Ripperologist 146 - October 2015

[Wickerman]

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.

It's called "referencing your sources", it indicates you have done some research. Something you should try every once in a while.
Stewart Evans is an author and a legitimate source.

Responding to arguments that consist solely of opinion, uninformed opinion at that, especially from one who has refused to read relevant sources, is less than worthless and a complete waste of time.

Do some research, provide some quotes from your sources, demonstrate in some small way that you have even the smallest idea as to what you are talking about.

[Wickerman]

Jon,

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

Do you realize in the last 24 hours there have been five Lechmere threads on the go, pull yours socks up man!

Let’s start with this one:

If there was a “definite connection”, we wouldn’t be looking for a mere “candidate” would we?

Any author who published a theory is expected to have done his research before he puts the theory to print. If Senise is suggesting Aussie-George & Witness-George are one and the same, then it is expected he has made a potential connection even in some small way.

Where was Aussie-George in 1888?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

...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 what connection is that, Ben?

That you personally think that he may well have gone by train from Liverpool street Station to Tilbury? Is that what you are telling us is a connection to London?

Just being curious here.

[Abby Normal]

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.

Bury was as about as far away from ripper victim Alice mckenzie as you can get!
And he was never placed near any of the others which is also a main argument against him. Which is why people claim he could have used his cart to get back and forth.

No we don't know if Aussie George was ever in London but we do know he was very close by, beating a hasty retreat shortly after the last ripper victim was killed.

And I would say the chances of him living in London are pretty good.

[John G]

Bury was as about as far away from ripper victim Alice mckenzie as you can get!
And he was never placed near any of the others which is also a main argument against him. Which is why people claim he could have used his cart to get back and forth.

No we don't know if Aussie George was ever in London but we do know he was very close by, beating a hasty retreat shortly after the last ripper victim was killed.

And I would say the chances of him living in London are pretty good.

But we don't know if Aussie George was close by. All we know for sure is that he embarked on a boat from London., probably weeks after McKenzie's murder. At least there's proof that Bury actually lived in the East End, I.e during 1888. And considering clear evidence of escalating violence there has to be some significant doubt, maybe considerable doubt, that McKenzie was a Ripper victim. In fact, it seems to me that Ellen Bury was as much of a Ripper victim as McKenzie. Well, apart from location, of course, but then maybe her the Ripper relocated from London to Scotland!

[Fisherman]

And I would say the chances of him living in London are pretty good.

But based on WHAT, Abby?

[John G]

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.



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.



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

Hello Ben,

Well, it's comforting to note that you accept there's zero evidence that Aussie George ever lived in London. However, your argument that he would necessarily elect to travel to his nearest port is, I'm afraid, unsustainable. In fact, we can't even assume that it would be less costly to do so, particularly as there were numerous rail companies operating at the time, and we can't assume they all charged the same prices. Anyway, rail travel was relatively inexpensive at the time, especially if you travelled third class.

I haven't suggested that a serial killer couldn't commit other crimes. However, the idea that a perpetrator who has hitherto focussed on adult female victims, targeting the breast area and organs of regeneration would, several years later, re-emerge as a perpetrator who commits sexual assaults against young boys, is frankly ludicrous, which is presumably why you can't cite any precedents.

In any event, in respect of JtR there is clear evidence of escalating violence, so I hardly think that such a killer would suddenly become a retired serial killer, let alone transform into a flasher. In fact, it seems to me that the vast majority of serial killers have so little control over their urges that they continue until they are caught or incapacitated: Ted Bundy even committed a murder after he escaped from pridon, and even Dennis Rader said he was planning to commit further murders.

[Abby Normal]

But we don't know if Aussie George was close by. All we know for sure is that he embarked on a boat from London., probably weeks after McKenzie's murder. At least there's proof that Bury actually lived in the East End, I.e during 1888. And considering clear evidence of escalating violence there has to be some significant doubt, maybe considerable doubt, that McKenzie was a Ripper victim. In fact, it seems to me that Ellen Bury was as much of a Ripper victim as McKenzie. Well, apart from location, of course, but then maybe her the Ripper relocated from London to Scotland!

