Ripperologist 146 - October 2015

[Debra A]

"a good number of men", is that throughout the year, or at the same time as the entry we are talking about?
I'm wondering if this suggests a seasonal attraction.

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.

[harry]

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?

[Ben]

“It is established that there were numerous tinsmiths and tin miners in New South Wales, and the tin smith and tin mining business are closely related (without each other, none would exist), plus a large number of Cornishmen emigrated to Australia and New South Wales to engage in the industry, so there is nothing at all odd with the suggestion.”

Yes, but you’re now saying that our Hutchinson had nothing to do with tin – mining it or fashioning it – until after his arrival in Australia, and only worked as a sailor up until that point. That was your way of trying to create a schism between him and the “labourer” from 1888, remember? You really can’t have it both ways. He was either a tinsmith/labourer before he arrived in Australia or he wasn’t. If he was, it puts paid to the notion that he was a bonafide seafarer, as well as the inference that he had no association with “labouring”, but on the plus side you still get to keep your very tenuous “connection” to Cornish mining; whereas if he wasn’t, you would be right to highlight the non-connection with labouring, but completely wrong to infer even the vaguest connection to Cornwall.

I think you’re better off with the first option, albeit with an acknowledgment that the Cornish connection is slim to non-existent. Cornish miners left the south-west in search of better mining prospects in Australia, and once there, they were known as miners, not labourers. There is no reason to think that “Aussie George” ever went to a mine in his life.

“Incidentally, I think that if Aussie George was one of these people, he may well have been called upon by Cornish tin industry relatives or friends”

But on what basis would we assume a) that George was “called upon” by any relative, as opposed to acting on his own initiative, and b) that the hypothetical relatives in question must have been Cornish? The “Cornish tin industry” related exclusively to extracting the mineral, and there was no requirement for a tinsmith working in England to live or work close to a tin mine, just as there is no requirement for an IKEA employee to live or work near the woods of northern Sweden. I’m afraid, therefore, that there is no basis for any assumption that our man George had any sort of “roots” in Cornwall.

“It is all very easy to find, if you spend a little time and effort. Plus it has the distinctive advantage of providing you with the factually correct answers.”

Thing is, I did all that, and my sources turned up Liverpool Street. If those sources are wrong, and the station in question was in fact Fenchurch Street, I’d be only too happy to take your word for it, since it makes not a scrap of difference to my observation.

“It cannot "remain" if it was never there.”

It was “there” insofar as both “Aussie” and “Whitechapel” George were listed as labourers.

“And still, they did to a large extent. If yoy check on the correlation between different commoditites and occupatiosn using these commodities, you wil be amazed at how that somehow and for some reasson nornally coincide to a very great extent. And that was much more so a hundred years ago.
Check it up and come back to me!”

I’ve checked, and no, there is no evidence of any preponderance of tinsmiths in Cornwall. There just wouldn’t be any need. As Janner pointed out several posts ago, tinsmiths worked with tinplate, i.e. wrought iron that had already been coated in tin.

“How many people do you think have changed work and home when offered very much better conditions from relatives engaged in a thriving business elsewhere?”

Where’s the evidence that Hutchinson “thrived” in Australia? He can’t have done all that splendidly if he was listed as a “labourer”. Why would going to Australia mean the abandonment of a skilled profession like an A.B.? Surely the cleverer thing to do was to strike out with one’s existing skills and qualifications? It wasn’t as if there was any shortage of opportunities for skilled seafarers out there.

“No? What does a tinsmith work with?
Tin.
From where does tin come?
A mine.
Voila, Ben.”

No, Fisherman. Un-voila.

What does a footballer work with?

Footballs.

Where do footballs come from?

Cow hide.

I guess Ronaldo must live on a farm.

“No. He cannot be placed in London at all. And no likelihood at all can be established, let alone "all" likelihood.”

You can think what you like, but it is irrefutably more likely that Hutchinson arrived in Tilbury Docks by way of the London boat train, and that would have held true for the vast majority of passengers bound for Australia that day.

