Ripperologist 146 - October 2015

[Ginger]

As Schlesinger (2010), notes, serial killer rituals do sometimes evolve or become more elaborate. However, they still remain "behavioural and thematically consistent".

The problem that I see here is that you can't really say whether the killer's deeds are thematically consistent without knowing what those deeds meant to him, in his own mind. I daresay that everyone would agree that any serial killer is satisfying some obsessive desire that can't be accomodated legally, but exactly what the nature of that desire is, we can't know unless he tells us. We can make guesses from the evidence, certainly, and draw inferences from parallels to other cases, but in the end, we never know for sure.

[Wickerman]

What you describe as sheer madness is therefore all about accepting good old, traditional research and the demands that follow with it....

Hi Christer.
Precisely, and that lack of understanding is the cause of more time wasting posts than anything else.
Aussie George could have come from anywhere in England, if anyone chooses to suggest a specific location in order to substantiate a theory, that suggestion must be supported with evidence.

[harry]

Jon,Fisherman,
A suggestion should be supported by evidence.Pleased you have written that.
I mean,hasn't it been suggested that Cross,to take one instance,left home earlier than he says.Where is the evidence for that.Then of course there is the missing Aberline report.Not a shread of evidence for that suggestion.
Then theres Issacs,but no I will not go on,will be all day describing the suggestions without evidence there.Then again Ben's doing a terrific job in that regard.

[John G]

The problem that I see here is that you can't really say whether the killer's deeds are thematically consistent without knowing what those deeds meant to him, in his own mind. I daresay that everyone would agree that any serial killer is satisfying some obsessive desire that can't be accomodated legally, but exactly what the nature of that desire is, we can't know unless he tells us. We can make guesses from the evidence, certainly, and draw inferences from parallels to other cases, but in the end, we never know for sure.

Hi Ginger,

Well, as a natural sceptic I accept there's no such thing as absolute certainties, for example, see Hume's theory of inferential deduction. In fact, this is precisely why I haven't completely ruled out Jill the Ripper, the mad midwife, although she's pretty low on my list of suspects!

[Fisherman]

Jon,Fisherman,
A suggestion should be supported by evidence.Pleased you have written that.
I mean,hasn't it been suggested that Cross,to take one instance,left home earlier than he says.Where is the evidence for that.Then of course there is the missing Aberline report.Not a shread of evidence for that suggestion.
Then theres Issacs,but no I will not go on,will be all day describing the suggestions without evidence there.Then again Ben's doing a terrific job in that regard.

Nobody is saying that the point at which Lechmere left home is a proven thing, Harry. There are many possibilities, two of them suggested by the carman himself. These points of time are therefore both in evidence. None must be true as such. End of.

It is no harder than that. And it does not help put Aussie George in the East End.

You need to read Jons post. It could help us all to save valuable time and space.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Christer.
Precisely, and that lack of understanding is the cause of more time wasting posts than anything else.
Aussie George could have come from anywhere in England, if anyone chooses to suggest a specific location in order to substantiate a theory, that suggestion must be supported with evidence.

Well that's a tad bit misleading. Its pure speculation he .."could have come from anywhere in England.." while we know its a FACT he was at the very least in Tilbury, a few miles and walking distance from the east end.

[John G]

Well that's a tad bit misleading. Its pure speculation he .."could have come from anywhere in England.." while we know its a FACT he was at the very least in Tilbury, a few miles and walking distance from the east end.

Hello Abby,

But wasn't that simply the port from where he embarked on a journey to Australia? And wasn't it about a year after Kelly's murder?

To put things into perspective, I once caught a plane from Gatwick airport , even though that's about 200 miles away from where I actually live.

[Ben]

“I prefer to say that we cannot possibly know how he got to Tilbury.”

As you wish, Fish.

All I'd say is that the boat train from London has more to recommend it as a likely route to Tilbury than yomping over the Essex countryside (stopping off at Romford, for old time’s sake, of course). Liverpool Street, where Aussie George was likely to have boarded the Tilbury-bound train from (regardless of where he actually lived), is located in an area with rather more “ripperological” significance than, say, Toppy’s haunts of Norwood and Eltham.

