Ripperologist 146 - October 2015

[Paddy]

Abby please check private messages..
Pat....

[Abby Normal]

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.

thanks! interesting.

[Wickerman]

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.

It is quite possible that "walk about" was a pre-requisite to get yourself on the vagrants list at the Workhouse, what else could he say?
A circumstantial "link" then.

However, the name & the occupation, are better looking "links".

It doesn't take much does it, to make a comparison. Two definite "links" and one circumstantial "link".
It could be Witness-George yes, I agree.

Just remind me of this the next time we are talking about one very controversial character and several points of resemblance ("links") between him and one rather equally well-dressed suspicious character.

It doesn't take much Ben - just remember that.

* * *
If this Hutchinson was also the watch thief (and assuming he was Witness-George), then we have a potential motive for Witness-George loitering around Millers Court.
That flashy gold watch chain must have looked inviting...

[Debra A]

The watch stealer was called George Thomas Hutchison. The newspapers spelled his name incorrectly so it is possible that the workhouse record keeper did the same but the watch stealer was described as a stationer all his working life in the records. The elderly watch stealer does appear in ordinary (not the casual ward) workhouse records in the 1900's with his name spelled correctly and his occupation as ex stationer given.
His signature doesn't look like the witness signature either...well obviously he spelled his own name correctly, so it wouldn't do.

A good number of the men in the Mint St Southwark casual ward said they had spent the previous night in Romford according to the registers. Stratford and Greenwich come up a lot too.

[Wickerman]

The watch stealer was called George Thomas Hutchison. The newspapers spelled his name incorrectly so it is possible that the workhouse record keeper did the same but the watch stealer was described as a stationer all his working life in the records. The elderly watch stealer does appear in ordinary (not the casual ward) workhouse records in the 1900's with his name spelled correctly and his occupation as ex stationer given.
His signature doesn't look like the witness signature either...well obviously he spelled his own name correctly, so it wouldn't do.

Indeed, it wouldn't.

A good number of the men in the Mint St Southwark casual ward said they had spent the previous night in Romford according to the registers. Stratford and Greenwich come up a lot too.

"a good number of men", is that throughout the year, or at the same time as the entry we are talking about?
I'm wondering if this suggests a seasonal attraction.

[Ben]

“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.”

Yes, but you’re now saying that our Hutchinson had nothing to do with tin – mining it or fashioning it – until after his arrival in Australia, and only worked as a sailor up until that point. That was your way of trying to create a schism between him and the “labourer” from 1888, remember? You really can’t have it both ways. He was either a tinsmith/labourer before he arrived in Australia or he wasn’t. If he was, it puts paid to the notion that he was a bonafide seafarer, as well as the inference that he had no association with “labouring”, but on the plus side you still get to keep your very tenuous “connection” to Cornish mining; whereas if he wasn’t, you would be right to highlight the non-connection with labouring, but completely wrong to infer even the vaguest connection to Cornwall.

I think you’re better off with the first option, albeit with an acknowledgment that the Cornish connection is slim to non-existent. Cornish miners left the south-west in search of better mining prospects in Australia, and once there, they were known as miners, not labourers. There is no reason to think that “Aussie George” ever went to a mine in his life.

“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”

But on what basis would we assume a) that George was “called upon” by any relative, as opposed to acting on his own initiative, and b) that the hypothetical relatives in question must have been Cornish? The “Cornish tin industry” related exclusively to extracting the mineral, and there was no requirement for a tinsmith working in England to live or work close to a tin mine, just as there is no requirement for an IKEA employee to live or work near the woods of northern Sweden. I’m afraid, therefore, that there is no basis for any assumption that our man George had any sort of “roots” in Cornwall.

“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.”

Thing is, I did all that, and my sources turned up Liverpool Street. If those sources are wrong, and the station in question was in fact Fenchurch Street, I’d be only too happy to take your word for it, since it makes not a scrap of difference to my observation.

“It cannot "remain" if it was never there.”

It was “there” insofar as both “Aussie” and “Whitechapel” George were listed as labourers.

“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!”

I’ve checked, and no, there is no evidence of any preponderance of tinsmiths in Cornwall. There just wouldn’t be any need. As Janner pointed out several posts ago, tinsmiths worked with tinplate, i.e. wrought iron that had already been coated in tin.

“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?”

Where’s the evidence that Hutchinson “thrived” in Australia? He can’t have done all that splendidly if he was listed as a “labourer”. Why would going to Australia mean the abandonment of a skilled profession like an A.B.? Surely the cleverer thing to do was to strike out with one’s existing skills and qualifications? It wasn’t as if there was any shortage of opportunities for skilled seafarers out there.

