Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

George Hutchinson Revisited

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

  • Wickerman
    replied
    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.


    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • harry
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Craig H
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    It might be worthwhile mentioning that Lewis came past the Britannia about or before 2:30 am and saw a man & woman, while Kennedy came past a half-hour later, about 3:00 am., and saw Kelly with a man & woman.

    Lewis saw Hutch standing in Dorset St., and Kelly with a man walking ahead of her, then enter Millers Court.

    Kennedy did not see Hutch, he had gone by 3:00 am.
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • harry
    replied

    'A witness doesn't have to prove anything',and'What has Romford to do with a murder investigation'.You serious about those claims Jon?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.
    Hutchinson had to prove something to Aberline for the later to form an opinion .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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    They were friends, it's another one of those terms that has mostly died out.
    This is from a 19th century dictionary.."a close female friend".






    Lewis said she saw a man & woman go up the court/passage, Lewis then noticed Hutch standing opposite.

    He was looking up the court as if he was waiting for some one. I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court.



    It would appear Lewis was walking towards Millers Court, the couple were ahead of her.



    It's all put together from what we read in the press & police reports.
    You want it again?
    thanks wick. no i got it. the bethnal green botherer could be the ripper imho. he reminds me of marshalls man a bit too

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Craig H View Post
    ...

    Sarah Lewis & Mrs Kennedy (the night before Kelly died)
    Were standing outside the Britannia and approached by a man. They noticed the unnatural glare of the man's eyes.
    It might be worthwhile mentioning that Lewis came past the Britannia about or before 2:30 am and saw a man & woman, while Kennedy came past a half-hour later, about 3:00 am., and saw Kelly with a man & woman.

    Lewis saw Hutch standing in Dorset St., and Kelly with a man walking ahead of her, then enter Millers Court.

    Kennedy did not see Hutch, he had gone by 3:00 am.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Craig H View Post

    The image has Joseph Bamford's occupation as an "operative". Any one know what that means ? Is that like a "machine operator"
    Ancestry.com has a Joseph Bamford bn 1853 in Rochdale, Lancashire living with his grandfather in 1861 Census.
    in 1881 Census, he is a widower with 7 year old son Arthur living in Newton, Lancashire. His job is a "fustian cutter" which I understand is cutting threads / textiles.
    I can't find him in 1891 census.
    Wonder if this is him ?
    Craig
    This is from a 19th century Websters...

    Leave a comment:


  • Craig H
    replied
    My understanding of the “Britannia-man theory”

    STRIDE murder

    Best and Gardner witness (11 p.m)

    Elizabeth Stride was seen at 11 p.m (so 90 minutes before she died) with a man at the Bricklayers Arms pub by Best and Gardner who gave a detailed description of the couple.
    They were surprised by how affectionate the man was “He was hugging her and kissing her, and as he seemed a respectably dressed man, we were rather astonished at the way he was going on with the woman, who was poorly dressed”
    Best described the man as “about 5ft. 5in. in height. He was well dressed in a black morning suit with a morning coat. He had rather weak eyes. I mean he had sore eyes without any eyelashes. I should know the man again amongst a hundred. He had a thick black moustache and no beard. He wore a black billycock hat, rather tall, and had on a collar. I don't know the colour of his tie. I said to the woman, "that's Leather Apron getting round you." The man was no foreigner; he was an Englishman right enough."
    One of the unusual features was the comment about his “sore eyes without eyelashes”.

    William Marshall witness (11.45 p.m)
    Marshall saw Stride at 11.45 a.m with a man in a black cut-away coat and trousers, middle aged, 5 ft 6 in, decently dressed, a business man (a clerk), wearing a round cap with a peak.
    He was kissing her. Marshall heard him say “you would say anything but your prayers”

    PC Smith witness (12.30 p.m)
    Smith saw the couple and described the man as 5 ft 7 in, dark clothes, cutaway coat, respectable experience, carrying a parcel wrapped in newspaper (18 inch long, 6 in wide)

    One theory is this was the same man who had been with Stride since 11 p.m. It was therefore someone she knew or was comfortable with.

    KELLY MURDER

    Lawende witness
    Height 5’ 7-9. Fair complexion. Small fair moustache. Red necktie. Rough/shabby. Wearing a loose pepper and salt jacket and grey cloth cap.

    Harry Bowyer witness (night before she dired)
    Saw a man talking with Mary Kelly in Millers Court the night before she was murdered,. He was 27 – 28 years old, had a dark moustache and very peculiar eyes. His appearance was rather smart and attention was drawn to him by showing very white cuffs and a rather long white collar, the ends of which came down in front over a black coat.

    Sarah Lewis & Mrs Kennedy (the night before Kelly died)
    Were standing outside the Britannia and approached by a man. They noticed the unnatural glare of the man's eyes.

    THE EYES
    My understanding of the theory is the peculiar eyes are due to the man having Madarosis. One of the causes is syphilis.
    This could be a potential motive for attacking prostitutes as he believed they gave him syphilis ?

    Craig


    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    ok thanks!
    More questions:

    lewis and kennedy are sisters then? or freinds?
    They were friends, it's another one of those terms that has mostly died out.
    This is from a 19th century dictionary.."a close female friend".




    also, how does lewis see aman and kelly go into the court together,...
    Lewis said she saw a man & woman go up the court/passage, Lewis then noticed Hutch standing opposite.

    He was looking up the court as if he was waiting for some one. I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court.

    Is she following all of them a little behind?
    It would appear Lewis was walking towards Millers Court, the couple were ahead of her.

    whats your whole lewis, kennedy, keylers, hutch, kelly and aman series of events/theory again?
    It's all put together from what we read in the press & police reports.
    You want it again?

    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:	232
Size:	31.3 KB
ID:	760059
    The image has Joseph Bamford's occupation as an "operative". Any one know what that means ? Is that like a "machine operator"
    Ancestry.com has a Joseph Bamford bn 1853 in Rochdale, Lancashire living with his grandfather in 1861 Census.
    in 1881 Census, he is a widower with 7 year old son Arthur living in Newton, Lancashire. His job is a "fustian cutter" which I understand is cutting threads / textiles.
    I can't find him in 1891 census.
    Wonder if this is him ?
    Craig

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    Yes.



    Lewis & Kennedy recognised him on Friday morning as the man who accosted them the previous Wednesday.
    ok thanks!
    More questions:

    lewis and kennedy are sisters then? or freinds?
    also, how does lewis see aman and kelly go into the court together, when they are already in her place, after followed by hutch and hes taken up his vigil watching? Is she following all of them a little behind?
    whats your whole lewis, kennedy, keylers, hutch, kelly and aman series of events/theory again?

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    Thanks wick
    So let me get this straight. Sarah lewis and friend are freightened by the brittania man/BGB on the previous wed. (Im just going to call him the BGB for simplicity)She sees him again the night kelly is murdered with another woman as she makes her way to the keylers. then in your opinion after her jaunt with Aman, Kelly goes back out where she meets up with the BGB and is seen by kennedy at the brittania. they go back to her place and she is murdered by the BGB.

    Is that it?
    Yes.

    also, why do you think the BGB and the brittania man are the same?
    Lewis & Kennedy recognised him on Friday morning as the man who accosted them the previous Wednesday.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X