Ripperologist 146 - October 2015

[Sally]

[Fisherman]

The age of the GH recorded in the Southwark Workhouse vagrant's ward - who I think is the best candidate for the witness to date - is the real problem for 'Aussie George' - as indeed, it is for claims regarding 'Toppy'

Could you expand on this, Sally? Why would the age recorded for vagrant George be a problem for the other Georges?

[Fisherman]

I can’t do the impossible and find an example of a serial killer who mirrored the behaviour of “Aussie George”, as proposed by Stephen Sinese (not me!), with exactitude.

I don´t think John is asking for any exactitude, Ben. 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.

I know I would settle for that. And I only think it is fair to ask - the leap is a humongous one.

[Fisherman]

So... Amidst all of this [albeit entertaining] speculation concerning ‘Aussie George’ nobody gives a pig’s tail about the fact that a George Hutchinson who actually matches the witness’ account of himself in 1888 has been located by Pat in the records of the Southwark Mint Street Workhouse Vagrant’s ward then?

George Hutchinson, an itinerant Groom, aged 30, admitted on 30th October 1885, spent the previous night ‘walking about’ – sound familiar at all? Hey! I don't suppose this could be the man who described himself in 1888 as formerly a groom, could it?

No?

Ok then – back to tinsmithing flashers it is.

Each to their own, as they say.

On the surface of things undoubtedly a much, much better candidate for the role of the Dorset Street witness. But would he, having been 33 years of age in 1888, have been described as a "young man" by Dew?

The "walking about" thing sounds not very connecting to the Dorset Street witness - he walked about because he had no place to sleep, not because he was given to such exercises per se, as seems to have been the case with Pat´s Hutchinson.

As you will know, I think we already have pour man ID:s well and proper, but if we had not had that, then in a choice between Aussie George and Pats groom, I would definitely have gone for the latter.

[Sally]

So not a tinsmith or a labourer then. Bang goes that argument.

John -

Witness GH said that he'd formerly been a groom now [in 1888] a [general] labourer - a catch-all term for any type of physical work he could get. People faced with the constant threat of extreme poverty constantly adapted to survive - GH could potentially have done any kind of work he could get and have described himself accordingly; so theoretically, he could have been a tinsmith at some point.

The age of the GH recorded in the Southwark Workhouse vagrant's ward - who I think is the best candidate for the witness to date - is the real problem for 'Aussie George' - as indeed, it is for claims regarding 'Toppy'

Vagrant GH was born in 1854-5 when these two weren't even a twinkle in the eye and would have been in his early 30's in 1888.

I think there may perhaps be more to come out of the Southwark register entry, but I'll put that in a more appropriate place so that those inclined can continue to debate Aussie George without the pesky interference of recorded evidence.

[John G]

So... Amidst all of this [albeit entertaining] speculation concerning ‘Aussie George’ nobody gives a pig’s tail about the fact that a George Hutchinson who actually matches the witness’ account of himself in 1888 has been located by Pat in the records of the Southwark Mint Street Workhouse Vagrant’s ward then?

George Hutchinson, an itinerant Groom, aged 30, admitted on 30th October 1885, spent the previous night ‘walking about’ – sound familiar at all? Hey! I don't suppose this could be the man who described himself in 1888 as formerly a groom, could it?

No?

Ok then – back to tinsmithing flashers it is.

Each to their own, as they say.

So not a tinsmith or a labourer then. Bang goes that argument.

[Ben]

“Of course I ask you to cite more relevant precedents, but all you can do is repeat the same mantra, i.e. that sometimes serial killers murder both genders.”

I’m repeating the same “mantra”, as you call it, because it is necessary to combat some of the irritating and outdated misconceptions you persist in. It isn’t necessary for me to provide “more relevant precedents”. I’ve cited “precedents” aplenty, and they’ve all served their purpose of disposing of your declarations that certain behavioural traits are “exceptionally rare”. Your strategy now seems to be to make the criteria as preposterously specific as possible, and then to say “aha, gotcha” when I can’t do the impossible and find an example of a serial killer who mirrored the behaviour of “Aussie George”, as proposed by Stephen Sinese (not me!), with exactitude.

“There is clear evidence that JtR was a sexually motivated killer, which is why he focussed on certain areas of the body: breasts, genitalia, and the organs of reproduction.”

No, he didn’t.

There is nothing exclusively feminine about the heart, kidney, bladder and face. Show me the evidence that Kelly’s murderer “focussed” on the breasts and genitalia to the exclusion of other parts of her body, which he evidently considered more interesting.

“And gay serial killers overwhelmingly target same sex victims”

Who said anything about gay serial killers?

If you mean to imply that only gay men target young boys, then you’ve just “outed” Nathaniel Code, Arthur Shawcross, Andrei Chikatilo and pretty much the entire male population of Ancient Greece.