It’s interesting to note that the most vociferous critics of Sinese’s article so far have been a) supporters of Crossmere’s candidacy, and b) those who have already nailed their colours to the Toppy mast years ago.

Predictably, we also find that adherents of a) are the most vocal champions of b).

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Fancing seeing you here on a Hutchinson thread of all places.

Aussie George could have come from anywhere in England, if anyone chooses to suggest a specific location in order to substantiate a theory...(etc etc)

Who's done that, then?

Who has "chosen to suggest" a specific place where this particular person lived prior to departing for Australia? All I've pointed out is that anyone who boarded an Australia-bound vessel from Tilbury docks was likely to have made their way there either from or via London.

[Fisherman]

As you wish, Fish.

All I'd say is that the boat train from London has more to recommend it as a likely route to Tilbury than yomping over the Essex countryside (stopping off at Romford, for old time’s sake, of course). Liverpool Street, where Aussie George was likely to have boarded the Tilbury-bound train from (regardless of where he actually lived), is located in an area with rather more “ripperological” significance than, say, Toppy’s haunts of Norwood and Eltham.

It’s interesting to note that the most vociferous critics of Sinese’s article so far have been a) supporters of Crossmere’s candidacy, and b) those who have already nailed their colours to the Toppy mast years ago.

Predictably, we also find that adherents of a) are the most vocal champions of b).

All the best,
Ben

We can of course turn this issue into just about anything we want to.
The bottom line nevertheless remains - Aussie George cannot be placed in the East End or in London.

As a small aside, I would point out that sailors who frequent the same lines and ships have a tendency to live nearby where these ships sail from. For practical reasons, of course.
But overall, I don´t want to get drawn into any discussion about any likelihoods for Aussie George´s having visited this or that place.

We must look at the evidence only, and that evidence does not involve any proven connection at all between Aussie George and the East End or London. That and that only was the question, and it has had it´s answer.

[Ben]

There is no evidence that the George Hutchinson in question was a "sailor" - he was merely listed as such, in all probability, because he was discovered as a stowaway and put to work as a member of the crew, as was apparently typical at the time. 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.

I never claimed it was "proven" that "Aussie George" was in London - I'm simply pointing out that he was unlikely to have avoided being in London on the way to Tilbury.

[Fisherman]

There is no evidence that the George Hutchinson in question was a "sailor" - he was merely listed as such, in all probability, because he was discovered as a stowaway and put to work as a member of the crew, as was apparently typical at the time. 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.

I never claimed it was "proven" that "Aussie George" was in London - I'm simply pointing out that he was unlikely to have avoided being in London on the way to Tilbury.

There is no way that we can assess how likely or unlikely he was to have traversed London, Ben.
There is only the fact that he cannot be placed there. Nothing else.

I won´t go into the rest of your post, since it does not alter this.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

But wasn't that simply the port from where he embarked on a journey to Australia? And wasn't it about a year after Kelly's murder?

To put things into perspective, I once caught a plane from Gatwick airport , even though that's about 200 miles away from where I actually live.

Hi John G

Yes it was. walking distance from the east end.

Only a couple of months after the McKenzie murder, and days after pinchon and Elizabeth Jackson.

[Abby Normal]

There is no evidence that the George Hutchinson in question was a "sailor" - he was merely listed as such, in all probability, because he was discovered as a stowaway and put to work as a member of the crew, as was apparently typical at the time. 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.

I never claimed it was "proven" that "Aussie George" was in London - I'm simply pointing out that he was unlikely to have avoided being in London on the way to Tilbury.

Hi Ben
but he was listed as an able seaman, probably had been in Merchant marines at some point in his recent past, not necessarily during the fall of 1888.

which might explain why most witnesses the night of the double event described the man as wearing a sailor cap and/or appearance of a sailor.

[Fisherman]

Hi John G

Yes it was. walking distance from the east end.

Only a couple of months after the McKenzie murder, and days after pinchon and Elizabeth Jackson.

Any distance is walking distance, provided enough time is afforded...