George Hutchinson Revisited

[Curious Cat]

Didn't you write this?
"I've stood on the spot he claims to have stood outside The Queen's Head pub and watched Mary Kelly and Astrakhan the whole time they walked up towards him from between Trawl Street and Flower and Dean Street."
https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...562#post759562



So now I hope you understand Hutch was not AT the Queens Head when Kelly & Astrachan were walking between Thrawl & F & Dean.
He was there on the same block with them.

My reply to this post a year ago was lost due to some technical burp that wiped the whole thing shortly before I was about to hit the send button. Goodness knows I wasn't going to type it all again so thought I'd get back to it at the weekend. 52 weekends later I've finally got round to it. And goodness knows again I'm not going through every point as I did last time. But I will clarify this one point.

By 'whole time' I was referring to when Hutchinson was leaning on the lamp post, not any stage he was at before taking up that position. In his statement Hutchinson suggests he watched Mary Kelly and the man she was with the whole time he was leaning against the lamp, which was outside The Queen's Head pub. I wasn't suggesting he was watching them the whole time they walked from the corner of Thrawl Street towards The Queen's Head pub. The opportunity to 'watch' them from this stationary position at the lamp is almost non-existent. They would have been in darkness until reaching the corner of Fashion Street. The lamp opposite Thrawl Street was too far away and the lamp in Flower & Dean Street was obscured. They would only have become visible to Hutchinson as they passed No.70 and came into the light of the very lamp he was leaning against outside The Queen's Head. Add that the angle of Commercial Street means he wouldn't have been able to see the corner of Flower & Dean Street even in full daylight from that position, he cannot have "watched" the man from any real distance for any significant time.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Point is that there are reports of a person of similar description, the staring eyes, hard felt deerstalker and shiny black bag, across the entire range of canonical victims. Pity there is no physical description of Kosminsky with which to make a comparison.

Cheers, George

ok thanks!

[GBinOz]

hi gb
interesting but whats your point? that they resemble the bgb? please elaborate, im a little slow on the uptake.

Hi Abby,

Point is that there are reports of a person of similar description, the staring eyes, hard felt deerstalker and shiny black bag, across the entire range of canonical victims. Pity there is no physical description of Kosminsky with which to make a comparison.

Cheers, George

[Abby Normal]

Hi Craig, Wick and Abby,

This is from the Daily Telegraph dated 6 Oct 1888:

SKETCH PORTRAITS OF THE SUPPOSED MURDERER.
[Two sketches]

The next portion of this issue's report from "The above sketches…" to "…for rain was falling at the time." is reproduced in "News from Whitechapel" pages 124 - 126. Immediately following that on from that portion, the Telegraph reported:

