Ripperologist 146 - October 2015

[John G]

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.

Hello Harry,

But surely the article amounts to just wild speculation. The only tenuous connection that we have is the name, George Hutchinson. Thus, when he reached Australia he was described as an able seaman and member of the crew. Therefore, the fact that a sailor once embarked on a boat from London, is hardly evidence that he resided in London, let alone Whitechapel.

Of course, we then have the equally dubious connection to the employment of "labourer". Well, the official court records, at the time of Aussie George's conviction, states that he was a tinsmith. It is only the court reporter that refers to him as a labourer, and that could easily have been a mistake. And let's not forget that this was several years after his arrival in Australia,so hardly evidence that he ever worked as a labourer in England.

And what of the Whitechapel George Hutchinson. Abberline doesn't say he was a labourer, he simply states that he was of no regular employment. It's the newspapers that refer to him as a labourer, but that could also be inaccurate. In fact, it might simply be the occupation Hutchinson gave them because he was embarrassed at being unemployed.

It's also worth pointing out that the man seen by Sarah Lewis is described as being of "military appearance", which hardly seems like an impoverished labourer.

[Fisherman]

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.

Thanks, Jon. It may not please everybodys palates, but I can live with that...

[Fisherman]

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.

Good to hear you agree, John!

[Fisherman]

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.

Well, Harry, I think we DO know what he was in England, since he is listed as an able seaman when disembarking the Ormuz.
He may of course have reached that grade ON the Ormuz, but not on that trip only. He would have had a significant amount of training and sailing behind him, so we can safely say that he was a seaman in England.

He may have practised other occupations too, but like you say yourself, we do not know. It is at any rate totally wrong to claim that he was a tinsmith and a labourer prior to embarking on the Ormuz, as Ben did in a former post. Those occupations are mentioned ONLY in 1896, and they can only be supported as relating to his occupation on Australian ground. In Australia, he was a tinsmith and a labourer.

If he was ever involved in any other occupation than sailing in Britain pre 1889 is something we cannot tell as of now, just as we cannot tell whether he lived in London or elsewhere (although Cornwall must have the upper hand) or whether he ever visited London or the East End.

What remains is that he shared the same name with the witness of Dorset Street fame, and that he was seven years after leaving London described as in Australia having done some sort of work that could be listed as labour, just as the papers described the Dorset Street witness as being a casual labourer.
And it is not as if "labourer" describes a very specific occupation - it involves a collosal amount of wildly differing tasks.

It has long been speculated that the Dorset Street witness gave a false name to the police (if there IS such a thing as false names, something that is amusingly questioned out here at - very specifically chosen - times). Take away the name George Huthchinson from our Aussie flasher and call him Bernard Braxton instead.

Then tell me that anyone researching the Ripper case would be a complete nutcase not to understand that Braxton and George Hutchinson of Dorset Street fame are somehow likely to have been one and the same man.

Once you have done that exercise, it is case closed.

[Ben]

I’m obviously missing something here, as I was expecting to find evidence to support the brand new suggestion that this particular Hutchinson hailed from Cornwall. Instead, we have Fisherman pointing out that Cornish miners used to travel to Australia in the late 19th century to continue in the mining trade there. Now, setting aside the fact that mining has absolutely nothing to do with tinsmithery, Fisherman still seems to be insistent that the Hutchinson in question was a genuine able seaman, as opposed to being falsely listed as one in Sydney, but if that was the case, where would be the connection between an "able seaman" and anything to do with tins or mines or anything to do with Cornwall prior to his new life in Aus?

The reality, of course, is that if Hutchinson came from Cornwall, he would have embarked on his trip to Australia at the port of Plymouth (with an option on Bristol) along with all the other emigrants from the south-west. He certainly didn’t need to go all the way to London. Another reality is that if Hutchinson had really been an able seaman when living in England, there was nothing to stop him continuing in that profession upon his arrival in Australia, and certainly no reason to downgrade to a labourer. The likelihood, therefore, is that Hutchinson was simply listed on the records as a seaman when he was nothing of the sort in reality. As Sinese suggests, he ether worked his passage there or was put to work after being discovered as a stowaway.

Since “labourer” is the only occupation listed in the court records for Hutchinson, the likelihood is that he was engaged in similar work when he lived in England, rather than abandoning ship (quite literally) with his seafaring career for no good reason. As such, the potential connection between this “labourer” and the George Hutchinson referred to as such by the 1888 press remains intact.

As Harry points out, there is not the slightest trace of a connection between “Aussie George” and the mining industry, and it certainly wasn’t necessary for a tinsmith to live and work in any particular proximity to a tin mine. If there was such proximity in Hutchinson’s case, it was because he was operating in what was essentially still virgin territory, without the means to distribute tin hither and thither about the vast continent; in contrast to England, of course, where tin could be distributed and “smithed” everywhere with ease.

