Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

George Hutchinson Revisited

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Craig H View Post

    The Evening Times on 10 November :
    "On Thursday night Gallagher and his wife retired to rest at a fairly early hour. Their married daughter, a woman named Mrs. Kennedy, came home, however, at a late hour. Passing the Britannia, commonly known as Ringer's, at the top of Dorset street, at three o'clock on the Friday morning, she saw the deceased talking to a respectably dressed man, whom she identified as having accosted her a night or two before".

    "Mrs. Kennedy is confident that the man whom she noticed speaking to the woman Kelly at three o'clock on Friday morning is identical with the person who accosted her on the previous Wednesday"

    This suggests Kelly was talking to the Britannia-man (the one with unusual eyes) at 3 a.m. He may have been the person she took back to her room, and was the murdered ?
    Craig
    Thats my take on it.
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • Harry, it's not like we haven't been over this before.
      You know as well as I do a witness gives their story to an officer - they are not interrogated, they do not have to prove anything. The sole intent of the officer is to get a clear and detailed account of what the witness saw, heard & did, with preferably no distractions.
      The account is then signed by all present.

      Next, depending on the impact of what this witness has stated, he/she may be interviewed by a different officer to help establish specific facts with a view to a potential trial.

      Originally posted by harry View Post
      'A witness doesn't have to prove anything',and'What has Romford to do with a murder investigation'.You serious about those claims Jon?
      Absolutely, as I laid out above.


      The whole chain of evidence that Hutchinson offers,is based on his going to Romford,returning in the early hours of the Friday morning,and witnessing a meeting between Kelly and a male person.
      No, it is not 'based' on coming back from Romford. He could have come from anywhere, and still have been on that spot on Commercial St. at the same time. Romford can be eliminated from the story and it would change nothing. We can't even argue that if he had not gone to Romford he would have had enough money for her, because we don't know how much money he spent on his journey (did he walk?) to Romford.

      Hutchinson had to prove something to Aberline for the later to form an opinion .
      Like I said, this is a separate interview, not always necessary unless his statement includes some significant detail.
      It is still true, the witness is not compelled to prove anything.

      Taking into account that Hutchinson arrived at the police station at 6pm or sometime after,and Aberline sometime after that,it would have been late in the evening before the interview finished,so I doubt very much that Aberline would have waited hours before writing his(Aberline) report.So where was the time to organise and investigate,and why only state an opinion, if elements of Hutchinson's claim had been proven.
      You may doubt, but that does not prove he investigated nothing. You have no idea what facilities he had at his disposal.

      How long does it take to say, "find me that Lewis statement", or "bring the Lewis women in, we need her to look at someone", "who was on duty at xxxxxxxxxx on Sunday morning, I need his pocket-book"?
      Do you know how far Great Pearl Street (where Lewis lived) is from Commercial Street police station - around 300 ft.
      The main points could have been corroborated within the hour.


      Last edited by Wickerman; 06-10-2021, 02:16 AM.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • What they have to prove Jon,is their name,place of residence,and a reason why they are witness to certain things that is subject to a police investigation.In Hutchinson's case it was the murder of Kelly.That is for starters.Hutchinson himself introduces the destination of Romford,so no ,it cannot be changed to anything else,and the onus is on Hutchinson to give evidence that proves he did go to Romford.Any police investigation would be to verify that proof.That would stand for any claim Hutchinson made,and there were several.None seems to have been proven,except being at Crossinghams.
        There are several ways in which a witness statement can be tendered,acted on, and reported.There were two examples that evening,one involving a sergeant,the other Aberline.Now Aberline submitted a statement of interview which was not signed by Hutchinson,while the Sergeant conducted a record of interview which was signed by Hutchinson.Take your pick,in each the onus was on Hutchinson to prove his(Hutchinsons) claims.Any follow up would be by police to verify the claims.
        My point.The onus is very much on the witness to prove elements of a witness's involvement.
        Now,except for the sighting at Crossinghams,what elements of Hutchinson's statement might be accepted as proven?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Craig H View Post

          The Evening Times on 10 November :
          "On Thursday night Gallagher and his wife retired to rest at a fairly early hour. Their married daughter, a woman named Mrs. Kennedy, came home, however, at a late hour. Passing the Britannia, commonly known as Ringer's, at the top of Dorset street, at three o'clock on the Friday morning, she saw the deceased talking to a respectably dressed man, whom she identified as having accosted her a night or two before".

