Ripperologist 146 - October 2015

[Fisherman]

Not bad Fish. Not bad at all.

Many thanks, Abby - it´s good to see that you sustain your ability and will to keep an open mind!

[Abby Normal]

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 let´s return for a minute to one of Ben´s 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 George´s 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 Wales´ 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 there´s 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 won´t 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.

Not bad Fish. Not bad at all.

[Fisherman]

Hello Fish,

I have great respect for your posts. And I definitely want to know why you think Aussie George probably came from Cornwall (sorry but I'm probably getting to immersed in my own posts to respond adequately to other posters important observations!)

By the way, if he came from Cornwall why do you think he didn't sail from Plymouth or, say, Bristol?

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 let´s return for a minute to one of Ben´s 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 George´s 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 Wales´ 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 there´s 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 won´t 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.

[John G]

A little informational titbit is that the Bow Bells are not in Bow! They are the bells of St Mary-le-Bow at Cheapside, in the City of London, near St Paul's Cathedral.

Thanks David!

[David Orsam]

Hello Abby,

Bow is in the East End of London! In fact, both Bow and Whitechapel are in the same small borough: Tower Hamlets. Or put another way Bow is 4.6 miles east of Charing Cross, and Whitechapel 3.4 miles east of Charing Cross. Tower Hamlets, by the way, is just 7.6 square miles in area.

Sorry Abby, but I'm guessing that London geography isn't one of your stronger points. However, the good news is that, furnished with this new information, you can now reconsider William Bury as a strong suspect!

Interestingly, the definition of a cockney-native of East London-is being born within hearing distance of Bow Bells.

A little informational titbit is that the Bow Bells are not in Bow! They are the bells of St Mary-le-Bow at Cheapside, in the City of London, near St Paul's Cathedral.

[John G]

It is strange how some matters go unrewarded in threads like this. At the outset of the thread, Ben for some reason stated that I have no original thoughts of my own.
After that, I have been able to correct the misconception that Aussie George sailed from the East End.
And then I corrected the misconception that the trains to Tilbury Dock Station departed from Liverpool Street Station.

And now I have hinted at how I believe that the best conclusion we can make is that Aussie George probably came from Cornwall - and nobody wants to know why.
I would have thought that this was a very original and intriguing suggestion on my behalf that should evoke a genuine curiosity, but it seems that people could not care less...?

Has everybody lost interest in Aussie George now? He who was such a promising contender for the witnesses´role - and even the probable Ripper - only a few posts back!

Hello Fish,

I have great respect for your posts. And I definitely want to know why you think Aussie George probably came from Cornwall (sorry but I'm probably getting to immersed in my own posts to respond adequately to other posters important observations!)

By the way, if he came from Cornwall why do you think he didn't sail from Plymouth or, say, Bristol?

[Fisherman]

It is strange how some matters go unrewarded in threads like this. At the outset of the thread, Ben for some reason stated that I have no original thoughts of my own.
After that, I have been able to correct the misconception that Aussie George sailed from the East End.
And then I corrected the misconception that the trains to Tilbury Dock Station departed from Liverpool Street Station.

And now I have hinted at how I believe that the best conclusion we can make is that Aussie George probably came from Cornwall - and nobody wants to know why.
I would have thought that this was a very original and intriguing suggestion on my behalf that should evoke a genuine curiosity, but it seems that people could not care less...?

Has everybody lost interest in Aussie George now? He who was such a promising contender for the witnesses´role - and even the probable Ripper - only a few posts back!

[John G]

Well, the general suggestion appears to be to let the matter rest pending further research on the matter. I echo the sentiment, especially as we’ve yet to see the full, updated article in Ripperologist. So I’ll just address the latest points directed my way, and then it’s watch this space, eh?

Hi John,



I agree, except that it wasn’t my argument. It was you who introduced the highly improbable concept of a labourer being in a position to “elect” his port of preference, basing it as you did on your own experience of modern-day travel, and the fact that you “elected” to travel to an airport which didn’t happen to be your nearest. My point was that he wasn’t likely to have “elected” at all, but rather was compelled by his impoverished circumstances to seek the nearest port. If he lived in the north of England, that would have been Liverpool. If he lived in the south, it would have been Southampton. If he lived in the south-west - Plymouth.



No, it wasn’t.

Rail travel was relatively more expensive in Victorian times.



According to what? You need to provide some sort of evidence for dismissing a proposal as "ludicrous", otherwise all you’re doing is creative writing.

This “precedent” nonsense you keep talking about is getting very annoying. You’ve asked me many times to provide examples to illustrate my point, and when I do so, instead of acknowledging those examples (and the correction of your mistaken impression), you keep changing the goalposts and restricting the criteria to a more and more ridiculous extent. We’re at the point now that you’re seriously expecting me to provide another example of “a perpetrator who has hitherto focussed on adult female victims, targeting the breast area and organs of regeneration would, several years later, re-emerge(s) as a perpetrator who commits sexual assaults against young boys”.

No two serial killers in history share the unrealistic degree of similarity you’re expecting me to provide, and yet you’re hoping to claim some sort of “victory” for being unable to provide the impossible.

