Ripperologist 146 - October 2015

[John G]

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.

Hello Abby,

I don't see how "there's a good chance Aussie George was probably in London at the time." May I refer you to my earlier post, where I point out that he could have come from East Anglia, or anywhere in the Home Counties, even if we accept that he sailed from London because it's is nearest port. And what if he did come from London? What does that prove? Statistically it still means that it was very unlikely that he was resident in Whitechapel: London population, around 5.6 million; Whitechapel, around 80000.

Alice McKenzie and Jackson Ripper victims! I think plenty would disagree with you there. What about Austin? Mind you, that would completely rule out Aussie George!

And yes, Whitechapel George could have been a baker, butcher, candlestick maker, gang leader, band leader, tinsmith, serial killer, watchmaker, enforcer, tailor...However, there's just one problem: evidence.

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal: I just thought that so far no one has made anything close to strong argument that Aussie George couldnt be witness hutch.

The problem is, Abby, that there is no argument at all why he would have been.

Lets examine the different areas in question:

Occupation:

Aussie George could have been a tinsmith, groom...

Whoa there - where did the grooming come from?

...and able seaman.
Tinsmith in Australia, former Merchant marine, groom in England.

Thereīs that groom again...!

Or the press was incorrect on any of those occupations. Laborer is a general term and could incorporate ANY of those other occupations.

Meaning that Aussie George may well have been a tinsmith throughout.

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.

Me too - but that proves nothing about what Aussie George was.

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.

Once again, there is no evidence here. And with no evidence, there can be no case.

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.

Many people wore a peaked cap, Iīm afraid. But yes, there was some speaking about a sailorlike appearance.

Appearance:

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

Aussie George was 5 ft 5 1/2. In 1870, 5 ft 5 was the average height. So no, he was not short, he was average.

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!

Must have been him, then!

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.

Aussie George was no heavyweight - he lands on the border between normal weigh and overweight on the BMI scale. So letīs not be too enthusiastic here!

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.

Tilbury Dock is not extremely close to the East End - it is 25 miles downstreams of London Bridge. And who says he took the train???

There is very good chance Aussie George was probably in London at the time.

There MAY be. And there may not be. The point is, ABby, that we-dont-know. We have not got a scintilla of an idea. It would be completely bonkers to claim that he very probably was in London. And if you excuse me for saying so, it is totally unflattering to yourself to argue it.

There is no evidence that witness hutch was in London after 1889 either and Aussie George clearly was not.

Oh dear... Come on, Abby - you are so much better than that!

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.

Shortly...? Three months - shortly? Plus WHY would he flee?

Crime:

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

How many sex crimes were comittes in Engaland and Australia that year....? And look at the differences in crimes and target groups, PLEASE!

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.

That may say a lot more about your opinion than it says about the implications in other peoples eyes. Personally, I think you are lowering your standards down to bog-level, keeping the nostrils well under the surface. Sorry, Abby, but this is not very good.

[Ben]

“You know, I feel that I've entered a kind of twilight world of dubious connections”

Well, you run along now and exit that “twilight world” if you’re finding it disagreeable.

“Thus, because a man boards a ship from Tilbury we're supposed to infer that he resided in Whitechapel!”

You can do whatever you like, but we are supposed to consider Sinese’s proposal in the context of the suggestion, advanced by several authors over the years and discussed more than any other suspect on ripper-related message boards, that Hutchinson was the murderer. For people like you, who are clearly at a loss as to understand the apparent cessation of the murderous mayhem in London, and who are still wedded to the notion that serial killers can’t just stop in a locality without some huge external influence, anyone leaving the country within a year of Mary Kelly’s murder ought to be considered of interest. One such emigrant was named George Hutchinson, just like the discredited witness from 1888, who lived right in the heart of the murder zone, was almost certainly seen loitering outside a ripper victim’s home shortly before her murder, and who only came forward – in all probability – after he realised he’d been seen there.

Sinese is merely exploring the possibility of a link between the two; the apparent cessation of the crimes being accounted for by the offender leaving the country, and the suspicions that many of us share with regard to Hutchinson. Is “Aussie George” my absolute favourite candidate for the witness George? No. As Sally points out, there is at least one other with a stronger link to he of Kelly fame. But that doesn’t mean that the possibility should be dismissed out of hand by some of the weak arguments that have been presented here, and by those with personal suspect theories of their own

Then, predictably, you decide to call what you erroneously thought was a bluff on my part, and pick a generic Hutchinson/ripper fight, so off-topic we go:

“And why did he not flea (sic) after apparently being seen by Lewis?”

If he was the killer, it might have been for the same reason other serial killers injected themselves into their own investigations – because he wanted to keep appraised of investigative progress, because he wanted to derail the investigation with bogus evidence, because he got a kick out of it, because he assumed fleeing would generate more suspicion and ultimate capture, because he assumed that nobody would view him as suspicious if he came forward voluntarily a seemingly cooperative witness.

“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.)”

