Ripperologist 146 - October 2015

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Just a quick question, since I'm not familiar with the area. I just read the preview: how far was the synagogue from Mitre Square?

Thank you.

[Fisherman]

Just a quick question, since I'm not familiar with the area. I just read the preview: how far was the synagogue from Mitre Square?

Thank you.

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.

[Ben]

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,

“However, your argument that he would necessarily elect to travel to his nearest port is, I'm afraid, unsustainable.”

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.

“Anyway, rail travel was relatively inexpensive at the time”

No, it wasn’t.

Rail travel was relatively more expensive in Victorian times.

“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”

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:

“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”

…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?

[Ben]

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

You're quite right, Jon. I chastise myself for resting on my laurels and arrogantly assuming that I can do this without your help, because I realise now that I can't. I’ve just got to man-up and accept the fact that I need you to ensure that Hutchinson remains the most discussed suspect by several thousand posts.

Any author who published a theory is expected to have done his research before he puts the theory to print.

Sinese argues convincingly that the evidence supports the contention that Hutchinson may have been the murderer; by whom he does not mean the particular candidate he has chosen to research, but rather the unidentified "George Hutchinson" whose statement and behaviour gave rise to those original suspicions. If that unidentified Hutchinson was the murderer, Sinese argues, "Aussie George's" departure for Australia in 1889 would make sense of the apparent cessation of any "ripper-like" murders after Alice McKenzie.

Put simply, there is a reasonable case to be made that the man who introduced himself to the police as George Hutchinson was the murderer, and there is an equally reasonable case to be made that one of the few recorded “labourers” from the relevant period named George Hutchinson was the same “labourer” who introduced himself to police by that name in 1888. Combine those two reasonable proposals, and you have the convincing narrative that Senise proposes; a narrative that suggests Jack the Ripper might have been a local labourer who lied to the police, which some people view, unaccountably, as controversial.

[Ben]

That you personally think that he may well have gone by train from Liverpool street Station to Tilbury?

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

All the best,
Ben

-------

So there we are, then. That's those points addressed. And now to "let it rest there" and "see how this progresses".

Unless...

[Fisherman]

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

All the best,
Ben

Knowledge! A thing of true beauty!

The opposite - ignorance - is less attractive.

The trains for Tilbury Dock Station left from Fenchurch Street Station, not Liverpool Street Station.

One may also contemplate that Tilbury was a dock, and this Hutchinson was an able seaman. There would thus be a very real chance that he went from ship to ship, no railway transport included. It´s not unheard of...

[Sally]

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...ing+hutchinson

Post #34. Note that this GH was admitted on 30th October, for anybody wanting to check it out for themselves.

[Wickerman]

Sinese argues convincingly that the evidence supports the contention that Hutchinson may have been the murderer;

Hi Ben.
I don't recall any research by Senise that could be described as "convincing" with regard to Witness-George being a killer.
Neither do I read anything new on Witness-George provided by Senise towards the same end.
Which then makes me question where you get the impression that Senise "argues convincingly" that Witness-George may have been the murderer.

Senise merely repeats what we are all familiar with, and what has been left tattered and torn over numerous threads in the past decade or so.

If that unidentified Hutchinson was the murderer, Sinese argues, "Aussie George's" departure for Australia in 1889 would make sense of the apparent cessation of any "ripper-like" murders after Alice McKenzie.

Assuming McKenzie is to be regarded as a "Ripper-like" murder.
An If which predicates on an assumption

Put simply, there is a reasonable case to be made that the man who introduced himself to the police as George Hutchinson was the murderer, and there is an equally reasonable case to be made that one of the few recorded “labourers” from the relevant period named George Hutchinson was the same “labourer” who introduced himself to police by that name in 1888. Combine those two reasonable proposals, and you have the convincing narrative that Senise proposes; a narrative that suggests Jack the Ripper might have been a local labourer who lied to the police, which some people view, unaccountably, as controversial.

I don't recall anyone who contests that proposal as saying it is unreasonable.
What I do recall is that certain details said to be consistent with, or providing proof towards that conclusion, is in reality nothing of the sort.

In a society of nosy neighbors, a loiterer (if G.H.), does not make a killer.
In a ghetto of poverty and crime, where lying can be a matter of everyday survival, accusing a man of lying does not make him a killer.

[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!"

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[Fisherman]

Thank you.

You are very welcome!