Ripperologist 146 - October 2015

[John G]

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,



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.



No, it wasn’t.

Rail travel was relatively more expensive in Victorian times.



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:



…Which is a completely outdated myth that most people have moved on from.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?

Hello Ben,

Of course I ask you to cite more relevant precedents, but all you can do is repeat the same mantra, i.e. that sometimes serial killers murder both genders. There is clear evidence that JtR was a sexually motivated killer, which is why he focussed on certain areas of the body: breasts, genitalia, and the organs of reproduction. And, of course, he killed only women, whereas Aussie George committed sexual assaults against young boys.

And gay serial killers overwhelmingly target same sex victims: Dahmer, 17 victims, all male; John Wayne Gacy, 33-34 victims, all male; Dennis Nilson, 17 victims all male; Juan Corona 25 victims, all male; Luis Garavito, over 140 victims all male...

Yes, there are rare exceptions, Marc Dutroux, a bi-sexual killer only targeted girls, but they're just that: exceptions.(John Gacy and Elmer Wayne, 27 victims, were also bisexual, but only targeted males.)

You've also failed to address the point of JtR's escalating violence, culminating in the savage murder of MJK. Such a killer is not likely to emigrate to Australia and then de-escalate to the extent that when he next commits sexual assaults he exposes himself, and commits indecent assaults, against young boys! You refer to John Douglas. Is this the same John Douglas who concluded that JtR developed a fantasy life, which revolved around the domination, abuse and mutilation of women. Doesn't sound much like Aussie George, does it? And, of course, you've totally ignored the other signature characteristics cited by Keppel, such as overkill and posing, none of which relate to Aussie George's sexual assaults.

Perhaps the reason why you can't find any relevant examples is that Schlesinger is correct: serial killer signatures can evolve or become more elaborate, but they remain behaviourally and the thematically consistent.

Anyway, returning to the crux of the matter. The fact that someone once caught a boat from London is not any sort of evidence that they actually resided there. In fact, Aussie George might not have lived close to any suitable ports: Birmingham and Norwich are two examples of cities not close to a seaport from where travel to Australia was possible.

And I still don't see why he would necessarily have used the nearest port: we can't assume that the nearer port would have been cheaper to travel to and, as I've noted before, there could have been other reasons, apart from the cost of travel, why he selected London. In fact, if he benefited from assisted passage he might not have had much choice about the port he travelled from, or ship that he travelled on; the cost of his passage to Australia might have been the relevant factor, rather than the rail journey to the port: travel on the Ormuz from London may have been cheaper than the alternatives.

I also don't except that rail travel in Victorian England was relatively more expensive than today, particularly as third class travel was available, unlike today.

As for serial killers who retire, well strangely enough even the FBI website could only provide two examples, one of which was Dennis Rader, an example that's nearly always trotted out to demonstrate this point. And what a brilliant example he is, considering he confessed to the fact that he was planning to kill again!

[Fisherman]

It is strange how some matters go unrewarded in threads like this. At the outset of the thread, Ben for some reason stated that I have no original thoughts of my own.
After that, I have been able to correct the misconception that Aussie George sailed from the East End.
And then I corrected the misconception that the trains to Tilbury Dock Station departed from Liverpool Street Station.

And now I have hinted at how I believe that the best conclusion we can make is that Aussie George probably came from Cornwall - and nobody wants to know why.
I would have thought that this was a very original and intriguing suggestion on my behalf that should evoke a genuine curiosity, but it seems that people could not care less...?

Has everybody lost interest in Aussie George now? He who was such a promising contender for the witnesses´role - and even the probable Ripper - only a few posts back!

[John G]

It is strange how some matters go unrewarded in threads like this. At the outset of the thread, Ben for some reason stated that I have no original thoughts of my own.
After that, I have been able to correct the misconception that Aussie George sailed from the East End.
And then I corrected the misconception that the trains to Tilbury Dock Station departed from Liverpool Street Station.

And now I have hinted at how I believe that the best conclusion we can make is that Aussie George probably came from Cornwall - and nobody wants to know why.
I would have thought that this was a very original and intriguing suggestion on my behalf that should evoke a genuine curiosity, but it seems that people could not care less...?