I only "failed to address" the issue of an escalation in violence because I wanted to save you the embarrassment of exposing your absurd double-standards approach to picking suspects. You cheerfully champion William Bury as a suspect, despite the fact that the murder of his wife would constitute the very opposite of an "escalation" in violence of the type the ripper inflicted on Kelly.

“Such a killer is not likely to emigrate to Australia and then de-escalate to the extent that when he next commits sexual assaults he exposes himself, and commits indecent assaults, against young boys!”

Says who, and according to what? You according to you by the sound of it, and it’s completely worthless because you’re not basing your pronouncements on any evidence. You keep going back to the “signature” nonsense, and claiming that anyone who has a “signature” is incapable of committing any other type of crime. If he was responsible for indecently assaulting those boys, he wouldn’t have been applying any “signature”, just as he wouldn’t have been if he was caught breaking into a house or trying to rob a bank. You can infer, by all means, that mutilating woman was his favourite thing – so much so that a “signature” evolved from it – but that would not render him incapable of committing other types of sexual crimes.

The problem is that your knowledge and understanding of serial killers seems to be stuck in 1983, or thereabouts. Nobody says that stuff anymore about serial killers never stopping; it’s outdated and shown to be nonsense. In any case, we have no idea what “Aussie George” was doing between 1889 and 1896. Go and raise this “never stopping” objection on other suspect threads – you’ll notice that most are reliant on the premise, to varying extents, that the ripper was capable of “stopping”.

“In fact, if he benefited from assisted passage he might not have had much choice about the port he travelled from, or ship that he travelled on; the cost of his passage to Australia might have been the relevant factor, rather than the rail journey to the port: travel on the Ormuz from London may have been cheaper than the alternatives.”

These are all very interesting “ifs”, as in “if” my auntie had bollocks, she’d be my uncle, but I’m afraid you’re the one with all the work to do if you’re determined to have him residing outside of London. My only observation was that he was likely to have been at least in London in order to get to Tilbury Docks, and it just so happened that the terminal that would have taken him there was a mere ten-minute walk away from the known residence of the “witness” George.

[John G]

Hi John,



And the fact that he was a labourer, as the "original" was reported to be, and the fact that he can be placed, in all likelihood, in London in the late 1880s. Senise's argument, remember, was that the Australian-bound Hutchinson he located was not just a potential candidate for the original "witness", but a potential candidate for the Whitechapel murderer. Now, if you like, we can bury the thread by repeating the entire Hutchinson-as-ripper argument again for the trillionth time (I'm massively up for it, myself) but if not, at least bear in mind that the "link" in this case would include a reasonable explanation for the apparent cessation of the crimes in the East End, and the apparent disappearance of former star witness Hutchinson.



How "easy" do you reckon it would have been, in all seriousness, for the court reporter to have misheard "tinsmith" for "labourer"? A better explanation is that "tinsmith" was the occupation listed as "previous to conviction" (as opposed to "concurrent with...") because he was working as a labourer at the time of it.



From the police dispatch published in the press on the 13th:

A man, apparently of the labouring class, with a military appearance

"Thanks for the correction" would be the appropriate reaction here, but based on previous experience, I'm not holding out much hope...



Not according to Sinese's research, which disclosed the fact that stowaways, once discovered, were put to work as members of the crew. "Able seaman" reads somewhat better on the official record than "some bloke we carelessly permitted to slip on board unnoticed".

Hello Ben,

You know, I feel that I've entered a kind of twilight world of dubious connections. Thus, because a man boards a ship from Tilbury we're supposed to infer that he resided in Whitechapel! I don't think so. Even if you're correct in assuming that he would have travelled to his nearest port, then he still could have come from an extremely wide area. For instance, he could have been resident in any of the home counties, I.e. Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Essex, Surrey, Kent and Sussex. And might he not also have travelled from East Anglia, I.e. Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire?

Even if he lived in the Metropolis (Middlesex and the LCC region), we're still talking about a city of 5.6 million people. Now considering that the population of Whitechapel was around 80000 in the 1880s, the statistical probability that he came from there is extremely small.

And what about the labouring connection. Well, Abberline believed that Whitechapel George was unemployed, and various newspaper reports refer to him as either a labourer or unemployed groom. Tom Cullen even suggested he was a nightwatchman. And what about "Apparently of the labouring classes"? Yes, that's pretty conclusive!

Aussie George, on the other hand was referred to in the official records as a "tinsmith", a skilled occupation . Now that suggests to me that he may well have had the same skilled occupation before leaving England. In fact, many emigrants to Australia had already secured jobs prior to departure, which makes sense for a skilled worker, a lot less so for an impoverished labourer.
And if Whitechapel George had such a skill, I doubt that he would ever refer to himself as a mere unemployed labourer/groom/nightwatchman.