Have those Lechmere threads gone quiet or something, Fisherman?

[Ben]

I'm sorry, incidentally, that you felt your posts were being "unrewarded", Fisherman. I'm afraid I've only just caught up with your posts, nestled as there were amid the nonsense written about serial killer behaviour. You and Jon spend an impressive amount of time on this website, and as much as it might be tempting to conclude that anyone who doesn't respond immediately must be ignoring you, the safer assumption is that they don't quite have the same amount of time available.

As far as "original thoughts" are concerned, I don't remember suggesting you never had any, but I'm afraid your pointing out that Hutchinson sailed from Tilbury doesn't really qualify; that detail was included in the original article, and I had merely missed it. On the other hand, I'm indebted to you for the revelation that the boat train sailed from Fenchuch Street, which was a ten-minute walk from the Victoria Home, and a four-minute walk from Mitre Square.

But "probably came from Cornwall"?

No, you're going to struggle with that one I'm afraid, despite it being convenient for the conclusions of Team Jo(h)n.

(Pssst...you might even be able to recruit a couple of new Crossmerians in those guys!)

[John G]

I’m obviously missing something here, as I was expecting to find evidence to support the brand new suggestion that this particular Hutchinson hailed from Cornwall. Instead, we have Fisherman pointing out that Cornish miners used to travel to Australia in the late 19th century to continue in the mining trade there. Now, setting aside the fact that mining has absolutely nothing to do with tinsmithery, Fisherman still seems to be insistent that the Hutchinson in question was a genuine able seaman, as opposed to being falsely listed as one in Sydney, but if that was the case, where would be the connection between an "able seaman" and anything to do with tins or mines or anything to do with Cornwall prior to his new life in Aus?

The reality, of course, is that if Hutchinson came from Cornwall, he would have embarked on his trip to Australia at the port of Plymouth (with an option on Bristol) along with all the other emigrants from the south-west. He certainly didn’t need to go all the way to London. Another reality is that if Hutchinson had really been an able seaman when living in England, there was nothing to stop him continuing in that profession upon his arrival in Australia, and certainly no reason to downgrade to a labourer. The likelihood, therefore, is that Hutchinson was simply listed on the records as a seaman when he was nothing of the sort in reality. As Sinese suggests, he ether worked his passage there or was put to work after being discovered as a stowaway.

Since “labourer” is the only occupation listed in the court records for Hutchinson, the likelihood is that he was engaged in similar work when he lived in England, rather than abandoning ship (quite literally) with his seafaring career for no good reason. As such, the potential connection between this “labourer” and the George Hutchinson referred to as such by the 1888 press remains intact.

As Harry points out, there is not the slightest trace of a connection between “Aussie George” and the mining industry, and it certainly wasn’t necessary for a tinsmith to live and work in any particular proximity to a tin mine. If there was such proximity in Hutchinson’s case, it was because he was operating in what was essentially still virgin territory, without the means to distribute tin hither and thither about the vast continent; in contrast to England, of course, where tin could be distributed and “smithed” everywhere with ease.

Have those Lechmere threads gone quiet or something, Fisherman?

Hello Ben,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I though the only occupation listed in the court record was "tinsmith"; it was the press, I.e. court reporter, who referred to him as a labourer. Just as Abberline referred to Whitechapel George as having no regular employment; it was only the press that referred to him as a labourer.

As for being a stowaway, I hardly think that in such circumstances he would have been listed as an able seaman, let alone a member of the crew. More likely he would have been arrested on arrival!

[Ben]

Hi John,

But surely the article amounts to just wild speculation. The only tenuous connection that we have is the name, George Hutchinson

And the fact that he was a labourer, as the "original" was reported to be, and the fact that he can be placed, in all likelihood, in London in the late 1880s. Senise's argument, remember, was that the Australian-bound Hutchinson he located was not just a potential candidate for the original "witness", but a potential candidate for the Whitechapel murderer. Now, if you like, we can bury the thread by repeating the entire Hutchinson-as-ripper argument again for the trillionth time (I'm massively up for it, myself) but if not, at least bear in mind that the "link" in this case would include a reasonable explanation for the apparent cessation of the crimes in the East End, and the apparent disappearance of former star witness Hutchinson.

It is only the court reporter that refers to him as a labourer, and that could easily have been a mistake.

How "easy" do you reckon it would have been, in all seriousness, for the court reporter to have misheard "tinsmith" for "labourer"? A better explanation is that "tinsmith" was the occupation listed as "previous to conviction" (as opposed to "concurrent with...") because he was working as a labourer at the time of it.

It's also worth pointing out that the man seen by Sarah Lewis is described as being of "military appearance", which hardly seems like an impoverished labourer.