Not mysterious at all. The name was “Keyler” according to dear Sarah Lewis’s actual police statement, and she never provided a “different name spelling”. You’re thinking of the dear Daily News; the only newspaper to misreport the correct name (everyone else managed it alright) or possibly dear Mrs. Kennedy who parroted Lewis’s genuine story, names included. You’re one of a tiny minority of people who accuse Lewis of lying (while championing discredited press interviewees who didn’t attend the inquest), and that’s your choice, but it’s deeply silly to criticise her entirely unsensational description of a man with a black bag while endorsing dear Hutchinson’s infinitely more preposterous Astrakhan man as a viable ripper. It might apply, in your world, that an essentially non-descript punter with a black bag belongs in a “Jacobean drama”, whereas a man with an astrakhan coat, a tightly-grasped knife-sized parcel, a horseshoe tie-pin and a surly Jewish countenance is perfectly normal, but not in ours.

“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.”

It seems you’re another one who doesn’t understand the basic difference between a description and a sighting. A suspect may be essentially non-descript, and a witness may lack the ability to describe people very well, but that does not for one moment mean that the witness will not be able to “recognise” that suspect again. It is more than possible to remember another person's face without being able to provide a very detailed description of them; nondescript is not the same as unmemorable. In the case of Lewis, there may not have been much to describe, especially if wideawake man had the appearance of an average working class local.

“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.”

You must learn to stop bleating about infernal “precedent” all the time, and expecting everyone else to do your research for you. Yes, there is “precedent” for such behaviour, which you ignorantly deride as “imbecility”. I discussed several relevant cases in an article I wrote for the Casebook Examiner a few years ago. I suggest you obtain a copy, and take any objections you might still have to the relevant thread.

[Fisherman]

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

Cornering them is no physical violence. Indecent exposure is typically a crime that involves no contact.

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

But not a single one who has been proven to repeatedly single out one gender only and to inflict heavy physical violence, only to then turn to a non-violent crime, while swopping gender and age group.
It is a challenge that is incredibly hard to answer up to, and I canåt see anybody being able to produce such an example.

[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.

Well Ben keeps referring to Nathaniel Code, who was a remarkably consistent serial killer, thus an excellent example to support the signature hypothesis that Ben disparages. Ironic really. But then, I don't think Ben does Irony!

[Abby Normal]

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.

Hi JohnG
Thanks!I have actually also pointed it out before that pats George is probably the best fit so far for witness hutch, with Aussie George and Toppy being the other two viable possibilities.

He was a groom, wanderer, in the east end. age also, though a little older than the rest-but still could fit.

[John G]

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

Cornering them is no physical violence. Indecent exposure is typically a crime that involves no contact.

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

But not a single one who has been proven to repeatedly single out one gender only and to inflict heavy physical violence, only to then turn to a non-violent crime, while swopping gender and age group.
It is a challenge that is incredibly hard to answer up to, and I canåt see anybody being able to produce such an example.

I don't think Ben likes giving relevant examples, Fish. Well, apart from Nathaniel Code that is!

[Abby Normal]

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

thanks JohnG
But whos talking about gay serial killers? Aussie George wasn't and neither was the ripper.

I think the better question(s) would be in getting to your point:

Do flashers only usually target the same sex?
Do pedophile usually only target the same sex?

Id honestly like to know, because I don't really have a clue about flashers and or pedophiles.

and thanks for the link-ill try to check it out when I have more time.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

I don't see how "there's a good chance Aussie George was probably in London at the time." May I refer you to my earlier post, where I point out that he could have come from East Anglia, or anywhere in the Home Counties, even if we accept that he sailed from London because it's is nearest port. And what if he did come from London? What does that prove? Statistically it still means that it was very unlikely that he was resident in Whitechapel: London population, around 5.6 million; Whitechapel, around 80000.

Alice McKenzie and Jackson Ripper victims! I think plenty would disagree with you there. What about Austin? Mind you, that would completely rule out Aussie George!

And yes, Whitechapel George could have been a baker, butcher, candlestick maker, gang leader, band leader, tinsmith, serial killer, watchmaker, enforcer, tailor...However, there's just one problem: evidence.

whos Austin? fill me in please.

[Ben]

Well Ben keeps referring to Nathaniel Code, who was a remarkably consistent serial killer, thus an excellent example to support the signature hypothesis that Ben disparages.

I don't disparage "the signature hypothesis". I disparage your mangled misunderstanding of the concept and pretense at familiarity with "expert" opinion, as evinced by your reference to indecent exposure as "the crime signature of a flasher". I also doubt very much that you knew anything about Nathaniel Code until I brought up the case in response to your muddled musings on serial killers.

[Fisherman]

I don't think Ben likes giving relevant examples, Fish. Well, apart from Nathaniel Code that is!

Point taken, John!

I actually think - although it is not for me to advice you - that you may want to do exactly what Ben suggests and leave the discussion. I know I am doing just that.

When we have Ben saying that our arguments are weak, while at the same time predisposing that his suspect has committed a combination of crimes that has no parallel at all in the annals of crime, then there is nothing more to add, really. It is what it is, but Ben will not change his mind anyway, take my word for it.

