No announcement yet.

Terror Australis- What Ever Happened To George Hutchinson ?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Terror Australis- What Ever Happened To George Hutchinson ?

    Those of you who subscribe to Ripperologist ought to have the sneak preview in your email by now.

    Use this thread for discussion, if you would.
    To Join JTR Forums :
    Contact [email protected]

  • #2
    This is the author:

    To Join JTR Forums :
    Contact [email protected]


    • #3
      Where are my manners ?
      If you don't have this sneak preview...send me an email and I'll send you the link.
      Email address is :
      To Join JTR Forums :
      Contact [email protected]


      • #4
        ...or you could just download the article from the following link:

        Best wishes

        It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.



        • #5
          The sentencing of Hutchinson in mid-December, 1896:

          Australian Town & Country Journal
          Sydney, NSW
          December 12, 1896
          To Join JTR Forums :
          Contact [email protected]


          • #6
            Mug Shot:

            Thanks for the article link, Adam....I didn't want to pester you...much appreciated.
            To Join JTR Forums :
            Contact [email protected]


            • #7
              From the article :

              Anderson also stated ( but no evidence has surfaced to confirm it, however ) that Monro eventually changed his mind on whether Mackenzie was a Ripper victim from yes to no.
              To Join JTR Forums :
              Contact [email protected]


              • #8
                Mr. Senise is aware of the Forums, as he used the information in the George Hutchinson From Romford ? thread...and I've asked a friend to contact him to suggest he join us.
                To Join JTR Forums :
                Contact [email protected]


                • #9

                  Mr. Senise's final remarks in the article...which will appear in full in October.

                  Personally, methinks it better to state that this may be the George Hutchinson. rather than this may be Jack The Ripper.
                  To Join JTR Forums :
                  Contact [email protected]


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
                    This is the author:

                    Oh no!!! Not another Australian.
                    Christopher T. George, Lyricist & Co-Author, "Jack the Musical"
           Hear sample song at

                    Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conferences, April 2016 and 2018.
                    Hear RipperCon 2016 & 2018 talks at


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Chris G. View Post
                      Oh no!!! Not another Australian.
                      Are the guy's from down-under trying to steal our thunder?
                      Regards, Jon S.
                      The theory that the murderer is a lunatic is dispelled by the opinion given to the police by an expert in the treatment of lunacy patients......."If he's insane
                      " observed the medical authority, "he's a good deal sharper than those who are not".
                      Reynolds Newspaper, 4 Nov. 1888.


                      • #12
                        Without even getting into the Australian side of his article, I have issues with many of the arguments put forward by Stephen Senise.

                        He spent some time at the beginning of his article decrying the candidacy of George William Topping Hutchinson (known as Toppy for short) as the witness George Hutchinson.

                        ‘…he was likely too young at 22 to be the unemployed witness who in 1888 was sleeping in a doss house and who only ever appeared in contemporary police and media reports as plain old George Hutchinson. Modern research puts the police witness at about 28 years of age at the time.’

                        This passage includes a number of misleading statements.
                        (1) George Hutchinson was not described as unemployed. He was described as being not in regular employment. In other words he didn’t have a regular employer. He worked causally for a variety of employers.
                        (2) There is no reputable research that puts George Hutchinson as being 28 years old.
                        (3) There is only one contemporary (or near contemporary) account that refers to George Hutchinson’s age and that is on the memoirs of Walter Dew, where he refers to him as ‘a young man’.

                        He also argued that Toppy’s signature did not match that of the witness George Hutchinson.
                        However there is a good possibility that the signature used as a basis for comparison by Sue Iremonger was a copy of Toppy’s signature that was transcribed on a copy of his wedding certificate but was not in his own hand.
                        Another document examiner, given a range of signatures that were indisputably by Toppy, concluded that they were very similar to those found on the witness statement.

