Ripperologist 146 - October 2015

[Ben]

Hi John,

But surely the article amounts to just wild speculation. The only tenuous connection that we have is the name, George Hutchinson

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.

It is only the court reporter that refers to him as a labourer, and that could easily have been a mistake.

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.

It's also worth pointing out that the man seen by Sarah Lewis is described as being of "military appearance", which hardly seems like an impoverished labourer.

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...

As for being a stowaway, I hardly think that in such circumstances he would have been listed as an able seaman, let alone a member of the crew. More likely he would have been arrested on arrival!

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".

[John G]

I’m obviously missing something here, as I was expecting to find evidence to support the brand new suggestion that this particular Hutchinson hailed from Cornwall. Instead, we have Fisherman pointing out that Cornish miners used to travel to Australia in the late 19th century to continue in the mining trade there. Now, setting aside the fact that mining has absolutely nothing to do with tinsmithery, 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, 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?

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 (with an option on Bristol) along with all the other emigrants from the south-west. He certainly didn’t need to go all the way to London. Another reality is 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.

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.

As Harry points out, there is not the slightest trace of a connection between “Aussie George” and the mining industry, and it certainly wasn’t necessary for a tinsmith to live and work in any particular proximity to a tin mine. 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.

Have those Lechmere threads gone quiet or something, Fisherman?

Hello Ben,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I though the only occupation listed in the court record was "tinsmith"; it was the press, I.e. court reporter, who referred to him as a labourer. Just as Abberline referred to Whitechapel George as having no regular employment; it was only the press that referred to him as a labourer.

As for being a stowaway, I hardly think that in such circumstances he would have been listed as an able seaman, let alone a member of the crew. More likely he would have been arrested on arrival!

[Ben]

I'm sorry, incidentally, that you felt your posts were being "unrewarded", Fisherman. I'm afraid I've only just caught up with your posts, nestled as there were amid the nonsense written about serial killer behaviour. You and Jon spend an impressive amount of time on this website, and as much as it might be tempting to conclude that anyone who doesn't respond immediately must be ignoring you, the safer assumption is that they don't quite have the same amount of time available.

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

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.

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

[Ben]

I’m obviously missing something here, as I was expecting to find evidence to support the brand new suggestion that this particular Hutchinson hailed from Cornwall. Instead, we have Fisherman pointing out that Cornish miners used to travel to Australia in the late 19th century to continue in the mining trade there. Now, setting aside the fact that mining has absolutely nothing to do with tinsmithery, 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, 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?

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 (with an option on Bristol) along with all the other emigrants from the south-west. He certainly didn’t need to go all the way to London. Another reality is 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.

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.

As Harry points out, there is not the slightest trace of a connection between “Aussie George” and the mining industry, and it certainly wasn’t necessary for a tinsmith to live and work in any particular proximity to a tin mine. 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.

Have those Lechmere threads gone quiet or something, Fisherman?

[Fisherman]

We do not know what he was in England.What is known is what he claimed to be when disembarking,and when appearing at court in New South Wales.

Well, Harry, I think we DO know what he was in England, since he is listed as an able seaman when disembarking the Ormuz.
He may of course have reached that grade ON the Ormuz, but not on that trip only. He would have had a significant amount of training and sailing behind him, so we can safely say that he was a seaman in England.

He may have practised other occupations too, but like you say yourself, we do not know. It is at any rate totally wrong to claim that he was a tinsmith and a labourer prior to embarking on the Ormuz, as Ben did in a former post. Those occupations are mentioned ONLY in 1896, and they can only be supported as relating to his occupation on Australian ground. In Australia, he was a tinsmith and a labourer.

If he was ever involved in any other occupation than sailing in Britain pre 1889 is something we cannot tell as of now, just as we cannot tell whether he lived in London or elsewhere (although Cornwall must have the upper hand) or whether he ever visited London or the East End.

What remains is that he shared the same name with the witness of Dorset Street fame, and that he was seven years after leaving London described as in Australia having done some sort of work that could be listed as labour, just as the papers described the Dorset Street witness as being a casual labourer.
And it is not as if "labourer" describes a very specific occupation - it involves a collosal amount of wildly differing tasks.