After that, it is just a question of how many times you find it useful/rewarding/hilarious to prove him wrong, over and over again.

See you īround, John!

[Abby Normal]

Abby Normal: I just thought that so far no one has made anything close to strong argument that Aussie George couldnt be witness hutch.

The problem is, Abby, that there is no argument at all why he would have been.

Lets examine the different areas in question:

Occupation:

Aussie George could have been a tinsmith, groom...

Whoa there - where did the grooming come from?

...and able seaman.
Tinsmith in Australia, former Merchant marine, groom in England.

Thereīs that groom again...!

Or the press was incorrect on any of those occupations. Laborer is a general term and could incorporate ANY of those other occupations.

Meaning that Aussie George may well have been a tinsmith throughout.

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.

Me too - but that proves nothing about what Aussie George was.

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.

Once again, there is no evidence here. And with no evidence, there can be no case.

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.

Many people wore a peaked cap, Iīm afraid. But yes, there was some speaking about a sailorlike appearance.

Appearance:

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

Aussie George was 5 ft 5 1/2. In 1870, 5 ft 5 was the average height. So no, he was not short, he was average.

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!

Must have been him, then!

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.

Aussie George was no heavyweight - he lands on the border between normal weigh and overweight on the BMI scale. So letīs not be too enthusiastic here!

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.

Tilbury Dock is not extremely close to the East End - it is 25 miles downstreams of London Bridge. And who says he took the train???

There is very good chance Aussie George was probably in London at the time.

There MAY be. And there may not be. The point is, ABby, that we-dont-know. We have not got a scintilla of an idea. It would be completely bonkers to claim that he very probably was in London. And if you excuse me for saying so, it is totally unflattering to yourself to argue it.

There is no evidence that witness hutch was in London after 1889 either and Aussie George clearly was not.

Oh dear... Come on, Abby - you are so much better than that!

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.

Shortly...? Three months - shortly? Plus WHY would he flee?

Crime:

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

How many sex crimes were comittes in Engaland and Australia that year....? And look at the differences in crimes and target groups, PLEASE!

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.

That may say a lot more about your opinion than it says about the implications in other peoples eyes. Personally, I think you are lowering your standards down to bog-level, keeping the nostrils well under the surface. Sorry, Abby, but this is not very good.

I see many similarities and possibilities Fish and nothing to rule him out.
You have certainly raised a lot of valid issues and questions but at this point Im not getting into anymore-lets see what else pans out.
Im looking forward to the extended article in the next Rip.

[John G]

I don't disparage "the signature hypothesis". I disparage your mangled misunderstanding of the concept and pretense at familiarity with "expert" opinion, as evinced by your reference to indecent exposure as "the crime signature of a flasher". I also doubt very much that you knew anything about Nathaniel Code until I brought up the case in response to your muddled musings on serial killers.

Yes, I had read about Nathaniel Code before you'd mentioned him. However, as you have decided to misrepresent my posts I will be leaving the thread.

[John G]

Point taken, John!

I actually think - although it is not for me to advice you - that you may want to do exactly what Ben suggests and leave the discussion. I know I am doing just that.

When we have Ben saying that our arguments are weak, while at the same time predisposing that his suspect has committed a combination of crimes that has no parallel at all in the annals of crime, then there is nothing more to add, really. It is what it is, but Ben will not change his mind anyway, take my word for it.

After that, it is just a question of how many times you find it useful/rewarding/hilarious to prove him wrong, over and over again.

See you īround, John!

Hi Fish,

Thanks for the advice, I intend to take it. Ben, regrettably, has elected to misrepresent my posts. For instance he claimed that I was inconsistent because I favoured William Bury as a suspect, and that the murder of Ellen Bury would represent a de-escalation from the Ripper's crimes. In fact, in my post to Abby I argued the exact opposite, i.e that I once favoured Bury but now had major doubts because of the de-escalation. But then, Ben's not terribly interested in facts is he?

See you around Fish!

[John G]

whos Austin? fill me in please.

Hi Abby,

The Austin Murder, in 1901, has been described as a Ripper-like killing. For instance, there was a "penetrating wound of the vaginal (frontal) passage extending to the abdominal cavity."

The murder occurred in Dorset Street, and was quite obviously the subject of a cover up. For instance, there was clearly a cover-up as to which room the murder took place, and a number of witnesses clearly lied. The Inquest, which pretty much descended into farce, is available on this site. At one point Wynne Baxter says to a witness:" Well, you are about the stupidest witness and most innocent witness I have ever met."

And Superintendent Mulvany wrote:"This shows how utterly unreliable these people are. The man Sullivan appears to have had the deceased woman removed from No15 cubicle on the third floor to No 44 Cubicle on the 1st Floor, a told the deputy to say she slept in 44, which was the Cubicle pointed out by the deputy's wife to Police as that in which the deceased was stabbed."

Daniel Sullivan was William Crossingham's brother in law ans overseer.