Possible reason for Hutch coming forward

[caz]

A person is not really a suspect until the police find cause to have suspicions.

They need to interview Hutch first, before they can form an opinion. So it is true that he was never a suspect in the eyes of the police. Apparently, he convinced them in this interview/interrogation that he was telling the truth.
But, we have no indication that the police ever dismissed Hutchinson, or his story. Like many other cases, the prominence of the eyewitness just faded from the public eye, and the story is forgotten.

Agreed, Jon.

I don't think the police doubted that Hutch came forward because he thought his information could be important. It seems that the trail went cold, just as it did with the search for Blotchy. Nobody thinks Mrs Cox was making him up, or should have been a suspect, do they?

Had we been talking about a Georgina Hutchinson, who was overly curious about Kelly's latest flashy customer, things would have been very different over the last few years!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz/CD

isn't it most likely that they simply came to the conclusion that hutch was nothing more than what he probably actually was-just an attention seeker ala violenia and packer?

Not really, Abby, no. I don't think they'd have simply assumed this to be the case, without at least trying to establish his true whereabouts that night if they didn't believe he was where he claimed to be.

With Packer, they knew where he'd have been and that he had an obviously genuine reason for being there, even if his witness account was a packer lies. There was certainly no reason to treat him as a murder suspect, unlike someone who claimed to have been loitering near a horrific crime scene for what was a faintly ridiculous reason. At the very least, the police should have given Hutch a scare he wouldn't forget, for wasting their time. If they thought he'd invented the entire story out of whole cloth, just for some attention, they ought to have given him a very hard time and made him think they suspected him, even if they didn't, to teach him a lesson.

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

A person is not really a suspect until the police find cause to have suspicions.

They need to interview Hutch first, before they can form an opinion. So it is true that he was never a suspect in the eyes of the police. Apparently, he convinced them in this interview/interrogation that he was telling the truth.
But, we have no indication that the police ever dismissed Hutchinson, or his story. Like many other cases, the prominence of the eyewitness just faded from the public eye, and the story is forgotten.

[Abby Normal]

Not to beat a dead horse, Abby but I am having trouble understanding your position. Are you arguing that the police considered Hutch suspicious and thoroughly questioned him but were in error when they concluded he was not involved or are you arguing that they never were suspicious of him in the first place? Or is it something else?

c.d.

No worries cd. I’m arguing that the police obviously questioned him as a witness (and veracity as such) but never as a real suspect, initially believed his witness story, probably because abberline had no initial reason not to, perhaps because he had just come from the inquest and had heard Lewis’s waiting man person, and hutch comes in shortly after, and confirms it, but soon after wards probably came to the conclusion that hutch was full of ****, perhaps because nothing came of his aman character and or hutch’s later embellished news story, putting hutch in the same attention seeking category of recently embarrassing “witnesses” as violenia and packer.

It ain’t rocket science.

[c.d.]

Not to beat a dead horse, Abby but I am having trouble understanding your position. Are you arguing that the police considered Hutch suspicious and thoroughly questioned him but were in error when they concluded he was not involved or are you arguing that they never were suspicious of him in the first place? Or is it something else?

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

But at what point do you think they apparently came to this conclusion? Before questioning him? That would certainly be piss poor police work.

c.d.

after of course cd

[c.d.]

Hi Caz/CD

isn't it most likely that they simply came to the conclusion that hutch was nothing more than what he probably actually was-just an attention seeker ala violenia and packer?

Hello Abby,

But at what point do you think they apparently came to this conclusion? Before questioning him? That would certainly be piss poor police work.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

That's uncharacteristically naïve from you Jon, IF Hutchinsons account wasn't fabricated, like Astrakan woven onto a collar, then he would have every reason to suspect that he would have been the last person to have seen her in the company of someone......

I can take the criticism Michael, thats ok. What I would like you to do though, is offer a few of those reason's why G. H. would believe he was the last person to see Kelly in the company of someone 6-7 hours before it was believed she was murdered.

Just a few, Michael. Thanks.

If you recall, Swanson wasn't sold on the idea that Broad Shoulder Man had killed Stride, because there was 15 minutes that could not be accounted for.
Only 15 minutes Michael, 15 minutes is sufficient for the whole scene to change - and we are talking here about 6-7 hours!!!

[Abby Normal]

I agree, c.d.

