Ripperologist 146 - October 2015

[Wickerman]

All credit to Mr. Sinese for a fascinating and superbly written article, and for providing such a compelling candidate for he of Miller's Court notoriety.

What part of that article makes this particular Aussie-George a "compelling" candidate for the Witness-George?
Shouldn't a "compelling" candidate have some form of definite connection, beyond the name?

Due to anyone being unable to find the witness Hutchinson, one suggestion posed by a few people, including one or two of the vocal minority was, that George Hutchinson (the witness), may not have been his real name.

Has that gone out the window now?

[John G]

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.

Hello Abby,

I've a feeling we might slightly disagree as to whether JtR was responsible for any of the Torso murders/mysteries! Alice McKenzie's a reasonable candidate though.

Anyway, it seems to me that there's not a shred of evidence that he ever lived in London; the Tilbury connection simply relates to where he travelled to Australia from. However, even in this regard, I wouldn't have thought there were many UK ports from which travel to Australia was possible; he therefore may have lived a considerable distance from London.

To put all of this into perspective, William Bury is hardly most people's favoured candidate, and he did live in the East End at the relevant time, arguably committed a Ripper-style murder, and possibly indirectly confessed to being JtR.

[Wickerman]

Thankyou John, I think you covered all the bases.

So now in order to show support for Aussie-George being witness-George, he has to be responsible for McKenzie, Pinchin & Jackson.

How much burden can this new hypothesis carry?

[John G]

Thankyou John, I think you covered all the bases.

So now in order to show support for Aussie-George being witness-George, he has to be responsible for McKenzie, Pinchin & Jackson.

How much burden can this new hypothesis carry?

Yes, Jon, it does seem to be a tenuous link. In fact, I'm beginning to think that Bruce Robbinson's candidate is more promising, not that he's a remotely plausible candidate either- just slightly more likely than Aussie George!

[Wickerman]

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.

What is misleading Abby is, to suggest a connection between Aussie-George & Witness-George, on the strength of Aussie-George being in Tilbury at one moment in time full year after we last hear of Witness-George.
That is misleading.

[Wickerman]

Jon
A suggestion should be supported by evidence.Pleased you have written that.
.
.
Then of course there is the missing Aberline report.Not a shread of evidence for that suggestion.

Police duties, procedures & responsibilities are not always subject to the same scrutiny. Officers are trained to follow rules & guidelines, day after day, year in year out. Abberline is not just any rookie officer, and as I pointed out to you months ago, Stewart Evans brought this same issue up a decade ago.
Of all people involved in Ripperology, wouldn't you think Evans is in the best position to know what procedure Abberline must follow, and what his responsibilities were?

I know, you have a different opinion, but what precisely is that "opinion" based on, is it an informed opinion?
Would it be comparable to Stewart's opinion?

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.

Isaacs is a better comparison, but even so, the author Senise has found no evidence to place Aussie-George in the East End in 1888.

However, we have a direct statement from Mary Cusins that Isaacs was resident in Paternoster Row, just off Dorset St.
So, he can be easily placed in the vicinity of the murder, at the time of the murder - that is evidence.

Senise has nothing comparable to that.

[Ben]

Jon,

In your zeal to wade heavily into any Hutchinson thread going, you overlook some fairly obvious realities.

Let’s start with this one:

“Shouldn't a "compelling" candidate have some form of definite connection, beyond the name?”

If there was a “definite connection”, we wouldn’t be looking for a mere “candidate” would we? A “definite connection” would establish the identity of the real George Hutchinson beyond question, wouldn't it? Unfortunately, until that “definite connection” arrives, the rest of us will have to be content with the odd potential link.

No, the possibility that the individual in question provided a false name has not “gone out of the window”. That too remains a “compelling” possibility, as I’ve argued for several years now; although, should further research lend additional weight to the candidature of “Aussie George”, I’ll be forced to eat my wideawake hat and abandon my previous suspicion that the real Hutchinson used a false name.

“So now in order to show support for Aussie-George being witness-George, he has to be responsible for McKenzie, Pinchin & Jackson.”

What are you talking about?