It is a remarkable circumstance - much more than an ordinary coincidence - that the description of the supposed murderer given by Packer was yesterday confirmed by another man who, without being aware of the fact, also chose from the sketches the one which had been already selected by Packer. Search for an individual answering to the description above detailed, but having a small moustache and wearing a black deerstalker felt hat, instead of a soft one, has been made by the police in Whitechapel ever since Saturday, Sept. 1, the day following the Buck's-row tragedy. Information was tendered at the King David's-lane Police Station, at about that time, by a dairyman who has a place of business in Little Turner-street, Commercial-road. It will be recollected that on Saturday, Sept. 1, a desperate assault was reported to have been committed near to the music-hall in Cambridge-heath-road, a man having seized a woman by the throat and dragged her down a court, where he was joined by a gang, one of whom laid a knife across the woman's throat, remarking "we will serve you as we did the others." The particulars of this affair were subsequently stated to be untrue; but the milkman has reason to suppose that the outrage was actually perpetrated, and he suspects that the murderer of Mary Ann Nicholls in Buck's-row had something to do with it. At any rate, upon that Saturday night, at five minutes to eleven o'clock, a man corresponding with the description given by Packer of the individual who purchased the grapes in Berner-street, called at the shop, which is on the left of a covered yard, usually occupied by barrows, which are let out on hire. He was in a hurry, and he asked for a pennyworth of milk, with which he was served, and he drank it down at a gulp. Asking permission to go into the yard or shed, he went there, but the dairyman caught a glimpse of something white, and, having suspicions, he rejoined the man in the shed, and was surprised to observe that he had covered up his trousers with a pair of white over-alls, such as engineers wear. The man had a staring look, and appeared greatly agitated. He made a movement forward, and the brim of his hard felt hat struck the dairyman, who is therefore sure of the kind that he was wearing. In a hurried manner the stranger took out of a black shiny bag, which was on the ground, a white jacket and rapidly put it on, completely hiding his cutaway black coat, remarking meanwhile, "It's a dreadful murder, isn't it?" although the subject had not been previously mentioned. Without making a pause the suspicious person caught up his bag, which was still open, and rushed into the street, towards Shadwell, saying, "I think I've got a clue!" The matter was reported to the police, and although strict watch has been maintained for the reappearance of the man he has not been seen in the street since. He is said to have had a dark complexion, such as a seafaring man acquires. The style of collar that he was then wearing was of the turn-down pattern. He had no marked American accent, and his general appearance was that of a clerk or student whose beard had been allowed three days' growth. His hair was dark, and his eyes large and staring. The portrait gives, according to the statement of the witness, a good approximate idea of his look. The bag carried by the young man, whose age the dairyman places at twenty-eight, is stated to have been provided with a lock at the top, near the handle, and was made, as stated, of a black glistening material.

Immediately following on from the above, the next portion of this issue's report from "In connection with…" to "…the morning of the murder in Berner-street." is reproduced in "News from Whitechapel" page 126. Immediately following that portion the Telegraph reported:

Albert Bachert, of 13, Newnham-street, Whitechapel, has also stated: "On Saturday night at about seven minutes to twelve I entered the Three Nuns Hotel, Aldgate. While in there an elderly woman, very shabbily dressed, came in and asked me to buy some matches. I refused, and she went out. A man who had been standing by me remarked that those persons were a nuisance, to which I responded 'Yes.' He then asked me to have a glass with him, but I refused, as I had just called for one myself. He then asked me if I knew how old some of the women were who were in the habit of soliciting outside. I replied that I knew or thought that some of them who looked about 25 were over 35, the reason they looked younger being on account of the powder and paint. He asked me if I could tell him where they usually visited, and I replied that I had heard that some went to places in Oxford-street, Whitechapel, others to some houses in Whitechapel-road, and others to Bishopsgate-street. Having asked other questions about their habits, he went outside and spoke to the woman who was selling matches, and gave her something, I believe. He returned to me, and I bid him good-night at about ten minutes past twelve. I believe the woman was waiting for him. I do not think I could identify the woman, as I did not take particular notice of her, but I should know the man again. He was a dark man, height about 5ft. 6in. or 7in. He wore a black felt hat, dark clothes, morning coat, black tie, and carried a black shiny bag."

There is one striking point in Bachert's narration. His interrogator appears to have asked him particularly about the age of the women outside. Hitherto it has been singular that none of the victims were young women, all of them having been over forty years of age. With respect to the age of their assailant the witnesses differ, but the police in connection with the Berner-street tragedy circulate the following description of a man "wanted," as having been seen in the company of the deceased during the Saturday evening: "Age twenty-eight; slight; height 5ft. 8in.; complexion dark; no whiskers; black diagonal coat, hard felt hat; collar and tie; carried newspaper parcel; respectable appearance." The age, twenty-eight, herein named, is favoured by two witnesses, whilst Bachert thinks he was a little older, and, assuming that the same man was also seen by Mrs. Long, who gave evidence at the Hanbury-street inquest, he must have been forty. In the interval he may have taken pains to alter his personal appearance by shaving, so as to elude detection. Mrs. Long is the person who saw Annie Chapman in Hanbury-street shortly before her death, and at that time, 5.30 a.m. on Sept. 8, she was talking to a dark man, who was wearing a "brown low-crowned felt hat, and who had the appearance of a 'shabby genteel' foreigner." A thoroughly practical suggestion has been made for the Scotland-yard authorities to adopt. In their possession at Whitehall they have some thousands of photographs of criminals, with full particulars concerning their convictions. These are kept bound in registers, which can be consulted easily. If the witnesses who are believed to have seen the Whitechapel murderer were permitted to examine these records one or other of them might possibly find a face which would serve to identify the suspect, and, if not, the fact might be presumptively established that the detectives need not look for the man in the ranks of recognised criminals.