From the police dispatch published in the press on the 13th:

A man, apparently of the labouring class, with a military appearance

"Thanks for the correction" would be the appropriate reaction here, but based on previous experience, I'm not holding out much hope...

As for being a stowaway, I hardly think that in such circumstances he would have been listed as an able seaman, let alone a member of the crew. More likely he would have been arrested on arrival!

Not according to Sinese's research, which disclosed the fact that stowaways, once discovered, were put to work as members of the crew. "Able seaman" reads somewhat better on the official record than "some bloke we carelessly permitted to slip on board unnoticed".

[Fisherman]

Ben:
As far as "original thoughts" are concerned, I don't remember suggesting you never had any.

Oh, that! I may have gotten that wrong. It was jus that you wrote "No offense, but have you had a single original thought in the last three years that hasn't been put there by Edward Stow", so I simply thought that you meant that I had never had any original thoughts at all. My bad.

... but I'm afraid your pointing out that Hutchinson sailed from Tilbury doesn't really qualify; that detail was included in the original article, and I had merely missed it.

Yes, I stole it.

On the other hand, I'm indebted to you for the revelation that the boat train sailed from Fenchuch Street, which was a ten-minute walk from the Victoria Home, and a four-minute walk from Mitre Square.

I actually stole that too, from a time-table, so it was entirely unoriginal too. It is all very easy to find, if you spend a little time and effort. Plus it has the distinctive advantage of providing you with the factually correct answers. The point being that you need not engage in speculating and you need not get it wrong once you make the effort.

But "probably came from Cornwall"?

No, you're going to struggle with that one I'm afraid, despite it being convenient for the conclusions of Team Jo(h)n.

Not at all. It is established that there were numerous tinsmiths and tin miners in New South Wales, and the tin smith and tin mining business are closely related (without each other, none would exist), plus a large number of Cornishmen emigrated to Australia and New South Wales to engage in the industry, so there is nothing at all odd with the suggestion. That is what it is, by the way - a suggestion, grounded in the factualities.

No matter how good or bad the suggestion is, it applies that no other suggestion can be made that would suggest any other heritage than the Cornish one in Aussie Georges case. Able seamen can come from any place, and predomonantly if that place has a coats and seafaring traditions. Like, for example, Cornwall.

(Pssst...you might even be able to recruit a couple of new Crossmerians in those guys!)

Who knows? But that is a different matter. On this thread, we discuss Corni.... sorry, Aussie George.

Fisherman still seems to be insistent that the Hutchinson in question was a genuine able seaman, as opposed to being falsely listed as one in Sydney.

I only insist that when somebody is listed as as something, then that is very probably true. What is there to suggest that it was not...?

... but if that was the case, where would be the connection between an "able seaman" and anything to do with tins or mines or anything to do with Cornwall prior to his new life in Aus?

Why would an able seaman NOT be connected to Cornwall? What is the obstacle?
Are you unaware that Australia was considered a land of opportunity for many Brits? It was an entirely different country from England, a country that was heavily industrialized and offered another working market entirely. Many, many people sought a new life and indeed a new work in Australia. There is absolutely no need for Aussie George to have stayed in the navy. In many cases, people engaged in some sort of business in Australia, generated a lot of money and sent for relatives and friends from Britain, who came over and took up with whatever it was their relatives and friends did.
Incidentally, I think that if Aussie George was one of these people, he may well have been called upon by Cornish tin industry relatives or friends, and started out as a labourer who subsequently aspired to become a tinsmith.

The reality, of course, is that if Hutchinson came from Cornwall, he would have embarked on his trip to Australia at the port of Plymouth...

If he still lived in Cornwall, then perhaps. But who knows that he did? There is a fair chance that he had his ROOTS in Cornwall, that is what I am saying. Apart from that, he cuold have gone from ship to ship, being a seaman, and he could have been offered preferable terms on the Ormuz. He could have had sailors who knew and recommended hom on board. The possibilities are endless. It is no stranger than that.

if Hutchinson had really been an able seaman when living in England, there was nothing to stop him continuing in that profession upon his arrival in Australia, and certainly no reason to downgrade to a labourer. The likelihood, therefore, is that Hutchinson was simply listed on the records as a seaman when he was nothing of the sort in reality. As Sinese suggests, he ether worked his passage there or was put to work after being discovered as a stowaway.

How many people do you think have changed work and home when offered very much better conditions from relatives engaged in a thriving business elsewhere? That is what immigration has to a large extent always been about. Making the assumption that somebody who changes occupation has not really been engaged earlier in the occupation he says, and tht he is just lying since he would never change jobs, is just lacking in historical knowledge.

Since “labourer” is the only occupation listed in the court records for Hutchinson, the likelihood is that he was engaged in similar work when he lived in England, rather than abandoning ship (quite literally) with his seafaring career for no good reason. As such, the potential connection between this “labourer” and the George Hutchinson referred to as such by the 1888 press remains intact.

