George Hutchinson Revisited

[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

[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]

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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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.