“He would probably settle for any serial killer who committed his deeds using physical violence, swopping to an exercise that involved a changing of the gender of the targetted group and no physical violence being applied.”

Oh, ok then. In which case let’s go with any serial killer of women who has ever stolen property off a man, of which there are certainly examples. Good, that’s that one done.

"When we have Ben saying that our arguments are weak, while at the same time predisposing that his suspect has committed a combination of crimes that has no parallel at all in the annals of crime"

Bit like silly old Fetchbeer then? Quite the popular suspect he appears not remotely to be at the moment.

Aussie George is not even "my" suspect, old fruit.

[Wickerman]

The watch stealer was called George Thomas Hutchison. The newspapers spelled his name incorrectly so it is possible that the workhouse record keeper did the same but the watch stealer was described as a stationer all his working life in the records. The elderly watch stealer does appear in ordinary (not the casual ward) workhouse records in the 1900's with his name spelled correctly and his occupation as ex stationer given.
His signature doesn't look like the witness signature either...well obviously he spelled his own name correctly, so it wouldn't do.

Indeed, it wouldn't.

A good number of the men in the Mint St Southwark casual ward said they had spent the previous night in Romford according to the registers. Stratford and Greenwich come up a lot too.

"a good number of men", is that throughout the year, or at the same time as the entry we are talking about?
I'm wondering if this suggests a seasonal attraction.

[Debra A]

The watch stealer was called George Thomas Hutchison. The newspapers spelled his name incorrectly so it is possible that the workhouse record keeper did the same but the watch stealer was described as a stationer all his working life in the records. The elderly watch stealer does appear in ordinary (not the casual ward) workhouse records in the 1900's with his name spelled correctly and his occupation as ex stationer given.
His signature doesn't look like the witness signature either...well obviously he spelled his own name correctly, so it wouldn't do.

A good number of the men in the Mint St Southwark casual ward said they had spent the previous night in Romford according to the registers. Stratford and Greenwich come up a lot too.

[Wickerman]

Apologies, Sally, for overlooking this gem in the midst of all the tinsmithery, but yes, I couldn't agree more - if it's "links" people are after, you're unlikely to find a closer one that an itinerant groom named George Hutchinson who "walked about" all night.

It is quite possible that "walk about" was a pre-requisite to get yourself on the vagrants list at the Workhouse, what else could he say?
A circumstantial "link" then.

However, the name & the occupation, are better looking "links".

It doesn't take much does it, to make a comparison. Two definite "links" and one circumstantial "link".
It could be Witness-George yes, I agree.

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.

It doesn't take much Ben - just remember that.

* * *
If this Hutchinson was also the watch thief (and assuming he was Witness-George), then we have a potential motive for Witness-George loitering around Millers Court.
That flashy gold watch chain must have looked inviting...

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

The Austin Murder, in 1901, has been described as a Ripper-like killing. For instance, there was a "penetrating wound of the vaginal (frontal) passage extending to the abdominal cavity."

The murder occurred in Dorset Street, and was quite obviously the subject of a cover up. For instance, there was clearly a cover-up as to which room the murder took place, and a number of witnesses clearly lied. The Inquest, which pretty much descended into farce, is available on this site. At one point Wynne Baxter says to a witness:" Well, you are about the stupidest witness and most innocent witness I have ever met."

And Superintendent Mulvany wrote:"This shows how utterly unreliable these people are. The man Sullivan appears to have had the deceased woman removed from No15 cubicle on the third floor to No 44 Cubicle on the 1st Floor, a told the deputy to say she slept in 44, which was the Cubicle pointed out by the deputy's wife to Police as that in which the deceased was stabbed."

Daniel Sullivan was William Crossingham's brother in law ans overseer.

thanks! interesting.

[Paddy]

Abby please check private messages..
Pat....

[John G]

whos Austin? fill me in please.

Hi Abby,

The Austin Murder, in 1901, has been described as a Ripper-like killing. For instance, there was a "penetrating wound of the vaginal (frontal) passage extending to the abdominal cavity."