Since when did accepting the aforementioned three as ripper victims become an essential criterion “in order to show support for Aussie-George being witness-George”? I don’t recall Abby ever suggesting that he “has” to be responsible. For my part, I have shown support for the contention that “Aussie George” might have been the witness-George, just as I have recognised the obvious merit in the suggestion that witness-George might have been ripper-George, but I have never argued that the ripper was responsible for “Pinchin & Jackson”. McKenzie was very possibility a ripper victim, she doesn’t “have” to be “in order to show support for Aussie-George being witness-George”.

[Ben]

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.

Appreciate the kind words, Harry.

You'll notice that Jon is now attempting to create a suspect-comparison between the Australia-bound Hutchinson and Joseph Isaacs, which is a somewhat pointless exercise considering that the latter was absolved of all suspicion and later released by the police investigating the Mary Kelly murder, after it was proven beyond doubt that he could not have been responsible.

There is no evidence that "Aussie George" was ever once interrogated as a suspect, let alone adjudged innocent as one.

There is, as you also sensibly note, no evidence of any "missing report" from Abberline on the subject of Hutchinson either - only an extant report that accompanied the statement, which would unquestionably have contained a reference to any important revelations that might have supported the latter's credibility while under "interrogation". The fact that no such juicy bombshells appear in the report tells us that they never existed.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

However, even in this regard, I wouldn't have thought there were many UK ports from which travel to Australia was possible; he therefore may have lived a considerable distance from London.

...Which is a self-defeating argument if ever I read one, John.

If there were "many UK ports from which travel to Australia was possible", then the very fact that our George happened to use one the ports closest to London is an obvious indication that he can't have lived particularly far away from that port; otherwise, he would have used one of the "many UK ports" that better suited the location of his home.

To put all of this into perspective, William Bury is hardly most people's favoured candidate, and he did live in the East End at the relevant time, arguably committed a Ripper-style murder, and possibly indirectly confessed to being JtR.

It would help if you could clarify who you're comparing Bury to - the as-yet-unidentified man who introduced himself as a witness in 1888, or do you mean "Aussie George", with or without the suggested connection to the 1888 "witness"?

In fact, I'm beginning to think that Bruce Robbinson's candidate is more promising, not that he's a remotely plausible candidate either- just slightly more likely than Aussie George!

But your reasons for rejecting "Aussie George" have been extremely unconvincing, and appear to have their basis in a hugely distorted understanding of serial killer psychology, or rather what the "experts" have inferred about same.

Regards,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

I've a feeling we might slightly disagree as to whether JtR was responsible for any of the Torso murders/mysteries! Alice McKenzie's a reasonable candidate though.

Anyway, it seems to me that there's not a shred of evidence that he ever lived in London; the Tilbury connection simply relates to where he travelled to Australia from. However, even in this regard, I wouldn't have thought there were many UK ports from which travel to Australia was possible; he therefore may have lived a considerable distance from London.

To put all of this into perspective, William Bury is hardly most people's favoured candidate, and he did live in the East End at the relevant time, arguably committed a Ripper-style murder, and possibly indirectly confessed to being JtR.

he never lived in the east end either John G. Bow is the closest he ever got. I at one time when I was a noob, thought he was a viable candidate too. except he was dead as a door nail when Alice McKenzie was murdered by the ripper.

try again.

[Abby Normal]

What is misleading Abby is, to suggest a connection between Aussie-George & Witness-George, on the strength of Aussie-George being in Tilbury at one moment in time full year after we last hear of Witness-George.
That is misleading.

lame.

[harry]

Jon,
Again Ben has demolished,in detail,all points set by you.
My objection was to your claim that all suggestions should be supported by evidence.Utterly wrong.
What law enforcement training teaches,is that when evidence is not present,suggested methods of seeking that evidence,is quite valid.
Now do not bring other personalities into the discussion.There are numerous law enforcement agencies,and thousands of law enforcement officers.Not all policemen,but all equally well trained and knowledgeable.
Whether I am better or worse than any of those bothers me none,but the fact that you continually use other people,shows a definite lack of confidence in yourself.

[John G]

...Which is a self-defeating argument if ever I read one, John.

If there were "many UK ports from which travel to Australia was possible", then the very fact that our George happened to use one the ports closest to London is an obvious indication that he can't have lived particularly far away from that port; otherwise, he would have used one of the "many UK ports" that better suited the location of his home.