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

No, Fisherman. Un-voila.

What does a footballer work with?

Footballs.

Where do footballs come from?

Cow hide.

I guess Ronaldo must live on a farm.

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

You can think what you like, but it is irrefutably more likely that Hutchinson arrived in Tilbury Docks by way of the London boat train, and that would have held true for the vast majority of passengers bound for Australia that day.

“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.”

Oh, ok then. In which case let’s go with any serial killer of women who has ever stolen property off a man, of which there are certainly examples. Good, that’s that one done.

"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"

Bit like silly old Fetchbeer then? Quite the popular suspect he appears not remotely to be at the moment.

Aussie George is not even "my" suspect, old fruit.

[harry]

John G,
in response to your post 151.Fisherman can note too if he wishes.
The court record has Hutchinson as Tinsmith Labourer.It does not follow that he was of two different occupations.It was customery in English courts,and still is,to describe a labourer in this way.Such as Builderers labourer,Bricklayer labourer(Brickies labourer)etc.It simply means he was a labourer to that trade.So Aussie George was just a labourer to the trade of tinsmith.
Now to AB.Had he been a sailor on that ship,the likelihood is that he would have signed articles for the round trip back to U.K.Unless released from those articles,unlikely if just to stay in New South Wales,he would be committing the crime of desertion.So the logical answer is that he came as a passenger.So AB in his case could mean anything or nothing.As could JP.
He didn't have to furnish an occupation as a requirement to entering New South Wales.That he did means nothing in rejection of the idea that he might at one time have been resident in the Victoria Home.
By the way,when I immigrated to Australia in 1966,I neither produced a passport(I didn't own one)or state a trade or calling.Care to comment on that?

[Debra A]

"a good number of men", is that throughout the year, or at the same time as the entry we are talking about?
I'm wondering if this suggests a seasonal attraction.

Throughout the year, Jon. Romford itself pops up more in 1888 than 1885 IIRC. It's also listed a few times as a destination on discharge as casuals were required to give that information also. Many other places are listed, including Whitechapel, but most entries show men spending a night in one place and traveling on to a different place on discharge or occasionally 'walking about all night'.
This class were the unemployed and seasonal field workers who traveled looking for a few days or weeks work at a time. I think GH the witness shows signs of being of this class myself.
The casual ward registers only exist for two wards in London now; the male Mint St one and Newington, which is females, both St Saviours Southwark union. I started researching this at the beginning of the year-Eddowes, Tabram, Mary Ann Monk, Polly Nichols and other Whitechapel women used the Newington casual ward over the years. Eddowes was still using it in April 88 despite having regular lodgings with John Kelly in Whitechapel.

[Abby Normal]

Aussie George was convicted of indecent exposure, commonly known as being a flasher, against two boys.

JohnG and others have brought up the valid point that in trying to tie Aussie George to the crimes of the ripper, there is a big problem in regards to the victimology and crimes.

My questions are, since I know little about flashers and/or pedophiles:

1.Do Flashers usually target the same sex and or age group?

2.Do pedophiles usually only target the same sex?ie-only boys or only girls?

3. Is being a flasher and also a pedophile common or rare and are the two usually hand in hand?


I think its germaine to the discussion and would go ways in determining what Aussie George was and could have been.

Would love to see some thoughts from others more knowledgeable about these types of sex crimes/behaviors.

[John G]

Aussie George was convicted of indecent exposure, commonly known as being a flasher, against two boys.

JohnG and others have brought up the valid point that in trying to tie Aussie George to the crimes of the ripper, there is a big problem in regards to the victimology and crimes.

My questions are, since I know little about flashers and/or pedophiles:

1.Do Flashers usually target the same sex and or age group?

2.Do pedophiles usually only target the same sex?ie-only boys or only girls?

3. Is being a flasher and also a pedophile common or rare and are the two usually hand in hand?


I think its germaine to the discussion and would go ways in determining what Aussie George was and could have been.

Would love to see some thoughts from others more knowledgeable about these types of sex crimes/behaviors.

Hello Abby,

Paedophiles can target both sexes, for example, Brady and Hindley, although they are not, of course, attracted to adults. However, I think a more relevant issue is whether Aussie George's crimes are consistent with JtR's signature.

Thus, there seems to be clear evidence of a pattern of escalating violence in respect of JtR's crimes. Moreover, Keppel (2005) argues that JtR "...used a knife to penetrate the victim, and satisfied himself through the eroticized power of violence, the domination of the victims, and the mutilation and bleeding of the victim, rather than sexual intercourse."

He further refers to other sexual elements of the crimes, arguing that Tabram, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were posed with their "legs splayed and genitalia exposed in a sexually degrading manner..."