          "Mrs. Kennedy is confident that the man whom she noticed speaking to the woman Kelly at three o'clock on Friday morning is identical with the person who accosted her on the previous Wednesday"

          This suggests Kelly was talking to the Britannia-man (the one with unusual eyes) at 3 a.m. He may have been the person she took back to her room, and was the murdered ?
          Craig
          hi craig and wick

          the BGB/BM (bethnal green botherer/brittania man) is a very intriguing suspect IMHO:
          he generally fits the description of other witnesses
          hes accosting women and trying to get them to a secluded place
          hes frightening women
          hes carrying a knife size parcel (smiths man and others)
          he has a taunting/threatening/ teasing way of speaking-Marshalls man-"you would say anything but your prayers" ...Lewis-"something the ladies dont like"
          hes around at the time of kellys murder (whether you beleive in a kennedy or not)- Did he follow sarah lewis to millers court??

          Also, kennedy said she saw kelly with him at 3:00. Dosnt this cast doubt on hutchs statement? according to hutch isnt she still in her room with A man?
          could hutch have read about the accounts about BGB/BM and partially used him in his fake Aman account???

          what say you intrepid CB detectives?
          "Is all that we see or seem
          but a dream within a dream?"

          -Edgar Allan Poe


          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

          -Frederick G. Abberline

          Comment


          • Harry, I seriously think you are confusing 'witness' with 'suspect', Hutchinson was not a suspect.
            The guidelines for interviewing the two were very different, in fact, there were no procedures for interviewing a witness in 1888.
            A witness statement to police is not even 'sworn' to by the witness. A suspect on the other hand had certain rights and procedures had to be followed.
            That said, lets look at your reply..

            Originally posted by harry View Post
            What they have to prove Jon,is their name,place of residence,and a reason why they are witness to certain things that is subject to a police investigation.
            A witness is only asked to provide a name they are known by, it doesn't even have to be their real name. Also to 'establish' residence, and their reason for being at the scene. They can refuse either or any question because they are not suspected of involvement therefore anything they say to police is regarded as voluntary.

            In Hutchinson's case it was the murder of Kelly.That is for starters.Hutchinson himself introduces the destination of Romford,so no ,it cannot be changed to anything else,and the onus is on Hutchinson to give evidence that proves he did go to Romford.Any police investigation would be to verify that proof.That would stand for any claim Hutchinson made,and there were several.None seems to have been proven,except being at Crossinghams.
            It's clear you are assuming Hutchinson was a suspect, nothing above applies to the witness. The witness can reply "thats none of your business", and all the officer will do is respond with "ok, then lets move on...".

            There are several ways in which a witness statement can be tendered,acted on, and reported.There were two examples that evening,one involving a sergeant,the other Aberline.Now Aberline submitted a statement of interview which was not signed by Hutchinson,while the Sergeant conducted a record of interview which was signed by Hutchinson.Take your pick,in each the onus was on Hutchinson to prove his(Hutchinsons) claims.Any follow up would be by police to verify the claims.
            My point.The onus is very much on the witness to prove elements of a witness's involvement.
            Now,except for the sighting at Crossinghams,what elements of Hutchinson's statement might be accepted as proven?
            It's not like I don't understand your point, it's just that what you say does not apply to a witness.
            If Hutchinson had subsequently been charged he would have been read his rights, then interrogated, where every critical reply would be investigated. I think this is what you are getting at, but in this case he is 'suspected of involvement'. Hutchinson never was as far as we know.

            Look at all the statements given to Abberline from the residents of Millers Court, they were used at the inquest. None of those witnesses were interrogated, none had to prove their story. How did Maxwell 'prove' what she said?, truth is she didn't.
            Hutchinson's statement to police is no different to those given by the residents of Millers Court.

            We know from press reports that Abberline decided to interview Hutchinson himself after that initial statement was received, because of it's critical importance. A telegram was sent from Commercial St. to Scotland Yard, and Abberline with two or three other top detectives rushed in a cab to Commercial St. We read this in the press.
            This was out of the ordinary to interview a witness twice, but this was a unique situation.
            The written report of this second interview has not survived, but all the questions 'we' ask today would have been addressed in that second interview.


            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

              hi craig and wick

              the BGB/BM (bethnal green botherer/brittania man) is a very intriguing suspect IMHO:
              he generally fits the description of other witnesses
              hes accosting women and trying to get them to a secluded place
              hes frightening women
              hes carrying a knife size parcel (smiths man and others)
              he has a taunting/threatening/ teasing way of speaking-Marshalls man-"you would say anything but your prayers" ...Lewis-"something the ladies dont like"
              hes around at the time of kellys murder (whether you beleive in a kennedy or not)- Did he follow sarah lewis to millers court??

