Ripperologist 146 - October 2015

[Abby Normal]

I agree, an excellent article and a very strong candidate for Hutch. However, in my opinion indecent assault charges against two young boys, virtually rules him out as JtR. Serial killers who attack males are not generally interested in females, and serial killers who assault children are rarely interested in adult victims.

Hi JohnG
At first I kind of thought the same-for the reason you mentioned.
However-there are exceptions to the norm, as Fish rightly points out.
And keep in mind that the ripper was a very, very odd serial killer to begin with.
And there was no obvious sexual element (maybe more curiosity) to the ripper crimes.
Also, this is eight years after the ripper crimes. Who knows what transpires in the life and mind of an already very twisted individual over that period.

If Aussie George was found through some other way, that didn't involve a sex crime against Boys-would you think more or less hes a candidate for the ripper. In my mind-much much less. This is a crime, its a sex crime against a victim(s), and against a more defensless victim-young boys(like drunk destitute prostitutes).Like the ripper, its a cowardly crime.

[John G]

Hi JohnG
At first I kind of thought the same-for the reason you mentioned.
However-there are exceptions to the norm, as Fish rightly points out.
And keep in mind that the ripper was a very, very odd serial killer to begin with.
And there was no obvious sexual element (maybe more curiosity) to the ripper crimes.
Also, this is eight years after the ripper crimes. Who knows what transpires in the life and mind of an already very twisted individual over that period.

If Aussie George was found through some other way, that didn't involve a sex crime against Boys-would you think more or less hes a candidate for the ripper. In my mind-much much less. This is a crime, its a sex crime against a victim(s), and against a more defensless victim-young boys(like drunk destitute prostitutes).Like the ripper, its a cowardly crime.

Hi Abby,

The difficulty for me is that in certain respects serial killers are highly predictable. For instance, in respect of the gender of the victims they target, and whether they attack children or adults. Peter Kurten is a very rare exception as he targeted both girls and women. Arthur Shawcross is an exceptionally rare serial killer because he killed two children-one of them male-before he went on to murder 11 adult females.

Nonetheless, as always we have to assess what's likely, rather than what's possible, and on that basis I see Aussie George as a very unlikely candidate for JtR.

[Ben]

With all due respect, John, very little of what you say is true.

If Arthur Shawcross was an "exceptionally rare serial killer", I'd be interested to see an example of an "ABC bog-standard serial killer". It is quite simply not "exceptionally rare" for serial killers to target boys as well as adult females - Arthur Shawcross is one example; there is also Nathaniel Code, Andrei Chikatilo, William Hare, Joseph Vacher, and Dennis Rader, among others.

There's also nothing remotely "rare" about a serial killer targetting girls as well as women.

All the best,
Ben

[John G]

With all due respect, John, very little of what you say is true.

If Arthur Shawcross was an "exceptionally rare serial killer", I'd be interested to see an example of an "ABC bog-standard serial killer". It is quite simply not "exceptionally rare" for serial killers to target boys as well as adult females - Arthur Shawcross is one example; there is also Nathaniel Code, Andrei Chikatilo, William Hare, Joseph Vacher, and Dennis Rader, among others.

There's also nothing remotely "rare" about a serial killer targetting girls as well as woman.

All the best,
Ben

Hello Ben,

Well, it would certainly be rare for a serial killers to attack children and adults as well as women and men. As an example of the predictability I was referring to Luis Gustavo may have killed 400 victims all children, and Pedro Lopez may have killed 300, all children.

I'm also willing to bet that for every serial killer that attacked both genders, I could name at least ten that didn't. Similarly with serial killers who attacked both women and children.

It has also been persuasively argued, i.e. by Keppel, that JtR was a lust killer. In that regard I'm not aware of any sexually motivated serial killer who attacked both genders.

[mklhawley]

Great dialogue on serial killers. The problem I see with JtR murdering anyone other than harlots is his pattern is harlots. Any serial killer murdering boys, girls, women, etc., didn't have a pattern then change. The pattern was always the pattern. ...but if you can find one, that would be great.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Fisherman]

Hi Abby,

The difficulty for me is that in certain respects serial killers are highly predictable. For instance, in respect of the gender of the victims they target, and whether they attack children or adults. Peter Kurten is a very rare exception as he targeted both girls and women. Arthur Shawcross is an exceptionally rare serial killer because he killed two children-one of them male-before he went on to murder 11 adult females.

Nonetheless, as always we have to assess what's likely, rather than what's possible, and on that basis I see Aussie George as a very unlikely candidate for JtR.

There are a number of matters that make him an unlikely candidate. I agree that this is one of them - or two, to be more exact. It is not only the differing victims, it is also the character of the offence.

It can be argued - as I did myself - that there ARE examples of serialists fleeting between victim types, but they are rare in comparison with the group that keeps roughly focused on a specific age and gender.