Of course, it's possible that Aussie George had temporarily taken up labouring, but there can be any number of explanations for this, such as losing his skilled job on account of the accusations made against him and his subsequent conviction, which makes sense if tinsmith was listed as his occupation "previous to conviction."

The article suggests the reason for his departure may have been the murder of Alice McKenzie. Well, if they're going to suggest McKenzie was a possible or likely Ripper victim then I think I'll counter by proposing Austin, which would rule Aussie George out completely. In fact, for those who like connections Austin was murdered in Dorset Street, just like Kelly.

And why did he not flea after apparently being seen by Lewis? Why hang around Whitechapel for several months, before murdering another victim, and then deciding it was time to make a quick getaway? Well, not that quick, as the Ormuz sailed three months after McKenzie's murder. But then, why let common sense get in the way of a good story.

Then the article refers to dear Sarah Lewis. Yes, the witness who didn't actually live in Dorset Street but was visiting the mysterious, and as yet unidentified, Keylers (in fact so mysterious that we have several different name spellings.) And, incredibly, just before seeing the suspect who may or may not have been George Hutchinson (she paid him scant attention, so only provided a vague description), she re-encounters the far more Devilish Bethnal Green Man, fully equipped with archetypal black bag, who two days earlier, and in a different district, tried to diabolically inveigle her into a lonely narrow passage. By the way, is it just me or is this starting to resemble a Jacobean drama?

Anyway,what does Ripper George do in response to not being recognized by a witness who paid him scant attention, providing only a vague description. Well, he reports to the police station, of course, and then places himself in the vicinity of a murder that he'd committed, and at a time when the murder may have been committed. Unbelievable!

I ask you, is there any precedent for such inbecility? Not so much Jack the Ripper as Jack the Totally Stupid.





.

[Ben]

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.

I'd forgotten all about this chap, but thanks for the reminder!

All the best,
Ben

[Debra A]

So... Amidst all of this [albeit entertaining] speculation concerning ‘Aussie George’ nobody gives a pig’s tail about the fact that a George Hutchinson who actually matches the witness’ account of himself in 1888 has been located by Pat in the records of the Southwark Mint Street Workhouse Vagrant’s ward then?

George Hutchinson, an itinerant Groom, aged 30, admitted on 30th October 1885, spent the previous night ‘walking about’ – sound familiar at all? Hey! I don't suppose this could be the man who described himself in 1888 as formerly a groom, could it?

No?

Ok then – back to tinsmithing flashers it is.

Each to their own, as they say.

[Sally]

So... Amidst all of this [albeit entertaining] speculation concerning ‘Aussie George’ nobody gives a pig’s tail about the fact that a George Hutchinson who actually matches the witness’ account of himself in 1888 has been located by Pat in the records of the Southwark Mint Street Workhouse Vagrant’s ward then?

George Hutchinson, an itinerant Groom, aged 30, admitted on 30th October 1885, spent the previous night ‘walking about’ – sound familiar at all? Hey! I don't suppose this could be the man who described himself in 1888 as formerly a groom, could it?

No?

Ok then – back to tinsmithing flashers it is.

Each to their own, as they say.

[Fisherman]

Tinsmiths worked with tinplate - most of which would have been manufactured in South Wales. Tinsmiths could have worked anywhere, whether it be for the e.g the railways or as a travelling peddler - in which case he could well have been called a "tinker".

Yes, that is absolutely true. I am not saying that he must have worked together with Cornish tin miners.
What I AM saying is that the Cornish were deeply involved in the tin industry in New South Wales. And that Aussie George arrived in New South Wales in 1889 and that he was prosecuted and convicted there in 1896, while claiming that he was a tinsmith.

That seemingly offers a line to follow, but to what extent that line is completely true or not is hard to say. I think it is an excellent starting point for further research, at the very least.

[Janner]

Tinsmiths worked with tinplate - most of which would have been manufactured in South Wales. Tinsmiths could have worked anywhere, whether it be for the e.g the railways or as a travelling peddler - in which case he could well have been called a "tinker".

[Fisherman]

Ben:

he can be placed, in all likelihood, in London in the late 1880s.

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

We know that he embarked on a ship in Tilbury, and that is the closest we know he ever came to London.

Let´s not abandon the groundstones of research, shall we? He COULD have been in London, but it equally applies that he my never have been there.
Plus, even if we were to accept your bid that he travelled by train from the East End - which there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prove or even suggest - it would still aply that we would ony know that he was en route to Tilbury. He could have arrived to Fenchurch Street station from a very large number of other destinations than London, being in transit to the Ormuz.

Actually, I really, really should not have to argue this issue. It should be a closed one until any evidence at all emerges that puts Aussie George in London. Before that, the topic has nothing to do in a sane discussion.

[Fisherman]

Ben:
As far as "original thoughts" are concerned, I don't remember suggesting you never had any.

