Talk:Stratton Brothers case

Untitled

In case you have a hard time reading the article in The Times in the main article page, here is an enlargement of the image on the page, as well as its continuation:

File:DeptfordTrial2.jpg

I'm currently transcribing the whole thing to clear up the more obscure passages. RashBold 04:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is the transcription of the clipping. RashBold 04:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT, May 6

THE DEPTFORD MURDER TRIAL.

(Before MR. JUSTICE CHANNELL)

The trial of ALFRED STRATTON, 22, labourer, and ALBERT ERNEST STRATTON, 20, labourer, upon an indictment and coroner's inquisition, charging them with the wilful murder of Thomas Farrow at Deptford on March 27, was resumed.

Mr. R.D. Muir, Mr. Bodkin, and Mr. J.F. Vesey Fitzgerald prosecuted on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutors; Mr. H.G. Rooth and Mr. Curtis Bennett appeared for the defence of Alfred Stratton; and Mr. Harold Morris defended Albert Ernest Stratton.

The examination of witnesses on the part of the prosecution was continued. Evidence was given by Police-Constable [Galt?] as to having found buried in the ground near the waterworks at Ravensbourne two sovereigns and half-a-crown wrapped up in a piece of cloth. [Annie] Cromarty had told the police that Alfred Stratton had said he had buried "four quid" near the waterworks.

A witness named Compton said that at 3 or half-past 3 o'clock on the morning of March 27 she saw Alfred Stratton and another man near the Broadway Theatre, Deptford. Alfred Stratton, with whom she was acquainted, asked her if she had seen Cromarty, and she replied that she had not. The second man, whom she did not know, was dressed in a dark suit and bowler hat. She afterwards picked out Albert Stratton at the police station as the second man.

Edward Alfred Bursell, a school boy, 11 years old, stated that at about a quarter-past 7 on the morning of March 27 he was with Henry Alfred Jennings, a milkman, in High-street, Deptford. He saw two men leave Mr. Farrow's shop. The men slammed the door behind them, and it flew open again. Jennings called out to them, "You have left the door open." They turned round and walked to the corner of the Broadway. One of the men was taller than the other. The taller was dressed in a drak blue serge suit and bowler hat, and walked quickly and stiffly. The smaller was wearing a dark brown suit, check cap, and brown boots. The witness did not identify the prisoners as the men. He could not say whether they were the men or not.

Henry Alfred Jennings, a milkman, who was with the last witness in High-street, Deptford, also stated that he was unable to say whether the prisoners were or were not the men who left the shop.

Henry John Littlefield, a professional boxer, said that at half-past 2 o'clock on the morning of March 27 he was at a coffee stall in Broadway, Deptford. He left the stall and was going home when he met the two prisoners, whom he knew. Alfred asked him which way he was going, and he replied that he was going home. The witness noticed the Alfred was funbling in his coat as if he had something under it. Alfred was dressed in a brown suit, check cap, and brown boots. Albert was wearing a dark blue serge suit and bowler hat.

In cross-examination the witness said he had not had an unpleasantness with Alfred Stratton about Cromarty.

Ellen Stanton stated that at a quarter-past 7 o'clock on the morning of March 27 she was on her way to catch a train to go to her work in London, and when at the corner of High-street and Broadway, Deptford, she saw two men running from the High-street towards New-cross-road. She recognized Alfred Stratton as one of the men. He was dressed in a dark brown suit and cap. She did not know the other man. He was wearing a dark overcoat and bowler hat.

Alfred Purfield, a painter, said that on the morning of March 27 he was going to catch the 7.35 train to London. He was waiting for a friend in High-street, Deptford, opposte Mr. Farrow's shop. He saw an old gentleman with blood on his face, shirt, and hands come to the door, which was open. The old gentleman stood in a vacant sort of way. He then closed the door, and the witness lost sight of him. The witness looked for a constable, but there was not one about, and he went on to catch his train.

