Ripperologist 146 - October 2015

[John G]

Hi John,



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.



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.



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...



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".

Hello Ben,

You know, I feel that I've entered a kind of twilight world of dubious connections. Thus, because a man boards a ship from Tilbury we're supposed to infer that he resided in Whitechapel! I don't think so. Even if you're correct in assuming that he would have travelled to his nearest port, then he still could have come from an extremely wide area. For instance, he could have been resident in any of the home counties, I.e. Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Essex, Surrey, Kent and Sussex. And might he not also have travelled from East Anglia, I.e. Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire?

Even if he lived in the Metropolis (Middlesex and the LCC region), we're still talking about a city of 5.6 million people. Now considering that the population of Whitechapel was around 80000 in the 1880s, the statistical probability that he came from there is extremely small.

And what about the labouring connection. Well, Abberline believed that Whitechapel George was unemployed, and various newspaper reports refer to him as either a labourer or unemployed groom. Tom Cullen even suggested he was a nightwatchman. And what about "Apparently of the labouring classes"? Yes, that's pretty conclusive!

Aussie George, on the other hand was referred to in the official records as a "tinsmith", a skilled occupation . Now that suggests to me that he may well have had the same skilled occupation before leaving England. In fact, many emigrants to Australia had already secured jobs prior to departure, which makes sense for a skilled worker, a lot less so for an impoverished labourer.
And if Whitechapel George had such a skill, I doubt that he would ever refer to himself as a mere unemployed labourer/groom/nightwatchman.

Of course, it's possible that Aussie George had temporarily taken up labouring, but there can be any number of explanations for this, such as losing his skilled job on account of the accusations made against him and his subsequent conviction, which makes sense if tinsmith was listed as his occupation "previous to conviction."

The article suggests the reason for his departure may have been the murder of Alice McKenzie. Well, if they're going to suggest McKenzie was a possible or likely Ripper victim then I think I'll counter by proposing Austin, which would rule Aussie George out completely. In fact, for those who like connections Austin was murdered in Dorset Street, just like Kelly.

And why did he not flea after apparently being seen by Lewis? Why hang around Whitechapel for several months, before murdering another victim, and then deciding it was time to make a quick getaway? Well, not that quick, as the Ormuz sailed three months after McKenzie's murder. But then, why let common sense get in the way of a good story.

Then the article refers to dear Sarah Lewis. Yes, the witness who didn't actually live in Dorset Street but was visiting the mysterious, and as yet unidentified, Keylers (in fact so mysterious that we have several different name spellings.) And, incredibly, just before seeing the suspect who may or may not have been George Hutchinson (she paid him scant attention, so only provided a vague description), she re-encounters the far more Devilish Bethnal Green Man, fully equipped with archetypal black bag, who two days earlier, and in a different district, tried to diabolically inveigle her into a lonely narrow passage. By the way, is it just me or is this starting to resemble a Jacobean drama?

Anyway,what does Ripper George do in response to not being recognized by a witness who paid him scant attention, providing only a vague description. Well, he reports to the police station, of course, and then places himself in the vicinity of a murder that he'd committed, and at a time when the murder may have been committed. Unbelievable!

I ask you, is there any precedent for such inbecility? Not so much Jack the Ripper as Jack the Totally Stupid.





.

[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.”

I’m repeating the same “mantra”, as you call it, because it is necessary to combat some of the irritating and outdated misconceptions you persist in. It isn’t necessary for me to provide “more relevant precedents”. I’ve cited “precedents” aplenty, and they’ve all served their purpose of disposing of your declarations that certain behavioural traits are “exceptionally rare”. Your strategy now seems to be to make the criteria as preposterously specific as possible, and then to say “aha, gotcha” when I can’t do the impossible and find an example of a serial killer who mirrored the behaviour of “Aussie George”, as proposed by Stephen Sinese (not me!), with exactitude.

“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.”

No, he didn’t.

There is nothing exclusively feminine about the heart, kidney, bladder and face. Show me the evidence that Kelly’s murderer “focussed” on the breasts and genitalia to the exclusion of other parts of her body, which he evidently considered more interesting.

“And gay serial killers overwhelmingly target same sex victims”

Who said anything about gay serial killers?

If you mean to imply that only gay men target young boys, then you’ve just “outed” Nathaniel Code, Arthur Shawcross, Andrei Chikatilo and pretty much the entire male population of Ancient Greece.

I only "failed to address" the issue of an escalation in violence because I wanted to save you the embarrassment of exposing your absurd double-standards approach to picking suspects. You cheerfully champion William Bury as a suspect, despite the fact that the murder of his wife would constitute the very opposite of an "escalation" in violence of the type the ripper inflicted on Kelly.