In this case, we need to make sense of comparing a killer who focused on the insides of women in combination with extreme and excessive physical violence, and a flasher, who typically inflicts no physical damage and who focuses on himself rather than on the victims. And we have to accept a downgrading, instead of a progression.

It is not a very good suggestion, looking at it in those terms.

[Paddy]

Australian Hutchinson 1898

I found this chap below in the New South Wales Police Gazette 1898. He seems to have ran off with a married woman. His description is similar to blotchy...

Also there was a George Hutchinson that was on a training ship when young. He was born in Whitechapel and I believe his mums name was Kezia...
Pat..

[Sally]

Also there was a George Hutchinson that was on a training ship when young. He was born in Whitechapel and I believe his mums name was Kezia...
Pat..

Hi Pat

Yes there was. as evidenced in the 1881 census - but from memory probably too young to have been the bloke currently under discussion. It's been a long time since I've looked at it, but I think he remained in the Royal Navy beyond that point.

Anyway, doubtful they're one and the same, I think.

[Abby Normal]

I found this chap below in the New South Wales Police Gazette 1898. He seems to have ran off with a married woman. His description is similar to blotchy...

Also there was a George Hutchinson that was on a training ship when young. He was born in Whitechapel and I believe his mums name was Kezia...
Pat..

wasn't aussie George in jail for the indescent assault during this time?

[Abby Normal]

With all due respect, John, very little of what you say is true.

If Arthur Shawcross was an "exceptionally rare serial killer", I'd be interested to see an example of an "ABC bog-standard serial killer". It is quite simply not "exceptionally rare" for serial killers to target boys as well as adult females - Arthur Shawcross is one example; there is also Nathaniel Code, Andrei Chikatilo, William Hare, Joseph Vacher, and Dennis Rader, among others.

There's also nothing remotely "rare" about a serial killer targetting girls as well as women.

All the best,
Ben

thanks Ben. I knew there was others than schawcross!

[Paddy]

wasn't aussie George in jail for the indescent assault during this time?

Hi Abby He was tried in December 1896 and was sentenced to two years.
It stated that the press commented on it for 3 months before.
I am not 100% sure but couldnt the time on remand count as part of the sentence. In England people get time off for good behaviour not sure about 1898 Australia though? Perhaps if GUT is around he might know?

It may not be him but I just loved the description. I wonder how one finds release from prisons as that would help too....

The George Hutchinson that was on the orphan training ship could just as easily joined the Merchant Navy and went as and when he felt like a trip away. I must check him out again.

All the Best
Pat...

[Pcdunn]

Very interesting article, thank you for the preview!

[Ben]

Fisherman,

How many known serial killers receive extensive police and media interest in the wake of an early crime, and yet go on to claim more victims? The answer is zero. That would make Crossmere an "unlikely candidate" according to your argument that Jack the Ripper was "unlikely" to have engaged in any sort of behaviour that would run the risk of making him a "rarity" among serial killers. You can either stick with that argument, with all the negative implications it has for your selection of Crossmere as your ripper suspect of preference, or you can accept that you don't really know very much about this stuff.

Most experts in sadosexual serial murder will tell you that early triggers for crimes such the ones the ripper committed will typically involve such lesser offences as stalking, "peeping tommery" and flashing, but that doesn't mean that these lesser offences get abandoned forever the moment an offender embarks upon a more advanced crime, such as murder and mutilation. A flasher can advance to mutilation murder and return thence to flashing when the opportunity presents itself, if he wants.

Hi John,

The fact that I was able to provide these examples off the top of me head (and the list was by no means exhaustive) evinces a telling clue with regard to the obvious non-rarity of serial killers targetting different ages and genders. The problem with excluding any behaviour that might be construed as belonging to a "rarity" amongst serial killers is that you end up, paradoxically, with a being so incredibly rare that he doesn't exist. A significant minority of serial killers engage in post-mortem mutilation - does that mean it didn't happen in the ripper's case; because most serial killers don't do that? Show me a serial killer whose behaviour is consistent with the majority of other serial killers in every respect, and I'd be truly fascinated.

Andrei Chikatilo was a "sexually motivated serial killer" whose victims included boys and women, and no, he is not "exceptionally rare" in that regard - unless you're in possession of statistics I've somehow missed.

[Abby Normal]

Fisherman,

How many known serial killers receive extensive police and media interest in the wake of an early crime, and yet go on to claim more victims? The answer is zero. That would make Crossmere an "unlikely candidate" according to your argument that Jack the Ripper was "unlikely" to have engaged in any sort of behaviour that would run the risk of making him a "rarity" among serial killers. You can either stick with that argument, with all the negative implications it has for your selection of Crossmere as your ripper suspect of preference, or you can accept that you don't really know very much about this stuff.

Most experts in sadosexual serial murder will tell you that early triggers for crimes such the ones the ripper committed will typically involve such lesser offences as stalking, "peeping tommery" and flashing, but that doesn't mean that these lesser offences get abandoned forever the moment an offender embarks upon a more advanced crime, such as murder and mutilation. A flasher can advance to mutilation murder and return thence to flashing when the opportunity presents itself, if he wants.

