Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

George Hutchinson Revisited

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

  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by harry View Post
    Yes Jon,I have provided information of what was claimed by Hutchinson,and the elements that have not been proven,but as you seem unable to comprehend,here they are again.
    An inability to comprehend is not the problem, it's making sure both of us are talking about the same thing.
    Like, here you go again...

    The going to Romford,the walking back,being approached by Kelly,Kelly meeting a male person,both Kelly and the male walking back to and entering Millers court,Hutchinson waiting untill 3AM outside the court,then walking the streets of Whitechapel.
    The trip to/from Romford could have been confirmed by telegram within the hour.
    Admitting to being approached by Kelly, when Kelly has been murdered, is like putting his head in the lions mouth.
    Only a third person can prove this, and that is where Sarah Lewis comes in. And she lived across the street from Commercial St. station. Although she did not know Kelly by sight, her testimony corroborates that part of Hutchinson's story.

    Yes it is a broad statement,and one might expect that some could be proven.but no,not Hutchinson,not Aberline not you,not anyone has provided proof those events occured.
    Any proof will have been obtained by Abberline, yet you think it should have survived for your perusal 130 odd years later?
    I'd like to hear your justification for your claim that nothing was proven.

    No,the excuse of lost papers,your usual get out will not work.What never existed cannot be lost.How do I know they never existed?.Simply because you would be posting with glee and printing the news in capitals had they been,and if not you there would be others.
    Wait, ...what?
    You think paperwork confirming some of Hutchinson's claims never existed?
    Explain that if you can.
    I'd like to hear why you think Abberline tried, but failed, to confirm anything, yet gave his approval of Hutch's story to his superiors. An extremely irresponsible position for him to take, unless he had placed a caveat on that opinion by saying "although we were unable to confirm his story....."
    On the other hand, maybe you think he didn't even try?

    When a witness claims to have seen the most wanted man in the country, you truly think the police wouldn't bother trying to confirm anything he said?
    Unless you have a third option, I can't see either of those positions making any sense whatsoever.

    Well Aberline was professional enough to form an opinion,because that is what he did.One might have expected more considering his position and powers,Hutchinson's enthusiasm to assist,and your unswerving respect for his prowess,but no,all we have is opinion.Not much is it.
    Lets say he did investigate those points, and confirmed them all. What do you think he should have written to his superiors?
    Even if what Hutch claimed turned out to be factual, the Home Office still expect Abberline's opinion.

    Well Jon ,as the armchair detective you imply but does not name,not that it offends me,I have an opinion too,but as opinions are not evidence.it would make no difference even if I printed it. but it is no different from many others,so I am in good company.
    We're both armchair detectives, the difference is, I don't think I know better than the only professional opinion we have. Whereas you seem to think he was wrong to accept Hutch, yet you have no idea why.

    Leave a comment:


  • harry
    replied
    Yes Jon,I have provided information of what was claimed by Hutchinson,and the elements that have not been proven,but as you seem unable to comprehend,here they are again.The going to Romford,the walking back,being approached by Kelly,Kelly meeting a male person,both Kelly and the male walking back to and entering Millers court,Hutchinson waiting untill 3AM outside the court,then walking the streets of Whitechapel.Yes it is a broad statement,and one might expect that some could be proven.but no,not Hutchinson,not Aberline not you,not anyone has provided proof those events occured.No,the excuse of lost papers,your usual get out will not work.What never existed cannot be lost.How do I know they never existed?.Simply because you would be posting with glee and printing the news in capitals had they been,and if not you there would be others.
    Well Aberline was professional enough to form an opinion,because that is what he did.One might have expected more considering his position and powers,Hutchinson's enthusiasm to assist,and your unswerving respect for his prowess,but no,all we have is opinion.Not much is it.
    Well Jon ,as the armchair detective you imply but does not name,not that it offends me,I have an opinion too,but as opinions are not evidence.it would make no difference even if I printed it. but it is no different from many others,so I am in good company.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    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.
    Hi RJ, I think the significant points are these:

    Sarah Lewis gave 24 Great Pearl Street as her address.
    Mrs Kennedy lived at 2 Millers Court with her parents, Mr & Mrs Gallagher/Keyler (likely a case of mispronunciation?)

    Lewis & Kennedy experienced the same man accosting them on Wednesday evening.
    Lewis called Kennedy her 'friend'.
    Kennedy called Lewis her 'sister'.

    Lewis passed the Britannia on Friday morning and saw the same 'Wednesday' man, with one woman, at about 2:30 am.
    Kennedy passed the Britannia on Friday morning and saw the same 'Wednesday' man with two women, at about 3:00 am, one of the women she identified as Mary Kelly.

    Lewis admitted she did not know Mary Kelly by sight.

    Lewis walked down Dorset St. and saw a man loitering opposite Millers Court (Hutchinson), plus a man & woman ahead who walked up the passage into Millers Court.
    Kennedy walked down Dorset St. and made no mention of seeing anyone.

    Both Lewis & Kennedy's stories while staying overnight at No.2 about hearing a cry of murder roughly between 3:30-4:00am are basically the same.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by harry View Post
    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.
    That's a pretty broad statement, there are many details raised by Hutchinson and I'm not aware of any written record identifying what had been proven, and what wasn't.
    You seem to be quite insistent that nothing was proven. Given the vast majority of paperwork has been lost, perhaps you can clarify precisely what was not proven and how you know?

    So the provenance is upon Hutchinson.
    Provenance is Hutchinson himself, it isn't 'upon' him, it 'is' him.
    Do you mean 'onus', or 'burden'?, either way it isn't.
    Voluntary information does not have to be proven by the witness.
    Any witness can provide information and simply walk away.

    Only he can identify the man he says met Kelly......The proof lies entirely with Hutchinson on that score alone.
    Yes, I know. It isn't up to Hutchinson to find the man, that is the job of police. So anyone they do find should be placed in an ID lineup in front of Hutchinson. However, if they do not find the man, that does not mean Hutchinson is at fault in any way.
    Therefore, there is no requirement nor expectation for Hutchinson to prove anything.

    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.
    Apparently, Hutchinson did satisfy Abberline, he was not required to prove his identity to Badham.
    Remember anonymous tips?

    I really do not see where this is going, you complained that I accepted Hutchinson's story without any proof.
    You seem to think that is wrong, but police do that all the time. It is entirely a police decision whether to investigate the story, or certain details within a story, so when they go to trial (not an inquest), they will be prepared for defense questions who will try to contest the witness's story.
    This is why we can be sure Abberline thoroughly questioned Hutchinson, regardless whether any armchair detective a century later thinks he couldn't because he didn't have the time.
    I accept Hutchinson's story because Abberline accepted it, and he was the professional here, not me, and not you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Craig H
    replied
    Hi RJ,

    Yes, I think you're right - I don't think he's the "Joseph Bamford" with the warrant in Northwich !

    Also, the Northwich Bamford's crime was embezzling 45 pound gold and silver (which is worth about 6,000 pound today). I don't know a lot about embezzling, but think it's taking money from the organisation you work for.

    So this means this Bamford was either an owner, controller, book keeper of an organisation. Which is closer to description of Marshall / Smith who said man looked respectable, clerk-like.

    Will keep hunting !! Any ideas ?

    Craig

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • harry
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Craig H
    replied
    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:	231
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

    Leave a comment:


  • Craig H
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    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....


    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X