder before he was captured was 13 years earlier, however, it does seem that he may have committed numerous killings that are not known about: 49 victims were attributed to him-over a period of 3 and half years-but he claimed he committed 71 murders.

Of course, Ridgeway, Dahmer and Rader all committed numerous murders over a period of several years. On the other hand, JtR may have committed 6 or more murders in just a few months (in fact, even if you count McKenzie then there was less than year between her murder and Tabram's). Would such a killer, who may have committed numerous murders, and who seemed to derive excitement from mutilating and eviscerating his victims, even collecting organs as trophies, be able to suddenly control his urges after less than a year?

[John G]

Hi JohnG
Thanks! I did not know that about Dahmer.

So he killed an 18 year old boy in 1978 and then went on to "flash" women and children in 1982 and two boys in 1986.

Sounds like Aussie George/ripper to me!


And it shows that serial killers can change from murder to indecent exposure (de-escalation)and that both sexes can be involved. And from adults to children. Its not impossible.

Another interesting note JohnG, is that Dahmer was a post Mortem mutilator, rare among serial killers, also like the ripper.

Of course Aussie George has another conviction prior to the indecent assault charge, in Australia, so interesting to know what that was!!

Hi Abby,

Yes, Dahmer was certainly an unusual serial killer. Randall Woodfield also committed several offences of indecent exposure before progressing to serial murder. There's also an interesting study by Dietz, Hazzlewood and Warren (1990), of 30 sexually sadistic criminals-although I don't regard JtR as a sadist. This study found that 43% of them had a known homosexual experience. And 20% committed minor sex offences such as peeping, indecent exposure and obscene telephone calls.

Of course, JtR has been described as a lust killer: a killer who obtains sexual gratification through murder. And mutilating, evisceration and organ removal are typical of this type of serial killer.

The question, therefore is: once JtR, to put it crudely, got a taste for killing and mutilating, would he be content to satisfy himself through much more minor sexual offences, I.e. indecent assault, particularly as he had hitherto been killing at a rapid rate, with a fairly consistent signature and showing a pattern of escalating violence. Of course, after Dahmer's first murder he was able to control his urge to kill for 9 years, during which time he committed numerous offences,including indecent exposure and the indecent assault of a young boy. Nonetheless, once he started killing again he could seemingly no longer control his urges, murdering 16 victims in a three and half year period.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
I quite agree that they do not in isolation constitute serial killer behaviour, but in this case there is a strong argument for a causal relationship between the “loitering” and the “lying”.

Hi Ben.
Well, the "loitering" can be substantiated by Sarah Lewis, but what "lying" are we talking about?

What witness can you call on to substantiate Hutchinson "lying", and what was he lying about, according to this witness?

The evidence only suggests one of the two accusations chosen by you, not both.

He can be the "loiterer" (assuming we accept he was the man seen by Lewis), but there is no indication that he lied about anything. That accusation is still pure conjecture.

Hutchinson’s “nosy neighbourliness” just happened to precede a violent mutilation murder in the very house to which his loitering scrutiny had been directed, and the victim just happened to be the same woman he had made the object of his "nosiness".

Hutchinson's vigil preceded the cry of "murder", but it did not precede Bond's estimated time of death. An estimate, that if correct, would implicate Blotchy not Hutchinson.

...it is only reasonable to consider the unidentified wideawake-wearing man seen by Sarah Lewis as a suspect in Kelly’s murder.

Agreed, which is why I think Sarah Lewis was chosen to testify, seeing as how we have two women who told similar tales, but only one of them saw this loiterer.

The fact we, today, can make the connection between Hutchinson and Lewis's "loiterer", it goes without saying that Abberline would also make the connection. It is therefore "reasonable" to conclude the subsequent interrogation of Hutchinson was to allay any police suspicion of his involvement in the murder.

Hutchinson re-enters the equation by approaching the police shortly after this man was mentioned at the inquest, and provides evidence strongly hinting that he was the wideawake man in question. Only trouble is, his professed reason for being there involved a far-fetched and ultimately discredited story,...

And this is where you delve into conjecture and speculation.
We only possess one official opinion of Hutchinson's story, and there is not the slightest doubt expressed by police. So his story was not viewed as "far fetched", and certainly not discredited.

....thereby inviting suspicion that the revelation of Lewis’s evidence was the motivating factor behind his decision to come forward and “explain” his presence there.

"Your" suspicion, lets be clear about this.

The obvious stumbling block to comparing these two "characters" is that one of them had a prison alibi, while the other was a probable fabrication and thus did not exist in reality. There is also an exceptionally slim likelihood that the former was capable of dressing “equally” as well as the latter, even if he wasn't a work of fiction.