                        Toppy was named by his son as being the witness. There is no good reason to dispute this. There is good reason to think Toppy left his father’s south London house in early 1888 after his widowed father took up with another woman. His deceased mother (maiden name Topping) had relatives in the vicinity of Shoreditch so it would not have been unnatural for Toppy to have gravitated to that area. Toppy certainly gravitated towards the East End as he spent most of his life in that area.

                        The claim is also repeated that Hutchinson only came forward after his cover had been blown by the witness testimony of Sarah Lewis at the inquest into the death of Mary Kelly.
                        Sarah Lewis’s testimony was made in the second half of the proceedings on 12th November and was not covered in the early editions of evening papers published that day. Her testimony mentioning seeing someone opposite Miller’s Court could not have been read by Hutchinson prior to his appearance at Commercial Street Police Station at about 5 pm on 12th November - the day of the inquest.

                        It is reported that very few members of the public were admitted to the inquest to witness proceedings.

                        Furthermore not one newspaper, nor the police in the extant reports make any connection between the man Lewis said she saw and Hutchinson, which strongly implies they were two different people.

                        Stephen Senise finds Hutchinson’s witness statement fanciful – but Abberline interrogated (that word specifically being used) him and he did not share that view.


                        • #13
                          The George Hutchinson who turned up in Australia on 29th October 1889 on the RMS Ormuz was an Able Seaman. You had to earn the rank of Able Seaman – in the Royal Navy after two years’ service. It was roughly the equivalent of being a corporal in the Army.
                          This simply doesn’t match what is known about the witness George Hutchinson.

                          Stephen Senise speculates that George Hutchinson was a stowaway who was discovered and had to work his passage. In which case he wouldn’t have been listed as an Able Seaman.

                          A key component of Stephen Senise’s evidence against his George Hutchinson is that he was 29 (there is no reason to think the witness was 29) and turned up in Austrialia 72 days after the murder of Alice Mackenzie, even though the Ormuz seems to have only taken a maximum of 42 days to sail to Sydney.
                          So if Hutchinson killed Mackenzie he waited a month before fleeing.

                          The article contains no evidence to suggest that the George Hutchinson who was found guilty in New South Wales in 1896 for indecent exposure was from London or had ever lived in London. The prisoner was clearly the same man as the Able Seaman –but that he held that rank pretty much precludes him from being the witness George Hutchinson.


                          • #14
                            Thanks for that assessment.
                            Stephen told me that when the full issue comes out in October, he'd consider registering in order to discuss the entire article and hopefully, now, the points you brought up.
                            To Join JTR Forums :
                            Contact [email protected]


                            • #15
                              I hope so Howard!

                              I see that Stephen Senise actually uses me (or my nom de plume that I used to use on the other forum) as a source where he speculates that his Australian flasher Hutchinson may have been born in Shadwell in 1859.
                              This is despite the fact that the Australian flasher was listed as being born in 1861.
                              But being born in 1859 matches the mythic 29 years old requirement for 1888. Actually if you split the difference between 1859 and 1861 it also meets the mystic 28 year old requirement.
                              (To be fair it is really a mythic 28-29 year old requirement).

                              The George Hutchinson who was born in Shadwell had been put forward by Bob Hinton as a being possibly identical with the Kelly witness.

                              This George Hutchinson very briefly lived in Shadwell as a toddler when his father Joseph was the landlord of a pub. The family lived in Shadwell from about 1859-65. It seems this pub venture was unsuccessful because by 1871 this George Hutchinson and several of his siblings had been shipped off to the care of his mother’s parents in Yorkshire, while father Joseph was living in a pub in Islington run by his nephew.

                              Fatally for the theory that the Shadwell George Hutchinson went to Australia and became a flasher, in 1901 the Shadwell born George Hutchinson was living in Camden with his wife Mary and as an insurance agent collector. He had a granddaughter – which suggests that he married in the 1880s sometime. In fact there is a record that suggests he married in 1887.

                              All of this information is contained in the thread that Stephen Senise quoted me from.
                              It pretty much disproves that the Shadwell born George Hutchinson was the witness George Hutchinson and makes the chances of him being the New South Wales flasher slim to say the least.