The murder occurred in Dorset Street, and was quite obviously the subject of a cover up. For instance, there was clearly a cover-up as to which room the murder took place, and a number of witnesses clearly lied. The Inquest, which pretty much descended into farce, is available on this site. At one point Wynne Baxter says to a witness:" Well, you are about the stupidest witness and most innocent witness I have ever met."

And Superintendent Mulvany wrote:"This shows how utterly unreliable these people are. The man Sullivan appears to have had the deceased woman removed from No15 cubicle on the third floor to No 44 Cubicle on the 1st Floor, a told the deputy to say she slept in 44, which was the Cubicle pointed out by the deputy's wife to Police as that in which the deceased was stabbed."

Daniel Sullivan was William Crossingham's brother in law ans overseer.

[John G]

Point taken, John!

I actually think - although it is not for me to advice you - that you may want to do exactly what Ben suggests and leave the discussion. I know I am doing just that.

When we have Ben saying that our arguments are weak, while at the same time predisposing that his suspect has committed a combination of crimes that has no parallel at all in the annals of crime, then there is nothing more to add, really. It is what it is, but Ben will not change his mind anyway, take my word for it.

After that, it is just a question of how many times you find it useful/rewarding/hilarious to prove him wrong, over and over again.

See you īround, John!

Hi Fish,

Thanks for the advice, I intend to take it. Ben, regrettably, has elected to misrepresent my posts. For instance he claimed that I was inconsistent because I favoured William Bury as a suspect, and that the murder of Ellen Bury would represent a de-escalation from the Ripper's crimes. In fact, in my post to Abby I argued the exact opposite, i.e that I once favoured Bury but now had major doubts because of the de-escalation. But then, Ben's not terribly interested in facts is he?

See you around Fish!

[John G]

I don't disparage "the signature hypothesis". I disparage your mangled misunderstanding of the concept and pretense at familiarity with "expert" opinion, as evinced by your reference to indecent exposure as "the crime signature of a flasher". I also doubt very much that you knew anything about Nathaniel Code until I brought up the case in response to your muddled musings on serial killers.

Yes, I had read about Nathaniel Code before you'd mentioned him. However, as you have decided to misrepresent my posts I will be leaving the thread.

[Abby Normal]

Abby Normal: I just thought that so far no one has made anything close to strong argument that Aussie George couldnt be witness hutch.

The problem is, Abby, that there is no argument at all why he would have been.

Lets examine the different areas in question:

Occupation:

Aussie George could have been a tinsmith, groom...

Whoa there - where did the grooming come from?

...and able seaman.
Tinsmith in Australia, former Merchant marine, groom in England.

Thereīs that groom again...!

Or the press was incorrect on any of those occupations. Laborer is a general term and could incorporate ANY of those other occupations.

Meaning that Aussie George may well have been a tinsmith throughout.

By the time I was thirty I had many different occupations, some at the same time. Im sure many people on here have the same experience as a young man (or woman)trying to find their way in life. By the time I was thirty I had been a crocery/hardware store clerk, horse walker, server, bouncer, teacher, liquor store manager, child care worker-just to name a few.

Me too - but that proves nothing about what Aussie George was.

Aussie/witness hutch could have EASILY have bounced around from these occupations he was listed as having. And there all in a similar type of class any way.

Once again, there is no evidence here. And with no evidence, there can be no case.

BONUS: match to the ripper: The ripper the night of the double event was described as wearing a sailor type cap and having the appearance of a sailor. Aussie George was listed as having a station as Able Seaman.

Many people wore a peaked cap, Iīm afraid. But yes, there was some speaking about a sailorlike appearance.

Appearance:

Hutch was described as short not tall. Aussie George was short and stout.

Aussie George was 5 ft 5 1/2. In 1870, 5 ft 5 was the average height. So no, he was not short, he was average.

BONUS: match to the ripper: Most witnesses describe a man who was short, stout, broad shouldered, broad faced. Aussie George was all of these things in spades!

Must have been him, then!