As we cannot place him in prison at the required time, then that, is conjecture.
I appreciate you choose to believe that Lloyds did not know the difference between "term of imprisonment", and "held in custody", but a laborious search of BNA archives of Lloyds does not support your conjecture.
They absolutely used both terms in their correct contexts, so no examples exist to help your case. While all the examples support my case.

But that’s quite a different topic.

Speaking of different topics, lets just go "off-topic" for a moment.

Are you signed up to "Linkedin"?
I occasionally receive invites to join Linkedin by email, just recently, attached to the page was a list of, "names you might know".
There was a Ben Holme listed.
I kind of wondered, how so?

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“In a society of nosy neighbors, a loiterer (if G.H.), does not make a killer.
In a ghetto of poverty and crime, where lying can be a matter of everyday survival, accusing a man of lying does not make him a killer.”

I quite agree that they do not in isolation constitute serial killer behaviour, but in this case there is a strong argument for a causal relationship between the “loitering” and the “lying”. Hutchinson’s “nosy neighbourliness” just happened to precede a violent mutilation murder in the very house to which his loitering scrutiny had been directed, and the victim just happened to be the same woman he had made the object of his "nosiness". In addition, the serial killer deemed responsible for this murder was known to be active in the very same district in which Hutchinson engaged his “nosy” antics that night, and at the same sort of time.

Since loitering outside a crime scene is a known trait of serial killers who target private homes - as the cases of Bundy, Rader and Napper testify to – it is only reasonable to consider the unidentified wideawake-wearing man seen by Sarah Lewis as a suspect in Kelly’s murder.

Hutchinson re-enters the equation by approaching the police shortly after this man was mentioned at the inquest, and provides evidence strongly hinting that he was the wideawake man in question. Only trouble is, his professed reason for being there involved a far-fetched and ultimately discredited story, thereby inviting suspicion that the revelation of Lewis’s evidence was the motivating factor behind his decision to come forward and “explain” his presence there.

“Just remind me of this the next time we are talking about one very controversial character and several points of resemblance ("links") between him and one rather equally well-dressed suspicious character.”

The obvious stumbling block to comparing these two "characters" is that one of them had a prison alibi, while the other was a probable fabrication and thus did not exist in reality. There is also an exceptionally slim likelihood that the former was capable of dressing “equally” as well as the latter, even if he wasn't a work of fiction.

But that’s quite a different topic.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Throughout the year, Jon. Romford itself pops up more in 1888 than 1885 IIRC. It's also listed a few times as a destination on discharge as casuals were required to give that information also. Many other places are listed, including Whitechapel, but most entries show men spending a night in one place and traveling on to a different place on discharge or occasionally 'walking about all night'.
This class were the unemployed and seasonal field workers who traveled looking for a few days or weeks work at a time. I think GH the witness shows signs of being of this class myself.
The casual ward registers only exist for two wards in London now; the male Mint St one and Newington, which is females, both St Saviours Southwark union. I started researching this at the beginning of the year-Eddowes, Tabram, Mary Ann Monk, Polly Nichols and other Whitechapel women used the Newington casual ward over the years. Eddowes was still using it in April 88 despite having regular lodgings with John Kelly in Whitechapel.

Much appreciated Debs, thankyou.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

Paedophiles can target both sexes, for example, Brady and Hindley, although they are not, of course, attracted to adults. However, I think a more relevant issue is whether Aussie George's crimes are consistent with JtR's signature.

Thus, there seems to be clear evidence of a pattern of escalating violence in respect of JtR's crimes. Moreover, Keppel (2005) argues that JtR "...used a knife to penetrate the victim, and satisfied himself through the eroticized power of violence, the domination of the victims, and the mutilation and bleeding of the victim, rather than sexual intercourse."

He further refers to other sexual elements of the crimes, arguing that Tabram, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were posed with their "legs splayed and genitalia exposed in a sexually degrading manner..."

And Dr Bond in his analysis, clearly considered the crimes to be sexually motivated.

Of course, none of this is consistent with a perpetrator who commits indecent assaults, exposing himself to children (although it's difficult to determine exactly what Aussie George's offences were, because although he was sentenced for indecent exposure, he was initially charged with indecent assault, although both crimes are considered sexual offences.)

So, are there any precedents? The closest I could find was Jeffrey Dahmer. In 1982 he exposed himself to a crowd of 25 women and children. And in 1986 he was charged with indecent exposure, I.e. for masturbating in front of two 12 year old boys. Now, although he committed multiple murders after these offences, he did commit a murder in 1978, I.e. before the indecent exposures : he bludgeoned, strangled and dismembered an 18 year old boy.

