George Hutchinson Revisited

[Wickerman]

RJ, the 1881 "Clerk Unemployed", wasn't that John Bamford?

[rjpalmer]

Just a little footnote to the previous post.
The 1891 Census suggests this Joseph Bamford had remarried.
His wife in 1881 was Elizabeth, age 24, born N. Wales, Brynford.
Whereas in 1891 his wife is MaryA E. (MaryAnn Elizabeth?), age 29, and born somewhere in Warwickshire? I'll have to get the microscope out....

I had a peek, Wick. It looks like she died in 1884.

I wonder why the transcriber listed this Bamford as "Bookkeeper Unemployed." The 1881 entry actually reads "clerk unemployed." In 1891 and 1901 he is a gas meter inspector living in Nottingham. (Which I now see you posted above).

So, unfortunately, he can't be shown to be living anywhere near Northwich in 1881, 1884, or 1891.

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.

[Wickerman]

Oh, by the way, in 1891 Joseph Bamford was employed as a Gas Meter Inspector - possibly not trusted with bookkeeping anymore?

[Wickerman]

Just a little footnote to the previous post.
The 1891 Census suggests this Joseph Bamford had remarried.
His wife in 1881 was Elizabeth, age 24, born N. Wales, Brynford.
Whereas in 1891 his wife is MaryA E. (MaryAnn Elizabeth?), age 29, and born somewhere in Warwickshire? I'll have to get the microscope out....

[Wickerman]

Can someone use their research magic to find any detail on this charge ? I don’t have access to newspaper archives.

The description of Joseph Bamford is similar to Best & Gardner’s description of the man with Stride.

The charge isn’t “larceny” (stealing from someone) but “embezzlement” (taking something your organisation owns).

However, the Police superintendent issuing the warrant is in Oakmere, a small township near Northwich. Most people living there are farmers.

It would great if there was some detail from a local paper

Craig

Hey Craig, there isn't much to go on for this character that we can use in Ancestry; name, age, where born - England?, an event - might be the warrant in Oakmere in 1888, gender - Male.
Thats about the size of it, which brings up 24 possibilities.
The first, born 1855, occupation - Silk Weaver.
Second, born 1853, was a French Dryer & Cleaner.
Third (drum roll please) born 1854 in Stockport - Occupation - Unemployed Bookkeeper.
Subsequent candidates were; Coal Miner, Cab Driver, or Carpenter, so it looks provisionally like No.3 is the best candidate.

1881 Census.

Joseph Bamford

27

abt 1854

Head

Elizabeth Bamford

Male

Stockport, Cheshire, England

Newton

Lancashire

England

45 Silver St

Married

Bookkeeper Unemployed

Prestwich

[harry]

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.

[Scott Nelson]

The toxic atmosphere that was always present in earlier Hutchinson threads is not present here, so lets try to continue this positive exchange.

I'm trying to coax Fisherman and Ben Holm back to this topic. Good idea, or no?

[Wickerman]

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.

[harry]

I have never written that Aberline accepted Hutchinson's story Jon.I do not,as you do, accept that' opinion' of honesty,is ' provenence ' of honesty.Hutchinson was either telling the truth or he was lying.Aberline elected not to choose either,instead opting for a middle road of opinion,which neither proves nor disaproves Hutchinsons claims.
Of those 1600 files Jon,how many relate to Hutchinson.Very few.but of inportance ,we do have the original interview account,and Aberlines report is also available,and that enables a means of discussion that is lacking in other witness accounts.
But it is true that a lot of paperwork has survived.The newspaper reports for instance,a favourite reference of yours,and many others,and the only source in many cases,is plentiful and easy to access.
Of course Jon I want to choose my own dialogue,but it conforms to a structure and language that was in use in Victorian times.Are you of the opinion that i should conform to something you prefer,which seems in your opinionated mind,a superior and educated version?You w ant to make the rules now?
I am thinking things through very carefully.You should attempt,though it may be beyond you,to do the same.

[Wickerman]

'The trip to Romford could have been confirmed within the hour'.Likely true Jon,the question is was it? What evidence is there to show Aberline checked or ordered a check?Sarah lewis can only confirm a man standing outside Crossinghams,she is not witness to anything else that man has done,so her testimony does not corroberate a Hutchinson/Kelly meeting in Commercial Street. Why do you persist in posting such nonsense.

These are short clips from her testimony, as read in the press.

- I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court.

- When I went in the court I saw a man opposite the Court in Dorset Street standing alone by the Lodging House.

It's "nonsense" like this which corroborates that part of Hutchinson's story.

What her testimony does is prove Hutch was where he said he was, when he said he was. It also proves this client with Kelly existed, he was not an invention. Lewis did not know the man & woman she saw walk up the passage, she merely verifies Hutch was watching a man & woman go into Millers Court at that time.