It has long been speculated that the Dorset Street witness gave a false name to the police (if there IS such a thing as false names, something that is amusingly questioned out here at - very specifically chosen - times). Take away the name George Huthchinson from our Aussie flasher and call him Bernard Braxton instead.

Then tell me that anyone researching the Ripper case would be a complete nutcase not to understand that Braxton and George Hutchinson of Dorset Street fame are somehow likely to have been one and the same man.

Once you have done that exercise, it is case closed.

[Fisherman]

Excellent post Fish, which gets right to the heart of the argument. I certainly agree that he could have come from Cornwall and, as you rightly point out, his occupation at the time of arrival in Australia is given as able seaman and a member of the crew, I.e. not labourer.

Good to hear you agree, John!

[Fisherman]

Well done Christer.
You had me wondering about your suggested Cornish connection, but true to form you have a quite logical and rational reason to make the suggestion.

One of the better posts in this thread.

Thanks, Jon. It may not please everybodys palates, but I can live with that...

[John G]

I do not need to read again. While the date of 1896 refers to a conviction in New South Wales,of a George Hutchinson,it by no means excludes that person from being a resident of Whitechapel,London,in 1888,and what is being discussed is a possible connection.Being that he had eight years to commute I do not see a problem.
We do not know what he was in England.What is known is what he claimed to be when disembarking,and when appearing at court in New South Wales.

Hello Harry,

But surely the article amounts to just wild speculation. The only tenuous connection that we have is the name, George Hutchinson. Thus, when he reached Australia he was described as an able seaman and member of the crew. Therefore, the fact that a sailor once embarked on a boat from London, is hardly evidence that he resided in London, let alone Whitechapel.

Of course, we then have the equally dubious connection to the employment of "labourer". Well, the official court records, at the time of Aussie George's conviction, states that he was a tinsmith. It is only the court reporter that refers to him as a labourer, and that could easily have been a mistake. And let's not forget that this was several years after his arrival in Australia,so hardly evidence that he ever worked as a labourer in England.

And what of the Whitechapel George Hutchinson. Abberline doesn't say he was a labourer, he simply states that he was of no regular employment. It's the newspapers that refer to him as a labourer, but that could also be inaccurate. In fact, it might simply be the occupation Hutchinson gave them because he was embarrassed at being unemployed.

It's also worth pointing out that the man seen by Sarah Lewis is described as being of "military appearance", which hardly seems like an impoverished labourer.

[harry]

I do not need to read again. While the date of 1896 refers to a conviction in New South Wales,of a George Hutchinson,it by no means excludes that person from being a resident of Whitechapel,London,in 1888,and what is being discussed is a possible connection.Being that he had eight years to commute I do not see a problem.
We do not know what he was in England.What is known is what he claimed to be when disembarking,and when appearing at court in New South Wales.

[John G]

Well, John, when I say that he perhaps came from Cornwall, I did not mean that he came from Cornwall directly to the Ormuz!

But letīs return for a minute to one of Benīs earlier posts here on this thread! It went like this:

His actual profession prior to embarking on the*Ormuz*was listed as "tinsmith" and a "labourer", which would make him one of the very few George Hutchinsons from the period whose occupation corresponded with that of Abberline's informant.

So there we are: one of the real juicy bits about this Hutchinson is that he was also a labourer - just like the witness of Dorset Street fame! And a tinsmith.

Now, lets take a closer look at the report listing Aussie Georgeīs crime. What does it say? Well, it seems it says "Trade or occupation previous to conviction - Tinsmith".

To my mind, this is not a determination about what work Aussie George did seven years earlier, in 1889, when he was still on British soil - it is of course instead the work he did leading up to the conviction! For that is exactly what it says: Trade or occupation previous to conviction - tinsmith.

It is also said in the introduction that "George Hutchinson (labourer) was charged with indecently assaulting two boys [George Smith, 11 and Walter Paterson, 8] on Sunday last."
A tinsmith is knit to the tin mine industry. And tin mines are filled with labourers. Or Aussie George did other labour in New South Wales, when not tinsmithing.

In Britain, seven years earlier, he was an able seaman, a title that would take a lot of experience to gain.

So it seems that claiming that he was a tinsmith and a labourer prior to embarking the Ormuz is not true. He was a tinsmith and a labourer in Australia. And there goes the link to the Dorset Street witness.