              Also, kennedy said she saw kelly with him at 3:00. Dosnt this cast doubt on hutchs statement? according to hutch isnt she still in her room with A man?
              could hutch have read about the accounts about BGB/BM and partially used him in his fake Aman account???

              what say you intrepid CB detectives?
              Abby.
              This Britannia-man is a natural and obvious suspect in my thinking. More so than any suspect ever considered by anyone, it's just a shame we don't have a name. Hence the interest in Craig's discovery.

              Yes, I agree there is a coincidence between Kennedy's "about 3:00 am", in seeing Kelly, with Hutchinson leaving the scene at "3:00". An overlap would be a problem, a coincidence is not. If Kelly left only minutes after Hutch, she could still be outside the Britannia by 3:05 and seen by Kennedy as she came by.

              I speculated that Astrachan might have known he was being watched by Hutch, so as soon as Hutch left, so did Astrachan, to hi-tail it out of there, which leaves Kelly to go back out and look for another client.
              We all know these times are estimates anyway, even though the press seemed to push Hutchinson to provide times at the end of their interview. He didn't say anything about 3:00 to the police.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Interesting, Jon.

                I could certainly see Kelly and Astrachan both wanting to wait for Hutch to leave, if they knew he was hanging around like a bad smell. Astrachan didn't want any trouble from the man, and Kelly knew Hutch had no money for her, so avoiding him would make sense in case he was sniffing round for a freebie, or just somewhere to crash for the rest of the night. Hutch finally gives up and buggers off, close on 3am, followed by Astrachan and then Kelly, as soon as the coast is clear.

                Makes sense to me. More so now than if Blotchy or Astrachan murdered her, given that both men knew they had been seen - and could be described - as they arrived with the victim at the scene of crime.

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                Comment


                • Thankyou Caz.
                  An unexpected visit from one such as yourself is very welcome.

                  Yes, that interpretation is also consistent with what Hutch claimed about walking up the court and standing outside her room trying to see or hear something. He said he heard nothing, which must be regarded as unusual, unless of course they both knew someone was outside. They must have been aware of him watching them from opposite the court, and likely heard his footsteps coming down the passage, they sat still & quiet.

                  If they had not been aware of his presence, or oblivious to his interest, we would expect him to hear voices, laughing, and some sort of entertainment going on.
                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • I was thinking along the lines of stifled giggles and silent fumbling, Jon, wishing that Hutch would sling his hook.

                    The way my mind works I guess.

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X
                    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by caz View Post
                      I was thinking along the lines of stifled giggles and silent fumbling, Jon,....
                      Perhaps it's best we keep our personal experiences to ourselves....


                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                        hi craig and wick

                        the BGB/BM (bethnal green botherer/brittania man) is a very intriguing suspect IMHO:
                        he generally fits the description of other witnesses
                        hes accosting women and trying to get them to a secluded place
                        hes frightening women
                        hes carrying a knife size parcel (smiths man and others)
                        he has a taunting/threatening/ teasing way of speaking-Marshalls man-"you would say anything but your prayers" ...Lewis-"something the ladies dont like"
                        hes around at the time of kellys murder (whether you beleive in a kennedy or not)- Did he follow sarah lewis to millers court??

                        Also, kennedy said she saw kelly with him at 3:00. Dosnt this cast doubt on hutchs statement? according to hutch isnt she still in her room with A man?
                        could hutch have read about the accounts about BGB/BM and partially used him in his fake Aman account???

                        what say you intrepid CB detectives?
                        Hi Abby

                        Good to hear from you and your interest in this one !

                        I agree with you that Brittania Man sounds a likely suspect. Jon has been mentioning this on different posts for a while and when you look at it, it makes sense.

                        Also makes sense that Kelly went out that night looking for customers. She had already had a customer with Blotchy, and we know rent was due.

                        The Kennedy sighting of her at 3 a.m with the man who previously accosted her (with the unusual eyes) is important as it gives a link back to Stride.

                        What I like about this theory is the unusual description by Best & Gardner about sore eyes and no eyelashes. I'll do some more research into Joseph Bamford.

                        All the best, Craig

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                          I took a poke.

                          Around the same time, there was a Joseph Bamford wanted for deserting his family, but he's listed as being from Shawclough, Rochdale, which is about 35 miles from Northwich, so it's unclear if it's the same man.

                          The reward for his whereabouts was listed in the Poor Law Unions' Gazette, 8 December 1888, under Rochdale Union. I think "Well Brow" is Well Brow Terrace, which was a street in Shawclough.

                          Obviously, it may not be related, but there was a warrant, presumably issued in November 1888.

                          Click image for larger version

Name:	bamford.JPG
Views:	109
Size:	31.3 KB
ID:	760059
                          Thanks RJ. I wonder if this Joseph Bamford (from Shawclough, Rochdale) who has a warrant in November 1888 for deserting his family is the same Joseph Bamford (with the sore eyes and no eyelashes who matches description of Best & Gardner’s suspect) with a warrant issued in Northwich from 23 November 1888 for embezzling 45 pound gold and silver.