It would help if you could clarify who you're comparing Bury to - the as-yet-unidentified man who introduced himself as a witness in 1888, or do you mean "Aussie George", with or without the suggested connection to the 1888 "witness"?



But your reasons for rejecting "Aussie George" have been extremely unconvincing, and appear to have their basis in a hugely distorted understanding of serial killer psychology, or rather what the "experts" have inferred about same.

Regards,
Ben

Hello Ben,

Are you seriously arguing that he must have lived close to London, because he elected to sail from there? Yes, I do believe you are! Surely you must realize that argument is easily demolished. I mean, as there were surely only a few ports from which travel to Australia was possible in the late nineteenth century he might have conceivably lived 100 miles or more from any of them.

And why would he necessarily use the port closest to his home? There could be many alternative reasons why he elected to travel from London, I.e convenient transport links, wanted to see the big city before departing dear old Blighty for good...

And, as I mentioned bin my previous post, I once travelled from Gatwick Airport, even though it's about 200 miles from where I live and by no means the closest airport. However, applying your logic, you no doubt would argue that this is evidence that I once lived in Gatwick, when in actually I've never lived within a 150 miles of the place!

It's interesting the way you seem to reject the arguments of criminologists. Now, I accept that serial killer rituals can sometimes evolve- Schlesinger gives an example of a serial killer who began with post mortem genital mutilation and progressed to dismemberment-but where on earth is the evidence that a throat slashing mutilator and organ remover,whose level of violence appears to be showing clear signs of escalation, is remotely likely to reemerge several years later as a flasher who indecent assaults young boys? This is all the more incomprehensible when you consider the strength of JtR's compulsive urge to carry out post mortem mutilations. After all, he took tremendous risks by remaining at the crime scenes for significant periods in order to fully satisfy his compulsive urges.

Anyway, back to the crux of the matter. Where is the evidence that Aussie George ever lived in London?

[John G]

he never lived in the east end either John G. Bow is the closest he ever got. I at one time when I was a noob, thought he was a viable candidate too. except he was dead as a door nail when Alice McKenzie was murdered by the ripper.

try again.

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.

[Ben]

Hi John,

In view of this particular Hutchinson's listed occupation as a "tinsmith" and a "labourer", the chances of him stumping up for costly travel fares taking him unnecessary miles across the country to his "port of preference" were obviously very slim, especially if he planned to make a day of it the "big city" beforehand, as you unrealistically suggest. The idea that a man in such circumstances would deliberately select a port of embarkation miles away from the nearest one is similarly ludicrous.

“However, applying your logic, you no doubt would argue that this is evidence that I once lived in Gatwick, when in actually I've never lived within a 150 miles of the place!”

Which wouldn’t be anywhere near as fallacious as “your logic” that an individual using modern transport and having the leisure and the funds available to select his favourite airport, is in any way comparable to the predicament of an impoverished labourer with severely limited transport options in 1889.

I’m not claiming to be in possession of evidence that this particular Hutchinson ever lived in London. I’m simply observing that since he boarded the Ormuz in Tilbury, the likelihood is that he took the boat train there from Liverpool Street; which means that in contrast to a whole host of candidates proposed for the identity of George Hutchinson, this one can at least be shown to have a connection with London, and to share the same occupation as the man who gave evidence to Abberline.

“It's interesting the way you seem to reject the arguments of criminologists.”

I haven’t done any such thing; I’ve merely rejected your gross misinterpretation of those arguments. You say “I accept that serial killer rituals can sometimes evolve”, which is reassuring, but who has claimed that the assaults on those boys belonged to any sort of “ritual”, “evolved” or otherwise? You might as well argue that the real ripper would never shop-lift because it is too significant a departure from his “ritual”. What’s wrong with the basic notion that he committed a different crime, albeit still a sexually motivated one, because - for unknown reasons - the opportunities for "escalating" that "ritual" were not so readily available?

If you’re truly interested in absorbing the opinions of “experts”, you might want to heed the findings of the “Ripper Project” – conducted by Ressler, Douglas and others – which concluded:

“Generally, crimes such as these cease because the offender has come close to being identified, has been interviewed by the police, or has been arrested for some other offence”

Except those experts must be wrong because, according to you, serial killers with “signatures” and “rituals” never commit any other crimes.

Regards,
Ben