“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!”

Says who, and according to what? You according to you by the sound of it, and it’s completely worthless because you’re not basing your pronouncements on any evidence. You keep going back to the “signature” nonsense, and claiming that anyone who has a “signature” is incapable of committing any other type of crime. If he was responsible for indecently assaulting those boys, he wouldn’t have been applying any “signature”, just as he wouldn’t have been if he was caught breaking into a house or trying to rob a bank. You can infer, by all means, that mutilating woman was his favourite thing – so much so that a “signature” evolved from it – but that would not render him incapable of committing other types of sexual crimes.

The problem is that your knowledge and understanding of serial killers seems to be stuck in 1983, or thereabouts. Nobody says that stuff anymore about serial killers never stopping; it’s outdated and shown to be nonsense. In any case, we have no idea what “Aussie George” was doing between 1889 and 1896. Go and raise this “never stopping” objection on other suspect threads – you’ll notice that most are reliant on the premise, to varying extents, that the ripper was capable of “stopping”.

“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.”

These are all very interesting “ifs”, as in “if” my auntie had bollocks, she’d be my uncle, but I’m afraid you’re the one with all the work to do if you’re determined to have him residing outside of London. My only observation was that he was likely to have been at least in London in order to get to Tilbury Docks, and it just so happened that the terminal that would have taken him there was a mere ten-minute walk away from the known residence of the “witness” George.

[John G]

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.

So not a tinsmith or a labourer then. Bang goes that argument.

[Sally]

So not a tinsmith or a labourer then. Bang goes that argument.

John -

Witness GH said that he'd formerly been a groom now [in 1888] a [general] labourer - a catch-all term for any type of physical work he could get. People faced with the constant threat of extreme poverty constantly adapted to survive - GH could potentially have done any kind of work he could get and have described himself accordingly; so theoretically, he could have been a tinsmith at some point.

The age of the GH recorded in the Southwark Workhouse vagrant's ward - who I think is the best candidate for the witness to date - is the real problem for 'Aussie George' - as indeed, it is for claims regarding 'Toppy'

Vagrant GH was born in 1854-5 when these two weren't even a twinkle in the eye and would have been in his early 30's in 1888.

I think there may perhaps be more to come out of the Southwark register entry, but I'll put that in a more appropriate place so that those inclined can continue to debate Aussie George without the pesky interference of recorded evidence.

[Fisherman]

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.

On the surface of things undoubtedly a much, much better candidate for the role of the Dorset Street witness. But would he, having been 33 years of age in 1888, have been described as a "young man" by Dew?

The "walking about" thing sounds not very connecting to the Dorset Street witness - he walked about because he had no place to sleep, not because he was given to such exercises per se, as seems to have been the case with Patīs Hutchinson.

As you will know, I think we already have pour man ID:s well and proper, but if we had not had that, then in a choice between Aussie George and Pats groom, I would definitely have gone for the latter.

[Fisherman]

I can’t do the impossible and find an example of a serial killer who mirrored the behaviour of “Aussie George”, as proposed by Stephen Sinese (not me!), with exactitude.

I donīt think John is asking for any exactitude, Ben. He would probably settle for any serial killer who committed his deeds using physical violence, swopping to an exercise that involved a changing of the gender of the targetted group and no physical violence being applied.

I know I would settle for that. And I only think it is fair to ask - the leap is a humongous one.

[Fisherman]

The age of the GH recorded in the Southwark Workhouse vagrant's ward - who I think is the best candidate for the witness to date - is the real problem for 'Aussie George' - as indeed, it is for claims regarding 'Toppy'

Could you expand on this, Sally? Why would the age recorded for vagrant George be a problem for the other Georges?

[Sally]

[John G]

John -

Witness GH said that he'd formerly been a groom now [in 1888] a [general] labourer - a catch-all term for any type of physical work he could get. People faced with the constant threat of extreme poverty constantly adapted to survive - GH could potentially have done any kind of work he could get and have described himself accordingly; so theoretically, he could have been a tinsmith at some point.

The age of the GH recorded in the Southwark Workhouse vagrant's ward - who I think is the best candidate for the witness to date - is the real problem for 'Aussie George' - as indeed, it is for claims regarding 'Toppy'

Vagrant GH was born in 1854-5 when these two weren't even a twinkle in the eye and would have been in his early 30's in 1888.

I think there may perhaps be more to come out of the Southwark register entry, but I'll put that in a more appropriate place so that those inclined can continue to debate Aussie George without the pesky interference of recorded evidence.