Hi John,

The fact that I was able to provide these examples off the top of me head (and the list was by no means exhaustive) evinces a telling clue with regard to the obvious non-rarity of serial killers targetting different ages and genders. The problem with excluding any behaviour that might be construed as belonging to a "rarity" amongst serial killers is that you end up, paradoxically, with a being so incredibly rare that he doesn't exist. A significant minority of serial killers engage in post-mortem mutilation - does that mean it didn't happen in the ripper's case; because most serial killers don't do that? Show me a serial killer whose behaviour is consistent with the majority of other serial killers in every respect, and I'd be truly fascinated.

Andrei Chikatilo was a "sexually motivated serial killer" whose victims included boys and women, and no, he is not "exceptionally rare" in that regard - unless you're in possession of statistics I've somehow missed.

Now. That's a post.

[Fisherman]

Ben: Fisherman,

How many known serial killers receive extensive police and media interest in the wake of an early crime, and yet go on to claim more victims? The answer is zero.

Is it? I think that almost all serial killers receive extensive police and media interest in the wake of an early crime and go on to claim more victims. Otherwise they would not have become serial killers.

I suspect that you are aware of this too? Therefore, you are probably trying to make another point, but you are failing to deliver it.

Are you perhaps asking how many serial killers who become known to the police and press at an early stage of their criminal carreer, will then go on to kill? Is that it? If so, you should not have used "known" in the context you did. To me, it reads like "identified", no matter when it happened in the process. Some serialists are known to us, others are not (Bundy - the Zodiac).

But never mind! If the question you try to ask is the one I think, you must to begin with realize that you cannot make the kind of call you are trying to make. There is always the category of unidentified serialists, and none of us can possibly know whether any of these have been in contact with the police and press.

There is also the issue of what you speak about as "extensive police and media interest". Lechmere was in contact with both police and press, but not in the capacity of a suspect. So I donīt see how all of this would apply to him.
Frankly, even if he HAD been researched as a suspect but let go, I donīt think that such a thing would be any guarantee that he would not kill again. It would equal saying that known killers or people suspected of having killed, would never go on to kill again.
It would be nice and a better world and all that if it was so, but it isnīt, Iīm afraid.

Now, Ben, you write that I would have argued that "Jack the Ripper was "unlikely" to have engaged in any sort of behaviour that would run the risk of making him a "rarity" among serial killers."

I sense a misunderstanding on your behalf here, but you may perhaps be able to further elucidate what you are on about?

You can either stick with that argument, with all the negative implications it has for your selection of Crossmere as your ripper suspect of preference, or you can accept that you don't really know very much about this stuff.

I actually work from the presumption that I am by far the more knowledgeable of us in matters like these, so my guess is that we can safely rule out the latter suggestion.

But what of the former suggestion? How would Lechmereīs viability as the killer hinge on any "negative implications", and what would they be?

Are you saying that since Lechmere was in contact with police and press in relation to the Nichols murder, he would somehow be taken off the list as a possible candidate for the ensuing murders...? Is that it?
If so, you would have been in for a rough ride - if I could muster any interest in debating with you. Sadly, I very rarely feel any such inclination these days, so the sooner we can straighten this out, the better, as far as I am concerned. We do know that men like Ridgway, under suspicion for many years in relation to the Green River murders, went on to kill in spite of this. And we do know that Lechmere was never a suspect to begin with.

Most experts in sadosexual serial murder will tell you that early triggers for crimes such the ones the ripper committed will typically involve such lesser offences as stalking, "peeping tommery" and flashing, but that doesn't mean that these lesser offences get abandoned forever the moment an offender embarks upon a more advanced crime, such as murder and mutilation. A flasher can advance to mutilation murder and return thence to flashing when the opportunity presents itself, if he wants.

And the very same experts will tell you that typically, there will be an escalation of sorts involved in most killing series.

They will also tell you that the escalation as such is often knit to a breach of taboos, so to speak - the killer goes longer and longer in exploring his desires, and he crosses boundaries in doing so.

They will also tell you that for many killers, the initial, milder, forms of violence applied to early victims, were enough at that stage to satisfy them, but once they have started to cross boundaries into areas involving more extreme violence, there is every chance that they will no longer be satisfied by what inititally worked for them.

They will also tell you that a killer with an identified victim group (like, for example, adult women), is unlikely to shift his interest to another group.

They will also tell you that a shift of interest in the victim group involving a change of choice of gender is very, very rare. If it truly mirrors the killers interests, it is more or less unheard of.

Finally, these experts would in all probability, if they could look at the case before us, say that much as they could not definitively exclude it, they would not think that Aussie Flasher was Jack the Ripper. They would - like I do - point to how the inherent differences argue very much against it.

If you really DO know a little something about the underlying psychology governing what serialists are about, you will recognize this.