Cheers, George

hi gb
interesting but whats your point? that they resemble the bgb? please elaborate, im a little slow on the uptake.
re the photographs. ive often said the police should have photgraphed all the suspects AND the male witnesses who could have been the killer, like hutch lech bowyer etc., to also show other witnesses.

[GBinOz]

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 Craig, Wick and Abby,

This is from the Daily Telegraph dated 6 Oct 1888:

SKETCH PORTRAITS OF THE SUPPOSED MURDERER.
[Two sketches]

The next portion of this issue's report from "The above sketches…" to "…for rain was falling at the time." is reproduced in "News from Whitechapel" pages 124 - 126. Immediately following that on from that portion, the Telegraph reported:

It is a remarkable circumstance - much more than an ordinary coincidence - that the description of the supposed murderer given by Packer was yesterday confirmed by another man who, without being aware of the fact, also chose from the sketches the one which had been already selected by Packer. Search for an individual answering to the description above detailed, but having a small moustache and wearing a black deerstalker felt hat, instead of a soft one, has been made by the police in Whitechapel ever since Saturday, Sept. 1, the day following the Buck's-row tragedy. Information was tendered at the King David's-lane Police Station, at about that time, by a dairyman who has a place of business in Little Turner-street, Commercial-road. It will be recollected that on Saturday, Sept. 1, a desperate assault was reported to have been committed near to the music-hall in Cambridge-heath-road, a man having seized a woman by the throat and dragged her down a court, where he was joined by a gang, one of whom laid a knife across the woman's throat, remarking "we will serve you as we did the others." The particulars of this affair were subsequently stated to be untrue; but the milkman has reason to suppose that the outrage was actually perpetrated, and he suspects that the murderer of Mary Ann Nicholls in Buck's-row had something to do with it. At any rate, upon that Saturday night, at five minutes to eleven o'clock, a man corresponding with the description given by Packer of the individual who purchased the grapes in Berner-street, called at the shop, which is on the left of a covered yard, usually occupied by barrows, which are let out on hire. He was in a hurry, and he asked for a pennyworth of milk, with which he was served, and he drank it down at a gulp. Asking permission to go into the yard or shed, he went there, but the dairyman caught a glimpse of something white, and, having suspicions, he rejoined the man in the shed, and was surprised to observe that he had covered up his trousers with a pair of white over-alls, such as engineers wear. The man had a staring look, and appeared greatly agitated. He made a movement forward, and the brim of his hard felt hat struck the dairyman, who is therefore sure of the kind that he was wearing. In a hurried manner the stranger took out of a black shiny bag, which was on the ground, a white jacket and rapidly put it on, completely hiding his cutaway black coat, remarking meanwhile, "It's a dreadful murder, isn't it?" although the subject had not been previously mentioned. Without making a pause the suspicious person caught up his bag, which was still open, and rushed into the street, towards Shadwell, saying, "I think I've got a clue!" The matter was reported to the police, and although strict watch has been maintained for the reappearance of the man he has not been seen in the street since. He is said to have had a dark complexion, such as a seafaring man acquires. The style of collar that he was then wearing was of the turn-down pattern. He had no marked American accent, and his general appearance was that of a clerk or student whose beard had been allowed three days' growth. His hair was dark, and his eyes large and staring. The portrait gives, according to the statement of the witness, a good approximate idea of his look. The bag carried by the young man, whose age the dairyman places at twenty-eight, is stated to have been provided with a lock at the top, near the handle, and was made, as stated, of a black glistening material.