And Dr Bond in his analysis, clearly considered the crimes to be sexually motivated.

Of course, none of this is consistent with a perpetrator who commits indecent assaults, exposing himself to children (although it's difficult to determine exactly what Aussie George's offences were, because although he was sentenced for indecent exposure, he was initially charged with indecent assault, although both crimes are considered sexual offences.)

So, are there any precedents? The closest I could find was Jeffrey Dahmer. In 1982 he exposed himself to a crowd of 25 women and children. And in 1986 he was charged with indecent exposure, I.e. for masturbating in front of two 12 year old boys. Now, although he committed multiple murders after these offences, he did commit a murder in 1978, I.e. before the indecent exposures : he bludgeoned, strangled and dismembered an 18 year old boy.

[John G]

John G,
in response to your post 151.Fisherman can note too if he wishes.
The court record has Hutchinson as Tinsmith Labourer.It does not follow that he was of two different occupations.It was customery in English courts,and still is,to describe a labourer in this way.Such as Builderers labourer,Bricklayer labourer(Brickies labourer)etc.It simply means he was a labourer to that trade.So Aussie George was just a labourer to the trade of tinsmith.
Now to AB.Had he been a sailor on that ship,the likelihood is that he would have signed articles for the round trip back to U.K.Unless released from those articles,unlikely if just to stay in New South Wales,he would be committing the crime of desertion.So the logical answer is that he came as a passenger.So AB in his case could mean anything or nothing.As could JP.
He didn't have to furnish an occupation as a requirement to entering New South Wales.That he did means nothing in rejection of the idea that he might at one time have been resident in the Victoria Home.
By the way,when I immigrated to Australia in 1966,I neither produced a passport(I didn't own one)or state a trade or calling.Care to comment on that?

Hello Harry,

I was just going by the article, which states that the Bathurst Gaol and maritime records refer to him as a tinsmith; it is the court reporter who refers to his occupation as labourer.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

Paedophiles can target both sexes, for example, Brady and Hindley, although they are not, of course, attracted to adults. However, I think a more relevant issue is whether Aussie George's crimes are consistent with JtR's signature.

Thus, there seems to be clear evidence of a pattern of escalating violence in respect of JtR's crimes. Moreover, Keppel (2005) argues that JtR "...used a knife to penetrate the victim, and satisfied himself through the eroticized power of violence, the domination of the victims, and the mutilation and bleeding of the victim, rather than sexual intercourse."

He further refers to other sexual elements of the crimes, arguing that Tabram, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were posed with their "legs splayed and genitalia exposed in a sexually degrading manner..."

And Dr Bond in his analysis, clearly considered the crimes to be sexually motivated.

Of course, none of this is consistent with a perpetrator who commits indecent assaults, exposing himself to children (although it's difficult to determine exactly what Aussie George's offences were, because although he was sentenced for indecent exposure, he was initially charged with indecent assault, although both crimes are considered sexual offences.)

So, are there any precedents? The closest I could find was Jeffrey Dahmer. In 1982 he exposed himself to a crowd of 25 women and children. And in 1986 he was charged with indecent exposure, I.e. for masturbating in front of two 12 year old boys. Now, although he committed multiple murders after these offences, he did commit a murder in 1978, I.e. before the indecent exposures : he bludgeoned, strangled and dismembered an 18 year old boy.

Hi JohnG
Thanks! I did not know that about Dahmer.

So he killed an 18 year old boy in 1978 and then went on to "flash" women and children in 1982 and two boys in 1986.

Sounds like Aussie George/ripper to me!


And it shows that serial killers can change from murder to indecent exposure (de-escalation)and that both sexes can be involved. And from adults to children. Its not impossible.

Another interesting note JohnG, is that Dahmer was a post Mortem mutilator, rare among serial killers, also like the ripper.

Of course Aussie George has another conviction prior to the indecent assault charge, in Australia, so interesting to know what that was!!

[Wickerman]

Throughout the year, Jon. Romford itself pops up more in 1888 than 1885 IIRC. It's also listed a few times as a destination on discharge as casuals were required to give that information also. Many other places are listed, including Whitechapel, but most entries show men spending a night in one place and traveling on to a different place on discharge or occasionally 'walking about all night'.
This class were the unemployed and seasonal field workers who traveled looking for a few days or weeks work at a time. I think GH the witness shows signs of being of this class myself.
The casual ward registers only exist for two wards in London now; the male Mint St one and Newington, which is females, both St Saviours Southwark union. I started researching this at the beginning of the year-Eddowes, Tabram, Mary Ann Monk, Polly Nichols and other Whitechapel women used the Newington casual ward over the years. Eddowes was still using it in April 88 despite having regular lodgings with John Kelly in Whitechapel.