Quite a deal of paperwork has survived,....

That isn't true, very little has survived.
Abberline even tells us 1600 files were created on this case, we don't even have 1600 single pieces of paper.

.....and the Hutchinson interview and Aberlines report are two that have been the basis and main topic of arguement for years.If anything had been proven Aberline would not have been reduced to stating an opinion,(neither would you)he /you would have able to say"I can confirm......"

Ah, you want to choose your own dialogue, "he wouldn't say this, he would say that". He might confirm a specific detail, but he can only corroborate a few points, not everything. Therefore, in the reserved language of the Victorian age he quite rightly advises his superiors that he is ...."of the opinion his statement is true".

I do not think Jon,I know paperwork confrming some of Hutchingson's claims does not and has not existed,but if you or any one else can produce evidence the claims were confirmed, ,I will have been proved wrong and I will readily admit it.Yes I do think the police attempted to confirm Hutchinson's claims,and failed.

Well that makes no sense at all. Why would Abberline tell his superiors he is "of the opinion his statement is true", when, in your view, he had failed to confirm anything?
Are you sure you are thinking this through?

I have given my ideas a good airing Jon,as can be deduced from the amount of time and writing you have spent reading and replying,so the final question of your last post to me appears quite strange.Appears you have a problem in understanding and assessing information given you.

I don't recall you explaining why Abberline would accept Hutchinsons story, if he couldn't confirm anything.

[harry]

'The trip to Romford could have been confirmed within the hour'.Likely true Jon,the question is was it? What evidence is there to show Aberline checked or ordered a check?Sarah lewis can only confirm a man standing outside Crossinghams,she is not witness to anything else that man has done,so her testimony does not corroberate a Hutchinson/Kelly meeting in Commercial Street. Why do you persist in posting such nonsense.
Quite a deal of paperwork has survived,and the Hutchinson interview and Aberlines report are two that have been the basis and main topic of arguement for years.If anything had been proven Aberline would not have been reduced to stating an opinion,(neither would you)he /you would have able to say"I can confirm......"
I do not think Jon,I know paperwork confrming some of Hutchingson's claims does not and has not existed,but if you or any one else can produce evidence the claims were confirmed, ,I will have been proved wrong and I will readily admit it.Yes I do think the police attempted to confirm Hutchinson's claims,and failed.
I have given my ideas a good airing Jon,as can be deduced from the amount of time and writing you have spent reading and replying,so the final question of your last post to me appears quite strange.Appears you have a problem in understanding and assessing information given you.

[Wickerman]

hey wick
wouldnt kennedy refer to them as her parents though?

Actually Abby, I don't think she does refer to them indirectly, we have it from a journalist who interviewed her parents.

"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."

[Abby Normal]

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.

hey wick
wouldnt kennedy refer to them as her parents though?

[Wickerman]

Can someone use their research magic to find any detail on this charge ? I don’t have access to newspaper archives.

The description of Joseph Bamford is similar to Best & Gardner’s description of the man with Stride.

The charge isn’t “larceny” (stealing from someone) but “embezzlement” (taking something your organisation owns).

However, the Police superintendent issuing the warrant is in Oakmere, a small township near Northwich. Most people living there are farmers.

It would great if there was some detail from a local paper

Craig

I did look in BNA a couple of days ago.
If you remember I suggested I might contact the Northwich library to see if they have any archived local papers.
There was nothing in BNA to help
I noticed there are a few Bamford families in London in the 1882 & 1895 Post Office Directories, but no Joseph Bamford.

[Craig H]

Hi Jon

I've been reading some of your previous posts on Britannia-man, and agree he could be a worthwhile suspect.

I found this posting from Police Gazette (23 November, 1888) with an arrest warrant for a Joseph Bamford who has a similar description to Britannia-man :

"JOSEPH BAMFORD, age 35, height about 5 ft. 6 in., complexion pale, hair and moustache light brown, eyes ( sore and no eyelashes) grey, thin features, large sharp nose ; dress, dark overcoat, dark cloth suit, black felt hat. Warrant issued. Information to Supt. Nay lor, Oakmere, Northwich. WANTED"

Would be interesting to find out more about Joseph Bamford

Craig

Can someone use their research magic to find any detail on this charge ? I don’t have access to newspaper archives.

The description of Joseph Bamford is similar to Best & Gardner’s description of the man with Stride.

The charge isn’t “larceny” (stealing from someone) but “embezzlement” (taking something your organisation owns).

However, the Police superintendent issuing the warrant is in Oakmere, a small township near Northwich. Most people living there are farmers.

It would great if there was some detail from a local paper

Craig