Immediately following on from the above, the next portion of this issue's report from "In connection with…" to "…the morning of the murder in Berner-street." is reproduced in "News from Whitechapel" page 126. Immediately following that portion the Telegraph reported:

Albert Bachert, of 13, Newnham-street, Whitechapel, has also stated: "On Saturday night at about seven minutes to twelve I entered the Three Nuns Hotel, Aldgate. While in there an elderly woman, very shabbily dressed, came in and asked me to buy some matches. I refused, and she went out. A man who had been standing by me remarked that those persons were a nuisance, to which I responded 'Yes.' He then asked me to have a glass with him, but I refused, as I had just called for one myself. He then asked me if I knew how old some of the women were who were in the habit of soliciting outside. I replied that I knew or thought that some of them who looked about 25 were over 35, the reason they looked younger being on account of the powder and paint. He asked me if I could tell him where they usually visited, and I replied that I had heard that some went to places in Oxford-street, Whitechapel, others to some houses in Whitechapel-road, and others to Bishopsgate-street. Having asked other questions about their habits, he went outside and spoke to the woman who was selling matches, and gave her something, I believe. He returned to me, and I bid him good-night at about ten minutes past twelve. I believe the woman was waiting for him. I do not think I could identify the woman, as I did not take particular notice of her, but I should know the man again. He was a dark man, height about 5ft. 6in. or 7in. He wore a black felt hat, dark clothes, morning coat, black tie, and carried a black shiny bag."

There is one striking point in Bachert's narration. His interrogator appears to have asked him particularly about the age of the women outside. Hitherto it has been singular that none of the victims were young women, all of them having been over forty years of age. With respect to the age of their assailant the witnesses differ, but the police in connection with the Berner-street tragedy circulate the following description of a man "wanted," as having been seen in the company of the deceased during the Saturday evening: "Age twenty-eight; slight; height 5ft. 8in.; complexion dark; no whiskers; black diagonal coat, hard felt hat; collar and tie; carried newspaper parcel; respectable appearance." The age, twenty-eight, herein named, is favoured by two witnesses, whilst Bachert thinks he was a little older, and, assuming that the same man was also seen by Mrs. Long, who gave evidence at the Hanbury-street inquest, he must have been forty. In the interval he may have taken pains to alter his personal appearance by shaving, so as to elude detection. Mrs. Long is the person who saw Annie Chapman in Hanbury-street shortly before her death, and at that time, 5.30 a.m. on Sept. 8, she was talking to a dark man, who was wearing a "brown low-crowned felt hat, and who had the appearance of a 'shabby genteel' foreigner." A thoroughly practical suggestion has been made for the Scotland-yard authorities to adopt. In their possession at Whitehall they have some thousands of photographs of criminals, with full particulars concerning their convictions. These are kept bound in registers, which can be consulted easily. If the witnesses who are believed to have seen the Whitechapel murderer were permitted to examine these records one or other of them might possibly find a face which would serve to identify the suspect, and, if not, the fact might be presumptively established that the detectives need not look for the man in the ranks of recognised criminals.

Cheers, George

[harry]

As law enforcement officers base their charges on what information can be prooved,and when that information is offered by witnesses,it is of the utmost importance that those witnesses are shown to be telling the truth.Aberline, by his choice of the word opinion,shows his belief in Hutchinson's truthfullness was not based on proof.
Here it is again.Opinion,a belief not based on proof. We should at least accept that Aberline knew the meaning of the word.
There is no follow up information that proves any investigation of Hutchinson was carried out,or that any of his claims were proven.Perhaps there was an attempt to do so,who knows,but it is useless to proceed in trying to establish facts,where information is lacking.

[caz]

Another thing to consider is that most people with something serious to hide wouldn't go to the police, during a major murder investigation, to volunteer a detailed but false witness statement, putting themselves close to the latest victim and to the location where her body was found, a bloody, unrecognisable mess. If they did, out of fear that they were seen there by someone who could identify them if they didn't come forward, they would have every reason not to then volunteer a similar false story to the newspapers, for the press and the public to judge in addition to the police.