Much appreciated Debs, thankyou.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

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

I quite agree that they do not in isolation constitute serial killer behaviour, but in this case there is a strong argument for a causal relationship between the “loitering” and the “lying”. Hutchinson’s “nosy neighbourliness” just happened to precede a violent mutilation murder in the very house to which his loitering scrutiny had been directed, and the victim just happened to be the same woman he had made the object of his "nosiness". In addition, the serial killer deemed responsible for this murder was known to be active in the very same district in which Hutchinson engaged his “nosy” antics that night, and at the same sort of time.

Since loitering outside a crime scene is a known trait of serial killers who target private homes - as the cases of Bundy, Rader and Napper testify to – it is only reasonable to consider the unidentified wideawake-wearing man seen by Sarah Lewis as a suspect in Kelly’s murder.

Hutchinson re-enters the equation by approaching the police shortly after this man was mentioned at the inquest, and provides evidence strongly hinting that he was the wideawake man in question. Only trouble is, his professed reason for being there involved a far-fetched and ultimately discredited story, thereby inviting suspicion that the revelation of Lewis’s evidence was the motivating factor behind his decision to come forward and “explain” his presence there.

“Just remind me of this the next time we are talking about one very controversial character and several points of resemblance ("links") between him and one rather equally well-dressed suspicious character.”

The obvious stumbling block to comparing these two "characters" is that one of them had a prison alibi, while the other was a probable fabrication and thus did not exist in reality. There is also an exceptionally slim likelihood that the former was capable of dressing “equally” as well as the latter, even if he wasn't a work of fiction.

But that’s quite a different topic.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
I quite agree that they do not in isolation constitute serial killer behaviour, but in this case there is a strong argument for a causal relationship between the “loitering” and the “lying”.

Hi Ben.
Well, the "loitering" can be substantiated by Sarah Lewis, but what "lying" are we talking about?

What witness can you call on to substantiate Hutchinson "lying", and what was he lying about, according to this witness?

The evidence only suggests one of the two accusations chosen by you, not both.

He can be the "loiterer" (assuming we accept he was the man seen by Lewis), but there is no indication that he lied about anything. That accusation is still pure conjecture.

Hutchinson’s “nosy neighbourliness” just happened to precede a violent mutilation murder in the very house to which his loitering scrutiny had been directed, and the victim just happened to be the same woman he had made the object of his "nosiness".

Hutchinson's vigil preceded the cry of "murder", but it did not precede Bond's estimated time of death. An estimate, that if correct, would implicate Blotchy not Hutchinson.

...it is only reasonable to consider the unidentified wideawake-wearing man seen by Sarah Lewis as a suspect in Kelly’s murder.

Agreed, which is why I think Sarah Lewis was chosen to testify, seeing as how we have two women who told similar tales, but only one of them saw this loiterer.

The fact we, today, can make the connection between Hutchinson and Lewis's "loiterer", it goes without saying that Abberline would also make the connection. It is therefore "reasonable" to conclude the subsequent interrogation of Hutchinson was to allay any police suspicion of his involvement in the murder.

Hutchinson re-enters the equation by approaching the police shortly after this man was mentioned at the inquest, and provides evidence strongly hinting that he was the wideawake man in question. Only trouble is, his professed reason for being there involved a far-fetched and ultimately discredited story,...

And this is where you delve into conjecture and speculation.
We only possess one official opinion of Hutchinson's story, and there is not the slightest doubt expressed by police. So his story was not viewed as "far fetched", and certainly not discredited.

....thereby inviting suspicion that the revelation of Lewis’s evidence was the motivating factor behind his decision to come forward and “explain” his presence there.

"Your" suspicion, lets be clear about this.

The obvious stumbling block to comparing these two "characters" is that one of them had a prison alibi, while the other was a probable fabrication and thus did not exist in reality. There is also an exceptionally slim likelihood that the former was capable of dressing “equally” as well as the latter, even if he wasn't a work of fiction.

As we cannot place him in prison at the required time, then that, is conjecture.
I appreciate you choose to believe that Lloyds did not know the difference between "term of imprisonment", and "held in custody", but a laborious search of BNA archives of Lloyds does not support your conjecture.
They absolutely used both terms in their correct contexts, so no examples exist to help your case. While all the examples support my case.

But that’s quite a different topic.

Speaking of different topics, lets just go "off-topic" for a moment.

Are you signed up to "Linkedin"?
I occasionally receive invites to join Linkedin by email, just recently, attached to the page was a list of, "names you might know".
There was a Ben Holme listed.
I kind of wondered, how so?