The side and front view of his mug shot show a very powerfully built man-big head, shoulders, neck and chest. The ripper must have been a strong man to be able to subdue and kill his victims so quickly and silently.
Also, his attire and hair color, mustache and complexion seem to match well also.

Aussie George was no heavyweight - he lands on the border between normal weigh and overweight on the BMI scale. So letīs not be too enthusiastic here!

Location:

Witness Hutch was in the East End, actually right outside the door of a victim. He self described himself as kind of a wanderer and having walked from Romford. Aussie George cant be placed in London, but hes also a wanderer and was extremely close at least with Tillbury dock, with the boat train coming a short distance in London as Ben points out.

Tilbury Dock is not extremely close to the East End - it is 25 miles downstreams of London Bridge. And who says he took the train???

There is very good chance Aussie George was probably in London at the time.

There MAY be. And there may not be. The point is, ABby, that we-dont-know. We have not got a scintilla of an idea. It would be completely bonkers to claim that he very probably was in London. And if you excuse me for saying so, it is totally unflattering to yourself to argue it.

There is no evidence that witness hutch was in London after 1889 either and Aussie George clearly was not.

Oh dear... Come on, Abby - you are so much better than that!

Bonus match to the ripper: The last valid ripper victim is Alice Mckenzie (or Jackson-if youll go that way)in the East End and Aussie George left shortly thereafter.

Shortly...? Three months - shortly? Plus WHY would he flee?

Crime:

Witness Hutch: stalking behaviour
Ripper-sex crimes
Aussie George-sex crime with a previous conviction.

How many sex crimes were comittes in Engaland and Australia that year....? And look at the differences in crimes and target groups, PLEASE!

So I see some very strong connections between Aussie George and Hutch and to the ripper also. Absolutely nothing so far said to contrary has come close to ruling out Aussie George in my opinion.

That may say a lot more about your opinion than it says about the implications in other peoples eyes. Personally, I think you are lowering your standards down to bog-level, keeping the nostrils well under the surface. Sorry, Abby, but this is not very good.

I see many similarities and possibilities Fish and nothing to rule him out.
You have certainly raised a lot of valid issues and questions but at this point Im not getting into anymore-lets see what else pans out.
Im looking forward to the extended article in the next Rip.

[Fisherman]

I don't think Ben likes giving relevant examples, Fish. Well, apart from Nathaniel Code that is!

Point taken, John!

I actually think - although it is not for me to advice you - that you may want to do exactly what Ben suggests and leave the discussion. I know I am doing just that.

When we have Ben saying that our arguments are weak, while at the same time predisposing that his suspect has committed a combination of crimes that has no parallel at all in the annals of crime, then there is nothing more to add, really. It is what it is, but Ben will not change his mind anyway, take my word for it.

After that, it is just a question of how many times you find it useful/rewarding/hilarious to prove him wrong, over and over again.

See you īround, John!

[Ben]

Well Ben keeps referring to Nathaniel Code, who was a remarkably consistent serial killer, thus an excellent example to support the signature hypothesis that Ben disparages.

I don't disparage "the signature hypothesis". I disparage your mangled misunderstanding of the concept and pretense at familiarity with "expert" opinion, as evinced by your reference to indecent exposure as "the crime signature of a flasher". I also doubt very much that you knew anything about Nathaniel Code until I brought up the case in response to your muddled musings on serial killers.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

I don't see how "there's a good chance Aussie George was probably in London at the time." May I refer you to my earlier post, where I point out that he could have come from East Anglia, or anywhere in the Home Counties, even if we accept that he sailed from London because it's is nearest port. And what if he did come from London? What does that prove? Statistically it still means that it was very unlikely that he was resident in Whitechapel: London population, around 5.6 million; Whitechapel, around 80000.

Alice McKenzie and Jackson Ripper victims! I think plenty would disagree with you there. What about Austin? Mind you, that would completely rule out Aussie George!

And yes, Whitechapel George could have been a baker, butcher, candlestick maker, gang leader, band leader, tinsmith, serial killer, watchmaker, enforcer, tailor...However, there's just one problem: evidence.

whos Austin? fill me in please.