Has everybody lost interest in Aussie George now? He who was such a promising contender for the witnesses´role - and even the probable Ripper - only a few posts back!

Hello Fish,

I have great respect for your posts. And I definitely want to know why you think Aussie George probably came from Cornwall (sorry but I'm probably getting to immersed in my own posts to respond adequately to other posters important observations!)

By the way, if he came from Cornwall why do you think he didn't sail from Plymouth or, say, Bristol?

[David Orsam]

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.

A little informational titbit is that the Bow Bells are not in Bow! They are the bells of St Mary-le-Bow at Cheapside, in the City of London, near St Paul's Cathedral.

[John G]

A little informational titbit is that the Bow Bells are not in Bow! They are the bells of St Mary-le-Bow at Cheapside, in the City of London, near St Paul's Cathedral.

Thanks David!

[Fisherman]

Hello Fish,

I have great respect for your posts. And I definitely want to know why you think Aussie George probably came from Cornwall (sorry but I'm probably getting to immersed in my own posts to respond adequately to other posters important observations!)

By the way, if he came from Cornwall why do you think he didn't sail from Plymouth or, say, Bristol?

Well, John, when I say that he perhaps came from Cornwall, I did not mean that he came from Cornwall directly to the Ormuz!

But let´s return for a minute to one of Ben´s earlier posts here on this thread! It went like this:

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.

So there we are: one of the real juicy bits about this Hutchinson is that he was also a labourer - just like the witness of Dorset Street fame! And a tinsmith.

Now, lets take a closer look at the report listing Aussie George´s crime. What does it say? Well, it seems it says "Trade or occupation previous to conviction - Tinsmith".

To my mind, this is not a determination about what work Aussie George did seven years earlier, in 1889, when he was still on British soil - it is of course instead the work he did leading up to the conviction! For that is exactly what it says: Trade or occupation previous to conviction - tinsmith.

It is also said in the introduction that "George Hutchinson (labourer) was charged with indecently assaulting two boys [George Smith, 11 and Walter Paterson, 8] on Sunday last."
A tinsmith is knit to the tin mine industry. And tin mines are filled with labourers. Or Aussie George did other labour in New South Wales, when not tinsmithing.

In Britain, seven years earlier, he was an able seaman, a title that would take a lot of experience to gain.

So it seems that claiming that he was a tinsmith and a labourer prior to embarking the Ormuz is not true. He was a tinsmith and a labourer in Australia. And there goes the link to the Dorset Street witness.

And Cornwall? Well, Aussie George was tried and convicted in New South Wales, and sent down to Bathurst gaol. Bathurst is some way west of Sydney, and also in New South Wales.
Another thing that was very common in New South Wales were tin mines. It was a mining business that flourished all around Bathurst.

And from where did the miners come? They came to a large extent from Cornwall, from whence the Cornish started to emigrate for the New South Wales´ tin mines in the 18:th century. As late as in the 1990:s, tin mines in New South Wales were still owned by people with their roots in Cornwall. There is a very interesting dissertation on the topic on

http://www.thatsmycornwall.com/the-cornish-and-mining-in-new-south-wales/

So there´s my two cents, John: The able seaman George Hutchinson, decided to leave Britain in the late 1880:s, and headed for Australia on board the Ormuz, docking in Sydney, which is the capital of New South Wales. People going to Australia more often than not had secured a job there through contacts in Britain.
He joined up with the Cornish tin miners and became a tin mine labourer and a tinsmith. And then he was caught with his trousers down in 1896, and when he was asked to state his occupation, he said that he was a tinsmith. Right in the middle of Australias tin mine region.

We won´t be able - at this remove in time - to establish that he WAS Cornish, but I think it is a very fair guess (or that he had connections in Cornwall). Anyhow, if somebody thinks it is a good idea to look for him in the records, I would suggest that Cornwall is a useful starting point.

[Abby Normal]

Well, John, when I say that he perhaps came from Cornwall, I did not mean that he came from Cornwall directly to the Ormuz!

But let´s return for a minute to one of Ben´s earlier posts here on this thread! It went like this:

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.

So there we are: one of the real juicy bits about this Hutchinson is that he was also a labourer - just like the witness of Dorset Street fame! And a tinsmith.