                          It could make sense. I’m not from UK so don’t know the geography. I gather Northwich is a larger town. Bamford may have gone there after leaving Rochdale.

                          There is a Joseph Bamford (21 y.o, bn 1853) who married Elizabeth Martins (18 y.o, bn 1855) in Spotland, St Clement, Rochdale (which is a short distance south of Shawclough) in May 1873. Joseph’s job on Banns is listed as silk cutter.

                          This may have been a “shotgun” wedding as their son Arthur Bamford was born in September 1873 in Rochdale.

                          Joseph’s wife, Elizabeth (Betty) Bamford, died in September, 1880 in Rochester.

                          The 1881 Census has Joseph Bamford as a lodger in Newton, Manchester with his 8 year old son, Arthur. Joseph’s job is a fustian cutter, so working in a textile mill.

                          In 1884, Joseph married Emma Latham (bn 1866).

                          It appears they immigrated to the USA late 1888 or 1889.

                          Familysearch shows “Arthur Bamford, 24 y.o bn 1874. Parents joseph bamford and elzabeth martin. Married Martha Whitehead 23 y.o. Parents Edwin and Harriet. Married on 9 March 1898 in Lowell, Middlesex, Massachusetts”

                          Familysearch 1910 Census has a Joseph Bamford, wife Emma (bn 1866) living in North Andover, Essex, Massachusetts. with children james bn england 1887 and others bn in usa Edith 1891 ++. Joseph was naturalised in 1889. Joseph was an overseer in a woolen mill.

                          So short story …. Wonder if Joseph Bamford immigrated to USA in early 1889 to escape warrant ?

                          Craig

                          Comment


                          • I am not confused about anything regarding witness statements Jon and I am not treating Hutchinson as a suspect,nor have I written regarding proceedures.Do'nt introduce subjects that are not relevent or not having been written of.You claimed witnesses do not have to prove anything,let us stick to that.You are wrong.
                            Hutchinson was involved as a witness the moment he walked into that police station and stated his reasons for being there,and those reasons are well known.Whatever his rights,it is obvious he voluntarily gave evidence to Aberline and Badham.That evidence contained information that was not then known to the police,and had not,and has not, been proven to have occured by any other source.So the provenance is upon Hutchinson.Only he can identify the man he says met Kelly.The proof lies entirely with Hutchinson on that score alone.
                            As to identyfying himself,the proof lies with him,Hutchinson.Generally it need be sufficient to satisfy a person qualified to ask,and that person must have a lawful reason to ask.Both Aberline and Badham qualified.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Craig H View Post
                              In 1884, Joseph married Emma Latham (bn 1866).

                              It appears they immigrated to the USA late 1888 or 1889.

                              Familysearch shows “Arthur Bamford, 24 y.o bn 1874. Parents joseph bamford and elzabeth martin. Married Martha Whitehead 23 y.o. Parents Edwin and Harriet. Married on 9 March 1898 in Lowell, Middlesex, Massachusetts”

                              Familysearch 1910 Census has a Joseph Bamford, wife Emma (bn 1866) living in North Andover, Essex, Massachusetts. with children james bn england 1887 and others bn in usa Edith 1891 ++. Joseph was naturalised in 1889. Joseph was an overseer in a woolen mill.

                              So short story …. Wonder if Joseph Bamford immigrated to USA in early 1889 to escape warrant ?

                              Craig
                              This looks like you have the right guy, Craig. The birth date you give for the son James is 1887, but his birth year is listed as 1888 in the 1920 Census for North Andover, Mass, which also lists his name as "James L Bamford."


                              Click image for larger version  Name:	1920.JPG Views:	0 Size:	33.4 KB ID:	760133



                              I took a stab that "L" might have stood for Latham, his mother's maiden name, and hit a bull's eye. His draft card exists. His full name was James Latham Bamford and he was actually born in August 1886 in Winsford, UK, which is a village only 5 miles south of Northwich. So presumably, that's were your man Joseph Bamford was at the time, and this suggests he was the embezzler.


                              Click image for larger version  Name:	James Latham Bamford.JPG Views:	0 Size:	113.8 KB ID:	760134


                              The good news is that you found him; the bad news is that there doesn't really appear to be anything yet that ties him to London.

                              Happy Hunting.

                              Comment


                              • P.S. I'm one of those annoying Doubting Thomas types that thinks Sarah Lewis and "Mrs. Kennedy" might be the same person, but I'm open to persuasion if anyone can come up with the goods.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X