-
-
just getting through it but so far liked the critique of HR book and I also found the hutch article interesting- he gives a possible explanation for hutchs intentions. one which I havent really thought very likely in the past, but with his evidence of something very similar happening, has bumped up the probability in my mind. so far what Ive read, another great bunch of stuff by Lord Orsam.
and apparently he has an announcement he has found another mistake by the hoaxer in the Diary which shows its a fake.Comment
-
I wonder how many readers his lordship requires before he would define it as an 'announcement'?
I also wonder what he makes of the handwriting not being James Maybrick's, if not a 'mistake' which showed the diary was a fake nearly 30 years ago?
So much effort, just to convince the odd one or two, who believe it could be in JM's hand, and who almost certainly won't be reading his blog on the subject.
I tell you, it's a mad, mad, mad, mad world.
Love,
Caz
XI wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm PetersenComment
-
Almost Certain?
Here’s my reason for thinking so:
I’ve just read Lord O’s stunning research into a possible reason for George Hutchinson’s vigil outside the entrance to Miller’s Court.
He draws our attention to Alfred Wilkins, the Duval (Dorset) Street resident who observed a strange man enter and leave Miller’s Court on the night of Kitty Roman’s murder in July, 1909. The details are very similar to the Hutchinson scenario of two decades previously.
Then he drops the bombshell that a few weeks later Wilkins was part of a gang who mugged a ship’s carpenter named George Smith in Commercial Street. The cogs of the noble brain begin to turn and the solution to why Wilkins, and possibly Hutchinson, were hanging about outside Millers Court is revealed:
There is an interesting twist in this story. A lot of people have speculated that Hutchinson was standing in Dorset Street because he wanted to rob someone (in particular the man he saw taking Kelly into her room).
Well it is almost certain that Wilkins was standing in Duval Street for a nefarious purpose of a similar nature.
Within two months of Kitty's murder, Wilkins was arrested for robbery with violence upon one George Smith, stealing from him one watch and chain.
What is almost certain is that Wilkins was standing outside 17, Duval Street, directly opposite the entrance to Miller’s Court, because that was where he lived. While he was there, another resident of 17, Duval Street, an organ-grinder named Charles Watson, turned up and engaged Wilkins in conversation. Lord O neglects to mention him for some reason.
It is true that a few weeks after the Roman murder Wilkins was tried for his part in a street robbery in Commercial Street. It was a typical Spitalfields ‘lumber’. A gang of three were involved, two of them holding Smith’s arms while the third relieved him of his watch and chain.
Lord O. tells us that at the time of his conviction for the robbery on Smith, Wilkins had ‘several previous convictions’. Although the transcript of Wilkins’ Old Bailey trial uses those very same words, when he gave evidence at the trial of the man accused of murdering Roman, Wilkins claimed he had only one previous conviction. This is borne out by the court calendar produced after his robbery conviction which records a single previous conviction in 1906 for stealing lettuce.
So let’s recap:
Wilkins is standing outside his own lodgings where he is seen by and converses with a neighbour. His criminal record at the time consists of a single conviction for stealing (a?) lettuce. A man enters a court a few feet away from where he is standing. The man has the appearance of a policeman (a soldier according to Wilkins) and is not molested by Wilkins, who is standing at the spot long enough to observe the man enter the court with Roman and depart some 20 minutes later. As far as we know, Wilkins was alone outside his lodgings, not with other criminal types who might together have committed a typical street robbery of the time.
Is it really almost certain that Wilkins was standing outside his own front door for ‘nefarious reasons’? Quite unlikely, I’d say.Comment
-
Almost Certain?
Alf Wilkins, the one-man crimewave with a rap sheet as long as a Webb’s Wonder:
A Webb’s WonderComment
-
Almost Certain?
In 1909, Wilkins was living at 17, Duval Street. At other times his address was given as 14, and 2, Duval Street.
Was he permanently stationed outside Bill Crossingham’s establishments (14 & 17) looking for someone to mug? (Highly unlikely) Or might he occasionally have stood outside his front door for non-nefarious reasons? (Almost certainly)Comment
-
Almost Certain?
Here’s a description of a similar attack in Spitalfields in 1904. One of the robbers was my grandfather.
FRANK DENNIS (277 H.) At 12.45 p.m., on August 30th, I was in High Street, Whitechapel. when I saw the prosecutor in company with a woman going towards Commercial Street—I was in company with another officer—I saw the three prisoners apparently watching the prosecutor and the woman, who stopped outside Webb's, the distillers—the prosecutor then passed him, and all three went to the opposite side of Commercial Street—McCarthy leant on an iron post at the corner of Commercial Street, and Tarbuck and Humphries went a little farther down and stood on the kerb—when the prosecutor moved from outside Webb's with the woman and went down Commercial Street, McCarthy went and spoke to the other two, and all three followed the prosecutor down Commercial Street as far as Wentworth Street—about 100 yards up on the right side the prisoners crossed over from the left, and Tarbuck caught the prosecutor by his throat and threw him to the ground—McCarthy rifled his pockets on the right hand side, holding his arm, and Humphries on the other side—I caught McCarthy as he ran across the road, and he said, "What is up? I am going home"—I took him to where the prosecutor was—he pulled a quartern bottle of whisky out of his pocket, saying, "I am going to have a drink of whisky," and I said, "You are not; you are in custody"—he then threw it to the ground and broke it—Tarbuck was caught in Brick Lane; Humphries got away—at 4 p.m. on September 5th. At Commercial Street Police Station, I recognised Humphries from among eight other men; I have known him previously
All three prisoners were convicted and received sentences of 4 years (Humphries and Tarbuck) and 5 years (McCarthy) penal servitude. I imagine Alf W got off more lightly (4 months’ HL) because he was as green as he was lettuce looking.Comment
-
Almost Certain?
This report from 1886 gives a flavour of how East End street robbers generally operated. They hunted in packs. And they didn’t stand outside their own homes waiting for passing trade.
Comment
-
Humphries.
Tarbuck is a curious character. As far as I can tell, he only ever stole food or drink. In this case, Purkiss (no relation to the Buck’s Row family as far as I can see) was relieved of his whisky; at other times Tarby was convicted of nicking chocolate, beef, eggs and fish. His dad had been a Billingsgate man and Tarby followed in his finsteps. My grandad, Charlie, also worked at Billingsgate at times and we were told that boxes of fish were often found to contain bricks when opened by their purchasers.
Charlie did his time in Dartmoor, I believe he was there at the same time as Charles Grand. His rap sheet grew gradually until he married my nan in 1916, but it never matched that of Tommy McCarthy. I think his impressive back catalogue was the reason he, aged 44, got an additional year over the other two who were in their 20s. Here’s his previous in 1904.
Compare that to a lettuce.��Comment
-
Almost Certain?
While giving evidence at the trial of Harold Hall for the murder of Kitty Roman, Alf Wilkins said, ‘I am committed for highway robbery with violence. I have been once convicted.’
On two court calendars, one in 1909 and another in 1910, he is shown as having had just the one conviction for lettuce nicking at the time of Roman murder.
However, for some reason, the transcript of the 1909 Old Bailey case uses the wording ‘several previous convictions’. And those are the exact words used by Lord O. to bolster his claim that Alf was almost certainly loitering in Duval Street with criminal intent.
Once again, we find ourselves asking whether Lord O. missed the other sources or decided not to include or even mention their inconvenient contents. There seems to be something of a pattern developing here.Comment
Tweet
Comment