Inspector Collins, of the finger print department of Scotland-yard, described in detail the method of identification by finger prints. He said that there were 80,000 or 90,000 sets of finger prints at Scotland-yard, which meant between 800,000 to 900,000 impressions of digits. In his experience he had never found any two such impressions to correspond. They classified them first by types and sub-types, and then by counting and tracing the ridges when there were complete prints of the whole finger, and then they compared what were called the characteristics. A photograph was taken of the finger mark on the cash-box tray. After the prisoners have been arrested he took impressions of thier finger marks. The right thumb print of Alfred Stratton agreed with the mark on the tray, there being 12 characteristics in which they agreed.

At the request of a juryman Inspector Collins took impressions of the gentleman's thumb to show the difference in the print caused by a strong pressure and a light pressure.

Inspector Steadman, of the finger print department of Scotland-yard, said that he agreed with the evidence fo Inspector Collins.

At the conclusion of the evidence for the prosecution, the prisoner Alfred Stratton was called a witness in his defence. He said he had often provided Albert with a bed at his lodgings, and had given him money to obtain a bed at a lodging-house when he needed it. At about 20 to 2 o'clock in the morning of March 27 he was asleep in bed, when he was aroused by someone tapping at the window He stood up on the bed and spoke to the person: it was Albert. Albert asked him if he had any money to give him for a night's lodging. He replied, "I cannot spare any, but wait a minute, and I'll slip you in here." He got up, dressed, and went out to find Albert, but he was not there. He found him about 2.30 at the top of Regent-street, Deptford. Albert said that he got tired of waiting. He (Alfred) afterwards saw the witnesses Compton and Littlefield. He took Albert back to his lodgings. It was then half-past 3 o'clock. He slept on the bed and Albert on the floor. They remained asleep until 9 o'clock, and he slipped Albert out before Cromarty was awake. He (Alfred) was wearing check trousers, dark blue jacket and waistcoat, and a grey cap. The paraffin which was on his clothes that morning had got there when he was filling a lamp at his lodgings. He told Cromarty if any one asked whether he had been out that night to say that he was not out. He always told her to say that, because he had been in trouble. He and Albert never entered Mr. Farrow's shop. They could not possibly have been there, because they were together at his (Alfred's) lodgings at a quarter past 7 on the morning of March 27, and remained together there until 9 o'clock. He buried the £4 near the waterworks three weeks before March 27. He put the money there for safety, as if he had kept it in his pocket he might have spent it, or it might have been stolen from him. He intended to give the £4 to Cromarty.

In cross-examination, Alfred Stratton said he never had a brown suit. He had a light brown jacket, but had not worn it for some time before March 27. The £4 which he buried was money which he won over a boxing contest a couple of months ago.

Dr. J. G. Garson was called as a witness for the defence of Alfred Stratton. He said he had given special attention to medico-legal work, and had had a large experience in the finger print system. In 1894 he was employed by the Home Office to undertake the organization of the finger print and the Bertillon systems, and he was engaged in training a staff of officers both in the prison and the and in the police. He had seen a photograph of the finger print on the cash-box tray, and one of the print of Alfred Stratton's right thumb. He had made a thorough examination of the two prints. The witness went on to describe points of dissimilarity between the two. It was possible that they were of the same person, but he was of the opinion they were undoubtedly different fingers. They might be the fingers of the same person, but nor the same finger; they were two distinct fingers.

In cross-examination the witness said his engagement with the Home Office terminated in 1901. He communicated with the defence in this case.

At the request of Mr. MUIR the witness produced the letter which he wrote to the solicitor for the defence, in the course of which he said that the way in which the finger print identification was being used by the police was just the way to bring it to disrepute. The witness said he also wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions on the same day, asking whether he proposed to call him as an expert at the trial on the finger impressions. He said in the letter: -- " I feel that the Government has, perhaps, the first claim on my services. I may say that if I am not retained by the Treasury as an expert I shall probably give evidence as such for the defence, and that is the reason I am desirous of knowing as soon as possible whether my services are required by the Treasury."

Mr. MUIR. — How can you reconcile the writing of these two letters in the same day?

The witness. — I am an independent witness.