Now, lets take a closer look at the report listing Aussie George´s crime. What does it say? Well, it seems it says "Trade or occupation previous to conviction - Tinsmith".

To my mind, this is not a determination about what work Aussie George did seven years earlier, in 1889, when he was still on British soil - it is of course instead the work he did leading up to the conviction! For that is exactly what it says: Trade or occupation previous to conviction - tinsmith.

It is also said in the introduction that "George Hutchinson (labourer) was charged with indecently assaulting two boys [George Smith, 11 and Walter Paterson, 8] on Sunday last."
A tinsmith is knit to the tin mine industry. And tin mines are filled with labourers. Or Aussie George did other labour in New South Wales, when not tinsmithing.

In Britain, seven years earlier, he was an able seaman, a title that would take a lot of experience to gain.

So it seems that claiming that he was a tinsmith and a labourer prior to embarking the Ormuz is not true. He was a tinsmith and a labourer in Australia. And there goes the link to the Dorset Street witness.

And Cornwall? Well, Aussie George was tried and convicted in New South Wales, and sent down to Bathurst gaol. Bathurst is some way west of Sydney, and also in New South Wales.
Another thing that was very common in New South Wales were tin mines. It was a mining business that flourished all around Bathurst.

And from where did the miners come? They came to a large extent from Cornwall, from whence the Cornish started to emigrate for the New South Wales´ tin mines in the 18:th century. As late as in the 1990:s, tin mines in New South Wales were still owned by people with their roots in Cornwall. There is a very interesting dissertation on the topic on

http://www.thatsmycornwall.com/the-cornish-and-mining-in-new-south-wales/

So there´s my two cents, John: The able seaman George Hutchinson, decided to leave Britain in the late 1880:s, and headed for Australia on board the Ormuz, docking in Sydney, which is the capital of New South Wales. People going to Australia more often than not had secured a job there through contacts in Britain.
He joined up with the Cornish tin miners and became a tin mine labourer and a tinsmith. And then he was caught with his trousers down in 1896, and when he was asked to state his occupation, he said that he was a tinsmith. Right in the middle of Australias tin mine region.

We won´t be able - at this remove in time - to establish that he WAS Cornish, but I think it is a very fair guess (or that he had connections in Cornwall). Anyhow, if somebody thinks it is a good idea to look for him in the records, I would suggest that Cornwall is a useful starting point.

Not bad Fish. Not bad at all.

[Fisherman]

Not bad Fish. Not bad at all.

Many thanks, Abby - it´s good to see that you sustain your ability and will to keep an open mind!

[Wickerman]

Well done Christer.
You had me wondering about your suggested Cornish connection, but true to form you have a quite logical and rational reason to make the suggestion.

One of the better posts in this thread.

[Janner]

In point of fact, tinsmiths worked with tinplate, and didn't, by necessity, need to work near tin mines any more than blacksmiths needed to work near iron mines. As an aside, there were many tin mines in Devon as well as Cornwall - one of which, Hemerdon near Plymouth, home to one of the largest deposits of tin (and tungsten) in the world - has recently re-opened.

[harry]

Janner,
You are correct.Much like a silversmith,a person that works with silver but does not mine it.
Most of the Cornish miners who came to Australia,settled here in South Australia.They were simply called miners.Here they mined mainly for Copper.
There is still a Cornish festival held every year.
So a smith is not a miner,therefor the relationship between work and settlement,as far as the Hutchinson under consideration is concerned,is wide open.He could have been resident in Whitechapel.

[Fisherman]

In point of fact, tinsmiths worked with tinplate, and didn't, by necessity, need to work near tin mines any more than blacksmiths needed to work near iron mines. As an aside, there were many tin mines in Devon as well as Cornwall - one of which, Hemerdon near Plymouth, home to one of the largest deposits of tin (and tungsten) in the world - has recently re-opened.

Very true! But it does not change how it was said that his occupation as a tinsmith was the occupation he had leading up to his conviction. THAT was when we KNOW that he was a tinsmith - in 1896.
After that, he may have worked as a tinsmith in Britain too, and it could have been just a coincidence that he dwelled in the tin mine area of Australia - but the fact of the matter is that this remains unestablished. Instead we have the information that he was an able seaman when leaving Britain, a position that would have taken some considerable time to gain.

