George Hutchinson Revisited

[Craig H]

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

[Wickerman]

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.

[Wickerman]

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.

[harry]

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.

[Wickerman]

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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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."

[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]

'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]

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]

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.

[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?

[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.