Hello Sally,

Thank you for the information. I would also like to add that this probably the most objectively reasoned post on this entire thread.

I agree that he could have been a tinsmith in theory, although there is, of course, no supporting evidence. And it's still my view that if he had such a skill he would be far more likely to refer to himself as such rather than, say, an unemployed labourer or groom.

[John G]

I donīt think John is asking for any exactitude, Ben. He would probably settle for any serial killer who committed his deeds using physical violence, swopping to an exercise that involved a changing of the gender of the targetted group and no physical violence being applied.

I know I would settle for that. And I only think it is fair to ask - the leap is a humongous one.

Thank you, Fish. Yes, I would probably settle for that.

[Abby Normal]

So not a tinsmith or a labourer then. Bang goes that argument.

Bang goes WHAT argument? Pats wanderer groom hutch may be a match for witness hutch, but probably a different man than Aussie George or Toppy.
That's all Sally was pointing out.

[Abby Normal]

I just thought that so far no one has made anything close to strong argument that Aussie George couldnt be witness hutch.
Lets examine the different areas in question:

Occupation:

Aussie George could have been a tinsmith, groom and able seaman.
Tinsmith in Australia, former Merchant marine, groom in England. Or the press was incorrect on any of those occupations. Laborer is a general term and could incorporate ANY of those other occupations.

By the time I was thirty I had many different occupations, some at the same time. Im sure many people on here have the same experience as a young man (or woman)trying to find their way in life. By the time I was thirty I had been a crocery/hardware store clerk, horse walker, server, bouncer, teacher, liquor store manager, child care worker-just to name a few.

Aussie/witness hutch could have EASILY have bounced around from these occupations he was listed as having. And there all in a similar type of class any way.

BONUS: match to the ripper: The ripper the night of the double event was described as wearing a sailor type cap and having the appearance of a sailor. Aussie George was listed as having a station as Able Seaman.

Appearance:

Hutch was described as short not tall. Aussie George was short and stout.

BONUS: match to the ripper: Most witnesses describe a man who was short, stout, broad shouldered, broad faced. Aussie George was all of these things in spades! The side and front view of his mug shot show a very powerfully built man-big head, shoulders, neck and chest. The ripper must have been a strong man to be able to subdue and kill his victims so quickly and silently.
Also, his attire and hair color, mustache and complexion seem to match well also.

Location:

Witness Hutch was in the East End, actually right outside the door of a victim. He self described himself as kind of a wanderer and having walked from Romford. Aussie George cant be placed in London, but hes also a wanderer and was extremely close at least with Tillbury dock, with the boat train coming a short distance in London as Ben points out. There is very good chance Aussie George was probably in London at the time.
There is no evidence that witness hutch was in London after 1889 either and Aussie George clearly was not.

Bonus match to the ripper: The last valid ripper victim is Alice Mckenzie (or Jackson-if youll go that way)in the East End and Aussie George left shortly thereafter.

Crime:

Witness Hutch: stalking behaviour
Ripper-sex crimes
Aussie George-sex crime with a previous conviction.


So I see some very strong connections between Aussie George and Hutch and to the ripper also. Absolutely nothing so far said to contrary has come close to ruling out Aussie George in my opinion.

[Abby Normal]

I donīt think John is asking for any exactitude, Ben. He would probably settle for any serial killer who committed his deeds using physical violence, swopping to an exercise that involved a changing of the gender of the targetted group and no physical violence being applied.

I know I would settle for that. And I only think it is fair to ask - the leap is a humongous one.

we have no idea if there was no physical violence involved. He could have cornered them in a room, grabbed them etc.

And Ben, myself and others have pointed out myriad examples of serial killers who change gender, let alone MO.

[John G]

Bang goes WHAT argument? Pats wanderer groom hutch may be a match for witness hutch, but probably a different man than Aussie George or Toppy.
That's all Sally was pointing out.

Oops! I actually complimented Sally on the objectivity of her post:see post 174. You're obviously referring to a completely different, and earlier post.

[John G]

we have no idea if there was no physical violence involved. He could have cornered them in a room, grabbed them etc.

And Ben, myself and others have pointed out myriad examples of serial killers who change gender, let alone MO.

Hello Abby,

Firstly, as I have pointed out, the evidence is overwhelming that gay serial killers focus on same sex victims, and referring to a handful of examples to the contrary doesn't dispel the argument. And the fact that Aussie George committed indecent assaults against boys is clear evidence of his sexual orientation. Moreover, I think there is ample evidence of a sexual motive on JtR's crimes, just as there is in Aussie George's.

You might want to consider this excellent article, which clearly demonstrates my point:http://www.adherents.com/misc/hsk.html