A witness is just a witness, and has no need to be eliminated from the crime itself unless the police decide otherwise. The modern trend seems to be to treat every other male witness in the case as a valid suspect, as if the police were such fools that they missed all the signs that should have alerted them at the time. It has become a parlour game, with no prospect of winning.

Love,

Caz
X

[etenguy]

[...] here they are again.
The going to Romford, the walking back,

Hi Harry

You are correct, as far as I know, in stating there is no corroborating evidence that proves Hutchinson went to Romford and walked back. In terms of the substance of Hutchinson's statement, I don't see the importance of this element and wonder why he would lie about it. Also, I have seen no evidence that this is untrue.

being approached by Kelly,
Kelly meeting a male person,
both Kelly and the male walking back to and entering Millers court,

Again, this part of Hutchinson's statement relies solely on his statement. However, Sarah Lewis statement describes a man and woman walking into Miller's Court at a time that fits with Hutchinson's statement.

Hutchinson waiting untill 3AM outside the court,then walking the streets of Whitechapel.

Sarah Lewis statement describes a man waiting around the court at a time that fits with Hutchinson's statement.

So, although we have no definitive proof that Hutchinson's statement is true, we do have:
a) an experienced police officer stating he found the witness and his story credible
b) a witness who describes two elements of Hutchinson's statement, at a time that fits, which seems to corroborate the story.

If those two elements of the story are corroborated, then Hutchinson's description of Kelly meeting the man and taking him back seems to be a logical prequel and I can see no reason to doubt that in the circumstances. So not proven, but all other available evidence seems to corroborate his statement and there is no reason/evidence to suggest he lied. Therefore, surely we must conclude his statement is true - unless or until new evidence is found.

[caz]

What makes it toxic Jon,is your constant insertion of claims that are untrue.Your latest one,that i avoid admitting there is no evidence that Hutchinson lied about anything.Now I haven't used the word lie.I have pointed out there is no evidence,no proof,Hutchinson was in Romford,and that is truth not lies.As to being critical.you do your share of being critical of myself and others.
I haven't argued there wasn't time to investigate Hutchinson;s claims.Aberline had all the following day and weeks and months if neccessary.What I pointed out is no evidence exists to show an investigation was carried out.
What we have is Aberlines opinion. Opinion according to my dictionary is'A belief that is not based on proof'.
Now I have been reserved and polite in pointing the above out. I am the most reserved and polite person there can be?
What is pointless is your continual reference to lost or missing documents and files,and what they may contain.If they are lost and missing,and there is no recrd or detail of what they contained,how the hell would anyone know what is in them.

Hi harry,

Would you not agree that, given Abberline's opinion that Hutch's statement was true, there would have been a huge amount of pressure on the police to investigate his sighting, because he puts a man who has been described in great detail in the murder room with the victim, in the early hours of Friday morning?

Does it make any sense to you that a copper like Abberline would accept what Hutch was telling him, but then just forget about it? If his story was true it was an important lead; if not, he would need a very good explanation for lying about it, because if the man he described didn't exist, that would have put Hutch closest to the scene between 2 and 3 that morning, with no excuse for being there.

I'm trying hard to see your reasoning on this one.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Harry, it isn't clear whether you're only purpose here is to criticize me, or come up with some excuse to avoid admitting there is no evidence that Hutchinson lied about anything. The former is really pointless, the latter becomes tedious.
No paperwork survives to show if Abberline investigated Hutchinson's story.
For you to argue he didn't have the time is plainly wrong, he did have the time to verify some details.
For you to claim he didn't investigate anything, or that he did but failed, is just you guessing, and falling into the same trap you accuse me of - making claims without evidence.