Mr. JUSTICE CHANNELL. — An absolutely untrustworthy one, I should think, after writing two such letters.

In re-examination, the witness said that if he had given evidence for the Treasury his evidence would have been precisely the same.

Mr. JUSTICE CHANNELL remarked that that in neither letter did he say he wanted to see the impressions before making up his mind.

The witness said he meant in the letters that he wanted to see the impressions, and that he should form his opinion after seeing the impressions.

Mr. MORRIS intimated that he should not call the prisoner Albert.

Mr. ROOTH then addressed the jury for the defence of Alfred Stratton. He contended that he was at home in bed at the time of the murder was committed. The evidence that one of the men, who was alleged to be Alfred, who were seen out in the morning of March 27, was wearing a brown suit. The witness Cromarty, however, stated when Alfred came home on that morning he was wearing a blue coat. There were no blood stains or other marks on his clothes to connect him with the murder. There could, he thought, be no doubt that the two men who were seen leaving the shop at 7.15 on that morning were the men who committed the murder. The learned counsel emphasized the fact that the two witnesses who saw the men leaving the shop and had a good opportunity of seeing their faces did not identify the prisoners as the men. The money buried by Alfred was his own money, and he buried it because he did not keep a banking account in which he could place it. He intended giving it to Cromarty. If he had kept it in his pocket he might have spent it or it might have been stolen from him. The Police-constable Giddens at the Tower-bridge Police Court during the hearing of the case there was not evidence against Alfred. In reference to the suggested similarity between the finger print on the cash box tray and the print taken of Alfred's right thumb, be pointed out that there were differences between them which, he contended, negatived the supposed similarity.

Mr. MUIR summed up the case on the part of the prosecution.

Mr. MORRIS then addressed the jury for the defence of Albert Ernest Stratton, arguing that he was with Alfred at Alfred's lodgings from half-past 3 until 9 o'clock on the morning of March 27. In reference to the statement which Albert was alleged to have made at the police court, he remarked that every one was liable to make a mistake in recollecting what a person said, and he suggested that the version given of what Albert said was an inaccurate one.

Mr. JUSTICE CHANNELL, in summing up, said that the most important piece of evidence against Albert was the statement he was alleged to have made at the police court. The jury must not allow that statement to influence them in any way as against Alfred, it not being evidence against him. The strongest point in favour of the prisoners was that the witnesses who saw the two men leaving Mr. Farrow's shop on that morning could not say that they were the men. With regard to the finger mark on the tray, it was only made with perspiration and it was not so satisfactory as it would have been if the material with which it was made had been of a kind which would give a better impression. If it was correct that people's hands and fingers varied so much, there was, at any rate, an extraordinary amount of resemblance between the two marks, and, therefore, to a certain extent, it was corroborative evidence in regard to Alfred, though he did not think the jury would like to act upon it alone.

The jury retired to consider their verdict at a quarter past 8 o'clock. They returned into Court at two minutes past 10, finding both prisoners guilty.

Being asked by Mr. Read, the Deputy Clerk of Arraigns, if they had anything to say why sentence of death should not be passed upon them, the prisoners made no reply.

Mr. JUSTICE CHANNELL, having assumed the black cap, addressing the prisoners, said that the jury after a patient consideration of the case had felt it their duty to find them guilty of the crime of murder. For that crime there was but one of sentence. He could only implore them to make use of the time that remained to them in this world, for he could not hold out to them any hope that the sentence would not be carried out. He sentenced the prisoners to death.

Fair use rationale for Image:DeptfordTrial1.jpg

Image:DeptfordTrial1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stratton Brothers case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150210061108/http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensics/fingerprints/2.html to http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensics/fingerprints/2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090421234516/http://people.stu.ca/~mclaugh/FINGERPRINTS/HISTORICAL_REACTIONS_WEBPAGE/FINGERPRINTS.HTML to http://people.stu.ca/~mclaugh/FINGERPRINTS/HISTORICAL_REACTIONS_WEBPAGE/FINGERPRINTS.HTML

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)