You declared that it was exceptionally rare for serial killers to target women and boys – I demonstrated otherwise.

You declared that it was rare for serial killers to target young girls and adult women – I demonstrated otherwise.

You declared that “sexually motivated serial killers” don’t target both genders – I demonstrated otherwise.

And now you say this:



…Which is a completely outdated myth that most people have moved on from. How about that quote from the ripper project I provided? Nothing there about serial killers always fulfilling their “urges” until “caught or capacitated”. It was instead stated that crimes such as these usually cease because the offender has come close to being captured, or was interviewed by the police, or was arrested for another offence (something you insist couldn’t happen because committing “another offense” would involve “transforming” and doing a different “ritual”, according to you). These are your “experts”, remember?

Hello 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. 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. And, of course, he killed only women, whereas Aussie George committed sexual assaults against young boys.

And gay serial killers overwhelmingly target same sex victims: Dahmer, 17 victims, all male; John Wayne Gacy, 33-34 victims, all male; Dennis Nilson, 17 victims all male; Juan Corona 25 victims, all male; Luis Garavito, over 140 victims all male...

Yes, there are rare exceptions, Marc Dutroux, a bi-sexual killer only targeted girls, but they're just that: exceptions.(John Gacy and Elmer Wayne, 27 victims, were also bisexual, but only targeted males.)

You've also failed to address the point of JtR's escalating violence, culminating in the savage murder of MJK. 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! You refer to John Douglas. Is this the same John Douglas who concluded that JtR developed a fantasy life, which revolved around the domination, abuse and mutilation of women. Doesn't sound much like Aussie George, does it? And, of course, you've totally ignored the other signature characteristics cited by Keppel, such as overkill and posing, none of which relate to Aussie George's sexual assaults.

Perhaps the reason why you can't find any relevant examples is that Schlesinger is correct: serial killer signatures can evolve or become more elaborate, but they remain behaviourally and the thematically consistent.

Anyway, returning to the crux of the matter. The fact that someone once caught a boat from London is not any sort of evidence that they actually resided there. In fact, Aussie George might not have lived close to any suitable ports: Birmingham and Norwich are two examples of cities not close to a seaport from where travel to Australia was possible.

And I still don't see why he would necessarily have used the nearest port: we can't assume that the nearer port would have been cheaper to travel to and, as I've noted before, there could have been other reasons, apart from the cost of travel, why he selected London. 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.

I also don't except that rail travel in Victorian England was relatively more expensive than today, particularly as third class travel was available, unlike today.

As for serial killers who retire, well strangely enough even the FBI website could only provide two examples, one of which was Dennis Rader, an example that's nearly always trotted out to demonstrate this point. And what a brilliant example he is, considering he confessed to the fact that he was planning to kill again!

[Fisherman]

Thank you.

You are very welcome!

[harry]

Jon,
Your post 106.Referencing your sources.About what? I didn't know Stewart Evans had posted on this thread.
But it's not him that is being discussed,it's Áussie George,and the likelihood that he could be George Hutchinson,witness in the Kelly murder.
A poster is posing a question,and in light of what is known about the whereabouts of the witness George Hutchinson,it's a valid question.
Just the first of that poster,as far as I know,but superior on that one occasion, to all the rubbish you have posted over the years.

[The Good Michael]

The article re: Hutchinson in Rip 46 was only well-written because of a dearth of anything new or speculative about the Ripper case. Yet, it was meaningless at the same time because it basically pointed to this man who has been known about for years from Australian families interested in genealogy and has been remarked upon in the past as a "what if" if not on these boards, and has been dismissed, rightly so for lack of evidence of his goings-on in England. By all means, research this hapless dead man, but does he need to be Lechmerized so quickly?

Mike

[SirJohnFalstaff]

As Eddowes and "Sailor man" stood up at the entrance to Church passage, they were right by the synagogue. In the Jack the Ripper encyclopedia the distance to Mitre Square from there is 50 yards. It feels shorter, I would have guessed 30-40.
The facade of the synagogue overlooked Duke Street, but the body of the building stretched along Church Passage too, on the right hand side of it, looking down the passage.

Thank you.

[Fisherman]

My last post should look like this, of course:

Ben:

It's not so much what I personally think, Fisherman, but what I know to be likely.

Actually, when it comes to Aussie George, I think it is quite likely that he was not a Londoner but instead Cornish.

Speaking of likelihoods, I mean.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

It's not so much what I personally think, Fisherman, but what I know to be likely.

Actually, when it comes to Aussie George, I think it is quite likely that he was not a Londoner but instead Cornish.

Speaking of likelihoods, I mean.

[John G]

Hi johnG
He's far from a hopeless candidate. But we're hopelessly off topic now. But if you would
Like to discuss more I would love to since I used o think he was a very viable candidate. Still is.

FYI. I don't go for the copycat stuff. That's more for hollywood. I think that stuff has more to do with being disturbed and/or differing circs.

Hello Abby,

I would also love to discuss Bury in more detail, as I still regard him as a very plausible candidate. And considering I'm generally pretty sceptical, and increasingly so-you've probably noticed!-there are only a handful of candidates I would say that about.

I agree with you about copycats- I think I've posted several times that "they mainly exist in crime fiction!"