It cannot "remain" if it was never there. That is how it goes. However, since you say "potential" I agree to some extent. He may potentially have been a labourer in England.
He may also potentially have been a builder of bicycles, a hairdresser or waiting on a restuarant.
Fair enough.

As Harry points out, there is not the slightest trace of a connection between “Aussie George” and the mining industry...

No? What does a tinsmith work with?
Tin.
From where does tin come?
A mine.
Voila, Ben.

...and it certainly wasn’t necessary for a tinsmith to live and work in any particular proximity to a tin mine.

And still, they did to a large extent. If yoy check on the correlation between different commoditites and occupatiosn using these commodities, you wil be amazed at how that somehow and for some reasson nornally coincide to a very great extent. And that was much more so a hundred years ago.
Check it up and come back to me!

If there was such proximity in Hutchinson’s case, it was because he was operating in what was essentially still virgin territory, without the means to distribute tin hither and thither about the vast continent; in contrast to England, of course, where tin could be distributed and “smithed” everywhere with ease.

Progress - you DO see that there was a connection.
And then you say that this would not have applies in England. Sorry, but it did - albeit to a lower degree. But why are we even discussing England in this context? It was in Australia, seven years after disembarking the Ormuz, that we know he was a tinsmith.
The only occupation we have for him before he turned to the tin industry is seaman.

Have those Lechmere threads gone quiet or something, Fisherman?

Not for the last four or five years, no - they are seemingly generating more discussion than ever. Which is as it should be, and how it will arguably go on.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

he can be placed, in all likelihood, in London in the late 1880s.

No. He cannot be placed in London at all. And no likelihood at all can be established, let alone "all" likelihood.

We know that he embarked on a ship in Tilbury, and that is the closest we know he ever came to London.

Let´s not abandon the groundstones of research, shall we? He COULD have been in London, but it equally applies that he my never have been there.
Plus, even if we were to accept your bid that he travelled by train from the East End - which there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prove or even suggest - it would still aply that we would ony know that he was en route to Tilbury. He could have arrived to Fenchurch Street station from a very large number of other destinations than London, being in transit to the Ormuz.

Actually, I really, really should not have to argue this issue. It should be a closed one until any evidence at all emerges that puts Aussie George in London. Before that, the topic has nothing to do in a sane discussion.

[Janner]

Tinsmiths worked with tinplate - most of which would have been manufactured in South Wales. Tinsmiths could have worked anywhere, whether it be for the e.g the railways or as a travelling peddler - in which case he could well have been called a "tinker".

[Fisherman]

Tinsmiths worked with tinplate - most of which would have been manufactured in South Wales. Tinsmiths could have worked anywhere, whether it be for the e.g the railways or as a travelling peddler - in which case he could well have been called a "tinker".

Yes, that is absolutely true. I am not saying that he must have worked together with Cornish tin miners.
What I AM saying is that the Cornish were deeply involved in the tin industry in New South Wales. And that Aussie George arrived in New South Wales in 1889 and that he was prosecuted and convicted there in 1896, while claiming that he was a tinsmith.

That seemingly offers a line to follow, but to what extent that line is completely true or not is hard to say. I think it is an excellent starting point for further research, at the very least.

[Sally]

So... Amidst all of this [albeit entertaining] speculation concerning ‘Aussie George’ nobody gives a pig’s tail about the fact that a George Hutchinson who actually matches the witness’ account of himself in 1888 has been located by Pat in the records of the Southwark Mint Street Workhouse Vagrant’s ward then?

George Hutchinson, an itinerant Groom, aged 30, admitted on 30th October 1885, spent the previous night ‘walking about’ – sound familiar at all? Hey! I don't suppose this could be the man who described himself in 1888 as formerly a groom, could it?

No?

Ok then – back to tinsmithing flashers it is.

Each to their own, as they say.

[Debra A]

So... Amidst all of this [albeit entertaining] speculation concerning ‘Aussie George’ nobody gives a pig’s tail about the fact that a George Hutchinson who actually matches the witness’ account of himself in 1888 has been located by Pat in the records of the Southwark Mint Street Workhouse Vagrant’s ward then?

George Hutchinson, an itinerant Groom, aged 30, admitted on 30th October 1885, spent the previous night ‘walking about’ – sound familiar at all? Hey! I don't suppose this could be the man who described himself in 1888 as formerly a groom, could it?

No?

Ok then – back to tinsmithing flashers it is.

Each to their own, as they say.

[Ben]

Apologies, Sally, for overlooking this gem in the midst of all the tinsmithery, but yes, I couldn't agree more - if it's "links" people are after, you're unlikely to find a closer one that an itinerant groom named George Hutchinson who "walked about" all night.

I'd forgotten all about this chap, but thanks for the reminder!

All the best,
Ben