Hi johnG
Is bury your favored suspect?

[Abby Normal]

But based on WHAT, Abby?

Just a hutch... I mean hunch fish. ; )

[Fisherman]

Just a hutch... I mean hunch fish. ; )

Fair enough - but it is not admissible as factual evidence. There is NO connection at all between Aussie George and the East End, and we cannot assume that he was a Londoner on no evidence at all.

I think we need to let it rest there, Abby.

[John G]

Hi johnG
Is bury your favored suspect?

Hello Abby,

To be honest he used to be. I read Euan McPherson's book some time ago, and at the time I felt he made a very convincing case. However, I've since reconsidered. Thus, although I believe there is recent evidence that he used to be a butcher, I'm now leaning towards the probability that Jack had medical or surgical knowledge, I.e. that he may well have been a student surgeon/doctor (the difficulty, of course, is that medical opinion, both contemporary and modern, seems divided on this issue.)

And then there's the fact that Ellen Bury would represent a major de-escalation of violence from MJK. I suppose the fact that she was his wife could have been a factor, however, I still feel it significantly undermines his candidacy, particularly when you consider the evidence of escalating violence.

That said, he's far from being a hopeless candidate, and I would still rate him fairly highly, although given the sorry array of most alternative "suspects" that probably doesn't say very much. However, the simple fact that he can be placed in the East End during 1888 should place him above the vast majority of alternative candidates-oh and of course, he may well have left a confession. Well, sort of confession!

Of course, if he wasn't JtR then he was probably a copycat. And if there was one copycat why not others? Mackenzie, Coles...

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

To be honest he used to be. I read Euan McPherson's book some time ago, and at the time I felt he made a very convincing case. However, I've since reconsidered. Thus, although I believe there is recent evidence that he used to be a butcher, I'm now leaning towards the probability that Jack had medical or surgical knowledge, I.e. that he may well have been a student surgeon/doctor (the difficulty, of course, is that medical opinion, both contemporary and modern, seems divided on this issue.)

And then there's the fact that Ellen Bury would represent a major de-escalation of violence from MJK. I suppose the fact that she was his wife could have been a factor, however, I still feel it significantly undermines his candidacy, particularly when you consider the evidence of escalating violence.

That said, he's far from being a hopeless candidate, and I would still rate him fairly highly, although given the sorry array of most alternative "suspects" that probably doesn't say very much. However, the simple fact that he can be placed in the East End during 1888 should place him above the vast majority of alternative candidates-oh and of course, he may well have left a confession. Well, sort of confession!

Of course, if he wasn't JtR then he was probably a copycat. And if there was one copycat why not others? Mackenzie, Coles...

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.

[Abby Normal]

lame.

Hi Wicky. I need to apologize. For that post. I was starting to respond when my wife walked in who thinks I'm weird for being on serial killer websites. Lol.

I meant to say that the argument that Aussie George can't be hutch based on the fact that he caught the last train out of Georgia from tilbury is lame.

But you all are right . He can't be placed in London. Yet.
Let's see what happens.

[Abby Normal]

Fair enough - but it is not admissible as factual evidence. There is NO connection at all between Aussie George and the East End, and we cannot assume that he was a Londoner on no evidence at all.

I think we need to let it rest there, Abby.

Agree fish. Letting it rest.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wicky. I need to apologize. For that post. I was starting to respond when my wife walked in who thinks I'm weird for being on serial killer websites. Lol.

I meant to say that the argument that Aussie George can't be hutch based on the fact that he caught the last train out of Georgia from tilbury is lame.

But you all are right . He can't be placed in London. Yet.
Let's see what happens.

Hi Abby, thats fine, I understand.

Searching the Newspaper Archives (BNA) for 1888, I stopped at 10 different George Hutchinson's scattered around the country. There were still hundreds of 'hits' for that name - no point in going any further.

As you say, lets see how this progresses.
Have a good weekend.