PS. Although a tinsmith must not live close to the tin mines, it nevertheless applies that they often did. The tin industry on the whole was much a matter of New South Wales, resulting in organisations like the New South Wales Amalgamated Tinsmiths' and Sheet Metal Workers' Society being created. Bot that it means that all tinsmiths would be living in New South Wales, but it WAS the tin industry center.

[Fisherman]

So a smith is not a miner,therefor the relationship between work and settlement,as far as the Hutchinson under consideration is concerned,is wide open.He could have been resident in Whitechapel.

Maybe you should read again, Harry. What is discussed here is the period of 1896, when Aussie George was convicted for flashing in New South Wales, and when he gave his occupation leading up to the conviction as tinsmith. Meaning that it was in AUSTRALIA it is in evidence that he was a tinsmith and a labourer.
If he slept in Whitechapel at this stage, he was a very unexpected commuter.

[John G]

Well, John, when I say that he perhaps came from Cornwall, I did not mean that he came from Cornwall directly to the Ormuz!

But let´s return for a minute to one of Ben´s earlier posts here on this thread! It went like this:

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.

So there we are: one of the real juicy bits about this Hutchinson is that he was also a labourer - just like the witness of Dorset Street fame! And a tinsmith.

Now, lets take a closer look at the report listing Aussie George´s crime. What does it say? Well, it seems it says "Trade or occupation previous to conviction - Tinsmith".

To my mind, this is not a determination about what work Aussie George did seven years earlier, in 1889, when he was still on British soil - it is of course instead the work he did leading up to the conviction! For that is exactly what it says: Trade or occupation previous to conviction - tinsmith.

It is also said in the introduction that "George Hutchinson (labourer) was charged with indecently assaulting two boys [George Smith, 11 and Walter Paterson, 8] on Sunday last."
A tinsmith is knit to the tin mine industry. And tin mines are filled with labourers. Or Aussie George did other labour in New South Wales, when not tinsmithing.

In Britain, seven years earlier, he was an able seaman, a title that would take a lot of experience to gain.

So it seems that claiming that he was a tinsmith and a labourer prior to embarking the Ormuz is not true. He was a tinsmith and a labourer in Australia. And there goes the link to the Dorset Street witness.

And Cornwall? Well, Aussie George was tried and convicted in New South Wales, and sent down to Bathurst gaol. Bathurst is some way west of Sydney, and also in New South Wales.
Another thing that was very common in New South Wales were tin mines. It was a mining business that flourished all around Bathurst.

And from where did the miners come? They came to a large extent from Cornwall, from whence the Cornish started to emigrate for the New South Wales´ tin mines in the 18:th century. As late as in the 1990:s, tin mines in New South Wales were still owned by people with their roots in Cornwall. There is a very interesting dissertation on the topic on

http://www.thatsmycornwall.com/the-cornish-and-mining-in-new-south-wales/

So there´s my two cents, John: The able seaman George Hutchinson, decided to leave Britain in the late 1880:s, and headed for Australia on board the Ormuz, docking in Sydney, which is the capital of New South Wales. People going to Australia more often than not had secured a job there through contacts in Britain.
He joined up with the Cornish tin miners and became a tin mine labourer and a tinsmith. And then he was caught with his trousers down in 1896, and when he was asked to state his occupation, he said that he was a tinsmith. Right in the middle of Australias tin mine region.

We won´t be able - at this remove in time - to establish that he WAS Cornish, but I think it is a very fair guess (or that he had connections in Cornwall). Anyhow, if somebody thinks it is a good idea to look for him in the records, I would suggest that Cornwall is a useful starting point.

Excellent post Fish, which gets right to the heart of the argument. I certainly agree that he could have come from Cornwall and, as you rightly point out, his occupation at the time of arrival in Australia is given as able seaman and a member of the crew, I.e. not labourer.

[harry]

I do not need to read again. While the date of 1896 refers to a conviction in New South Wales,of a George Hutchinson,it by no means excludes that person from being a resident of Whitechapel,London,in 1888,and what is being discussed is a possible connection.Being that he had eight years to commute I do not see a problem.
We do not know what he was in England.What is known is what he claimed to be when disembarking,and when appearing at court in New South Wales.