This thread is unusual for one clear reason, collectively the posters are being reserved & polite. The toxic atmosphere that was always present in earlier Hutchinson threads is not present here, so lets try to continue this positive exchange.
If you have a genuine reason to dismiss Abberline's conclusions, or Hutchinson's story, lets stick to that and avoid the confrontational comments so frequently used in prior threads.

I suspect our harry wants to have it both ways. If he is right that no paperwork ever existed that provided confirmation - beyond Sarah Lewis's testimony - of any of the details given in Hutch's statement, then no paperwork existed that showed Abberline's opinion of its truthfulness to have been premature and in error.

If Abberline had no reason to change that opinion, and his superiors were also happy with it, would we not be less likely to see anything more in writing about it, than if something Hutch claimed was later found to be a blatant lie?

In either case, if the paperwork once existed to tell us either way, it was lost or destroyed at some point, so it's an argument that will not get harry anywhere.

Love,

Caz
X

[Craig H]

Hi RJ,

interesting find that the Joseph Bamford from Rochdale had a son (James Latham Bamford) born in 188 near Northwich.

I couldn’t find this James in Freebmd, but I did find him in familysearch.org. James Latham Bamford’s registration for draft (attached) states he was born on 27 August, 1886 in Winsford, Cheshire (which as you said is just south of Northwhich).

Joseph’s US records on familysearch also have a son, William (no middle name) around 1889.

The Marshalk1 family tree on Ancesty have him as the William Bamford bn 3 August, 1888 in Rochdale.

This may be immediately prior to Joseph’s warrant for deserting his family, and the family travelling to US.

Craig

The American census records has the Joseph Bamford (bn 1853 from Rochdale) with wife Emma.

I can’t find any details on Ancestry.com of Joseph and Emma married, or their children James and William being born.

However, the The AshleyFisher family tree (which has a lot of detail on Bamfords in England and then USA) has Emma Latham bn 16 January 1866 in Winsford, Cheshire to parents William Latham and Hannah Smith; and son James was born in Winsford in 1886.

This puts James Bamford from Rochdale close to Northwich where the embezzlement charge was.

Craig

[Craig H]

Hi Darryl,
Good to meet you
There are a LOT of Bamfords in the Rochdale and nearby area, so think it may be a connection.
All the best
Craig

[Darryl Kenyon]

Just a little side note. I live a couple of miles from Rochdale and Bamford is an area of Rochdale about a mile or so from me. The surname may derive from that area [ or there may have been a prominent family of Bamfords who gave their name to the said area ] . Hence a frequency in Rochdale.
Regards Darryl

[Craig H]

The Joseph Bamford that Craig already described (who left for American in 1888 or 1889) had a son born only 4 or 5 miles from Northwich in 1886.

Hi RJ,

interesting find that the Joseph Bamford from Rochdale had a son (James Latham Bamford) born in 188 near Northwich.

I couldn’t find this James in Freebmd, but I did find him in familysearch.org. James Latham Bamford’s registration for draft (attached) states he was born on 27 August, 1886 in Winsford, Cheshire (which as you said is just south of Northwhich).

Joseph’s US records on familysearch also have a son, William (no middle name) around 1889.

The Marshalk1 family tree on Ancesty have him as the William Bamford bn 3 August, 1888 in Rochdale.

This may be immediately prior to Joseph’s warrant for deserting his family, and the family travelling to US.

Craig

[Craig H]

Hi Jon,

Yes, the bookkeepr could be our man ! More likely to be embezzling than a coal miner or cab driver.

(Hi RJ, there are two Bamford’s on the 1881 Census living next door to each other (see attached). “John Bamford” is the “clerk unemployed. “Joseph Bamford” (married to Elizabeth with children Gertrude and Herbert) is the “bookkeeper”)

If this is the gas meter inspector in 1891, then he may have had to make a career move if caught embezzling.

I’m intrigued as to why the warrant was posted by Superintendent Naylor in Oakmere, Northwich.

There are not a lot of people living in Oakmere in 1891 Census. Mainly farmers. There does appear to be a Beerhouse or pub there, which could be likely location for embezzlement ?

Craig