Hi JohnG
Thanks! I did not know that about Dahmer.

So he killed an 18 year old boy in 1978 and then went on to "flash" women and children in 1982 and two boys in 1986.

Sounds like Aussie George/ripper to me!


And it shows that serial killers can change from murder to indecent exposure (de-escalation)and that both sexes can be involved. And from adults to children. Its not impossible.

Another interesting note JohnG, is that Dahmer was a post Mortem mutilator, rare among serial killers, also like the ripper.

Of course Aussie George has another conviction prior to the indecent assault charge, in Australia, so interesting to know what that was!!

[John G]

John G,
in response to your post 151.Fisherman can note too if he wishes.
The court record has Hutchinson as Tinsmith Labourer.It does not follow that he was of two different occupations.It was customery in English courts,and still is,to describe a labourer in this way.Such as Builderers labourer,Bricklayer labourer(Brickies labourer)etc.It simply means he was a labourer to that trade.So Aussie George was just a labourer to the trade of tinsmith.
Now to AB.Had he been a sailor on that ship,the likelihood is that he would have signed articles for the round trip back to U.K.Unless released from those articles,unlikely if just to stay in New South Wales,he would be committing the crime of desertion.So the logical answer is that he came as a passenger.So AB in his case could mean anything or nothing.As could JP.
He didn't have to furnish an occupation as a requirement to entering New South Wales.That he did means nothing in rejection of the idea that he might at one time have been resident in the Victoria Home.
By the way,when I immigrated to Australia in 1966,I neither produced a passport(I didn't own one)or state a trade or calling.Care to comment on that?

Hello Harry,

I was just going by the article, which states that the Bathurst Gaol and maritime records refer to him as a tinsmith; it is the court reporter who refers to his occupation as labourer.

[John G]

Aussie George was convicted of indecent exposure, commonly known as being a flasher, against two boys.

JohnG and others have brought up the valid point that in trying to tie Aussie George to the crimes of the ripper, there is a big problem in regards to the victimology and crimes.

My questions are, since I know little about flashers and/or pedophiles:

1.Do Flashers usually target the same sex and or age group?

2.Do pedophiles usually only target the same sex?ie-only boys or only girls?

3. Is being a flasher and also a pedophile common or rare and are the two usually hand in hand?


I think its germaine to the discussion and would go ways in determining what Aussie George was and could have been.

Would love to see some thoughts from others more knowledgeable about these types of sex crimes/behaviors.

Hello Abby,

Paedophiles can target both sexes, for example, Brady and Hindley, although they are not, of course, attracted to adults. However, I think a more relevant issue is whether Aussie George's crimes are consistent with JtR's signature.

Thus, there seems to be clear evidence of a pattern of escalating violence in respect of JtR's crimes. Moreover, Keppel (2005) argues that JtR "...used a knife to penetrate the victim, and satisfied himself through the eroticized power of violence, the domination of the victims, and the mutilation and bleeding of the victim, rather than sexual intercourse."

He further refers to other sexual elements of the crimes, arguing that Tabram, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were posed with their "legs splayed and genitalia exposed in a sexually degrading manner..."

And Dr Bond in his analysis, clearly considered the crimes to be sexually motivated.

Of course, none of this is consistent with a perpetrator who commits indecent assaults, exposing himself to children (although it's difficult to determine exactly what Aussie George's offences were, because although he was sentenced for indecent exposure, he was initially charged with indecent assault, although both crimes are considered sexual offences.)

So, are there any precedents? The closest I could find was Jeffrey Dahmer. In 1982 he exposed himself to a crowd of 25 women and children. And in 1986 he was charged with indecent exposure, I.e. for masturbating in front of two 12 year old boys. Now, although he committed multiple murders after these offences, he did commit a murder in 1978, I.e. before the indecent exposures : he bludgeoned, strangled and dismembered an 18 year old boy.

[Abby Normal]

Aussie George was convicted of indecent exposure, commonly known as being a flasher, against two boys.

JohnG and others have brought up the valid point that in trying to tie Aussie George to the crimes of the ripper, there is a big problem in regards to the victimology and crimes.

My questions are, since I know little about flashers and/or pedophiles:

1.Do Flashers usually target the same sex and or age group?

2.Do pedophiles usually only target the same sex?ie-only boys or only girls?

3. Is being a flasher and also a pedophile common or rare and are the two usually hand in hand?


I think its germaine to the discussion and would go ways in determining what Aussie George was and could have been.

Would love to see some thoughts from others more knowledgeable about these types of sex crimes/behaviors.