And Cornwall? Well, Aussie George was tried and convicted in New South Wales, and sent down to Bathurst gaol. Bathurst is some way west of Sydney, and also in New South Wales.
Another thing that was very common in New South Wales were tin mines. It was a mining business that flourished all around Bathurst.

And from where did the miners come? They came to a large extent from Cornwall, from whence the Cornish started to emigrate for the New South Walesī tin mines in the 18:th century. As late as in the 1990:s, tin mines in New South Wales were still owned by people with their roots in Cornwall. There is a very interesting dissertation on the topic on

http://www.thatsmycornwall.com/the-cornish-and-mining-in-new-south-wales/

So thereīs my two cents, John: The able seaman George Hutchinson, decided to leave Britain in the late 1880:s, and headed for Australia on board the Ormuz, docking in Sydney, which is the capital of New South Wales. People going to Australia more often than not had secured a job there through contacts in Britain.
He joined up with the Cornish tin miners and became a tin mine labourer and a tinsmith. And then he was caught with his trousers down in 1896, and when he was asked to state his occupation, he said that he was a tinsmith. Right in the middle of Australias tin mine region.

We wonīt be able - at this remove in time - to establish that he WAS Cornish, but I think it is a very fair guess (or that he had connections in Cornwall). Anyhow, if somebody thinks it is a good idea to look for him in the records, I would suggest that Cornwall is a useful starting point.

Excellent post Fish, which gets right to the heart of the argument. I certainly agree that he could have come from Cornwall and, as you rightly point out, his occupation at the time of arrival in Australia is given as able seaman and a member of the crew, I.e. not labourer.

[Fisherman]

So a smith is not a miner,therefor the relationship between work and settlement,as far as the Hutchinson under consideration is concerned,is wide open.He could have been resident in Whitechapel.

Maybe you should read again, Harry. What is discussed here is the period of 1896, when Aussie George was convicted for flashing in New South Wales, and when he gave his occupation leading up to the conviction as tinsmith. Meaning that it was in AUSTRALIA it is in evidence that he was a tinsmith and a labourer.
If he slept in Whitechapel at this stage, he was a very unexpected commuter.

[Fisherman]

In point of fact, tinsmiths worked with tinplate, and didn't, by necessity, need to work near tin mines any more than blacksmiths needed to work near iron mines. As an aside, there were many tin mines in Devon as well as Cornwall - one of which, Hemerdon near Plymouth, home to one of the largest deposits of tin (and tungsten) in the world - has recently re-opened.

Very true! But it does not change how it was said that his occupation as a tinsmith was the occupation he had leading up to his conviction. THAT was when we KNOW that he was a tinsmith - in 1896.
After that, he may have worked as a tinsmith in Britain too, and it could have been just a coincidence that he dwelled in the tin mine area of Australia - but the fact of the matter is that this remains unestablished. Instead we have the information that he was an able seaman when leaving Britain, a position that would have taken some considerable time to gain.

PS. Although a tinsmith must not live close to the tin mines, it nevertheless applies that they often did. The tin industry on the whole was much a matter of New South Wales, resulting in organisations like the New South Wales Amalgamated Tinsmiths' and Sheet Metal Workers' Society being created. Bot that it means that all tinsmiths would be living in New South Wales, but it WAS the tin industry center.

[harry]

Janner,
You are correct.Much like a silversmith,a person that works with silver but does not mine it.
Most of the Cornish miners who came to Australia,settled here in South Australia.They were simply called miners.Here they mined mainly for Copper.
There is still a Cornish festival held every year.
So a smith is not a miner,therefor the relationship between work and settlement,as far as the Hutchinson under consideration is concerned,is wide open.He could have been resident in Whitechapel.

[Janner]

In point of fact, tinsmiths worked with tinplate, and didn't, by necessity, need to work near tin mines any more than blacksmiths needed to work near iron mines. As an aside, there were many tin mines in Devon as well as Cornwall - one of which, Hemerdon near Plymouth, home to one of the largest deposits of tin (and tungsten) in the world - has recently re-opened.

[Wickerman]

Well done Christer.
You had me wondering about your suggested Cornish connection, but true to form you have a quite logical and rational reason to make the suggestion.

One of the better posts in this thread.