Oh, that! I may have gotten that wrong. It was jus that you wrote "No offense, but have you had a single original thought in the last three years that hasn't been put there by Edward Stow", so I simply thought that you meant that I had never had any original thoughts at all. My bad.

... but I'm afraid your pointing out that Hutchinson sailed from Tilbury doesn't really qualify; that detail was included in the original article, and I had merely missed it.

Yes, I stole it.

On the other hand, I'm indebted to you for the revelation that the boat train sailed from Fenchuch Street, which was a ten-minute walk from the Victoria Home, and a four-minute walk from Mitre Square.

I actually stole that too, from a time-table, so it was entirely unoriginal too. 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. The point being that you need not engage in speculating and you need not get it wrong once you make the effort.

But "probably came from Cornwall"?

No, you're going to struggle with that one I'm afraid, despite it being convenient for the conclusions of Team Jo(h)n.

Not at all. 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. That is what it is, by the way - a suggestion, grounded in the factualities.

No matter how good or bad the suggestion is, it applies that no other suggestion can be made that would suggest any other heritage than the Cornish one in Aussie Georges case. Able seamen can come from any place, and predomonantly if that place has a coats and seafaring traditions. Like, for example, Cornwall.

(Pssst...you might even be able to recruit a couple of new Crossmerians in those guys!)

Who knows? But that is a different matter. On this thread, we discuss Corni.... sorry, Aussie George.

Fisherman still seems to be insistent that the Hutchinson in question was a genuine able seaman, as opposed to being falsely listed as one in Sydney.

I only insist that when somebody is listed as as something, then that is very probably true. What is there to suggest that it was not...?

... but if that was the case, where would be the connection between an "able seaman" and anything to do with tins or mines or anything to do with Cornwall prior to his new life in Aus?

Why would an able seaman NOT be connected to Cornwall? What is the obstacle?
Are you unaware that Australia was considered a land of opportunity for many Brits? It was an entirely different country from England, a country that was heavily industrialized and offered another working market entirely. Many, many people sought a new life and indeed a new work in Australia. There is absolutely no need for Aussie George to have stayed in the navy. In many cases, people engaged in some sort of business in Australia, generated a lot of money and sent for relatives and friends from Britain, who came over and took up with whatever it was their relatives and friends did.
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, and started out as a labourer who subsequently aspired to become a tinsmith.

The reality, of course, is that if Hutchinson came from Cornwall, he would have embarked on his trip to Australia at the port of Plymouth...

If he still lived in Cornwall, then perhaps. But who knows that he did? There is a fair chance that he had his ROOTS in Cornwall, that is what I am saying. Apart from that, he cuold have gone from ship to ship, being a seaman, and he could have been offered preferable terms on the Ormuz. He could have had sailors who knew and recommended hom on board. The possibilities are endless. It is no stranger than that.

if Hutchinson had really been an able seaman when living in England, there was nothing to stop him continuing in that profession upon his arrival in Australia, and certainly no reason to downgrade to a labourer. The likelihood, therefore, is that Hutchinson was simply listed on the records as a seaman when he was nothing of the sort in reality. As Sinese suggests, he ether worked his passage there or was put to work after being discovered as a stowaway.

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? That is what immigration has to a large extent always been about. Making the assumption that somebody who changes occupation has not really been engaged earlier in the occupation he says, and tht he is just lying since he would never change jobs, is just lacking in historical knowledge.

Since “labourer” is the only occupation listed in the court records for Hutchinson, the likelihood is that he was engaged in similar work when he lived in England, rather than abandoning ship (quite literally) with his seafaring career for no good reason. As such, the potential connection between this “labourer” and the George Hutchinson referred to as such by the 1888 press remains intact.

It cannot "remain" if it was never there. That is how it goes. However, since you say "potential" I agree to some extent. He may potentially have been a labourer in England.
He may also potentially have been a builder of bicycles, a hairdresser or waiting on a restuarant.
Fair enough.

As Harry points out, there is not the slightest trace of a connection between “Aussie George” and the mining industry...

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

...and it certainly wasn’t necessary for a tinsmith to live and work in any particular proximity to a tin mine.

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!

If there was such proximity in Hutchinson’s case, it was because he was operating in what was essentially still virgin territory, without the means to distribute tin hither and thither about the vast continent; in contrast to England, of course, where tin could be distributed and “smithed” everywhere with ease.

Progress - you DO see that there was a connection.
And then you say that this would not have applies in England. Sorry, but it did - albeit to a lower degree. But why are we even discussing England in this context? It was in Australia, seven years after disembarking the Ormuz, that we know he was a tinsmith.
The only occupation we have for him before he turned to the tin industry is seaman.

Have those Lechmere threads gone quiet or something, Fisherman?

Not for the last four or five years, no - they are seemingly generating more discussion than ever. Which is as it should be, and how it will arguably go on.