Also, given his claimed acquaintance with Kelly, and claimed proximity in place and time to her murder scene, I can't see the police simply dismissing him as a liar who had never met Kelly and wasn't even there that night. If they finally concluded he had been lying, they would have wanted to establish his motives for lying.

Was he merely an attention seeker? Was he hoping to make money from his story, either from the police or the press? Did he have mental health issues?
Where had he really been that night, if nowhere near Miller's Court? Or - if none of the above could be confirmed, why would he have lied about what happened if he was really there? It would then have been imperative to ascertain what he may have had to hide.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz/CD

isn't it most likely that they simply came to the conclusion that hutch was nothing more than what he probably actually was-just an attention seeker ala violenia and packer?

[Abby Normal]

Hi guys,

I think I’ve missed something? Richardson prying off Chapman’s rings? Where’s that from?

Pure speculation.
But Chapman was missing a ring, it was determined it had been taken recently and forcefully, probably by the killer.

[Michael W Richards]

Well, Varqm, I don't see any reason to believe in deception on the part of Hutchinson.

Why didn't Hutchinson come forward?
It can be easily established by researching the local papers over that weekend following the murder that the most widespread account was that of Maxwell, and the majority of press speculation promoted Kelly's death about, or after, 9:00 am Friday morning.
The reason Hutchinson would not feel compelled to come forward was simply that he met her a good 6-7 hours before she was believed to have been murdered. So what could he possibly know that would help the police - nothing.

That's uncharacteristically naïve from you Jon, IF Hutchinsons account wasn't fabricated, like Astrakan woven onto a collar, then he would have every reason to suspect that he would have been the last person to have seen her in the company of someone. What he does do is waits all day Friday, Saturday and Sunday, and until after 5pm on Monday. After the Inquest. With what can only be described as the most meticulously detailed description of someone with a soon to be victim.

I think why George came forward might be because he knew someone saw him there and he needed to explain why he was seen loitering, or, he wasn't there at all but was claiming to be that man because a simple explanation was needed for that individual. It was Wideawake Man that was arguably the catalyst for the Pardon offer Saturday afternoon. Converting someone seen suspiciously loitering to a friend watching out for a friend is really quite clever. I recall that both he and Daniel Barnett resided at The Victorian Home at that time, and that Daniel was seen out with Mary on the Tuesday or Wednesday night preceding. So many coincidences in some of these cases, tangential links to other key people or residences, overlapping characters.

Wonder who the other Joe was that Mary was seeing? Interesting side bit along the overlapping characters vein...in the Stride case its documented that Louis said he and "Issac[s]" went out to look for help, but its also on record that Issac Kozedbrodski stated that he was sent out alone by Louis...at around 12:45..but that another debate. Wonder if it could have actually been Joseph Issacs, the same guy who moved around the corner from Mary just after Barnett moved out, and abandoned his dwellings unexpectedly the night she was killed?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi guys,

I think I’ve missed something? Richardson prying off Chapman’s rings? Where’s that from?

[Abby Normal]

This if how I feel about John Richardson in the Chapman murder. He thought he had been seen either sitting on the steps down in the yard or kneeling next to the body with the knife and that's why he liedabout cutting rubber from his boot with a rusty broken butter knife next to a dead body. If he didn't kill her, what was he doing, prying the rings off?

Nice rocky. Never thought about that before. I like it.

Reminiscent of hutch shanking his story later when he says he’s now outside her apartment. Scared someone had seen him and changes his story.
Classic lying behavior.

[caz]

I agree, c.d.

Also, given his claimed acquaintance with Kelly, and claimed proximity in place and time to her murder scene, I can't see the police simply dismissing him as a liar who had never met Kelly and wasn't even there that night. If they finally concluded he had been lying, they would have wanted to establish his motives for lying.

Was he merely an attention seeker? Was he hoping to make money from his story, either from the police or the press? Did he have mental health issues?
Where had he really been that night, if nowhere near Miller's Court? Or - if none of the above could be confirmed, why would he have lied about what happened if he was really there? It would then have been imperative to ascertain what he may have had to hide.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

If the killer comes forward as a witness, he thinks he'll be safe?

Hello Wick,

Of course. Because when the police discussed it among themselves and somebody said "you know it is pretty suspicious that he claimed to know the victim and was apparently the last one to see her alive and his story seemed a bit much" someone would immediately respond with "but on the other hand he did come forward as a witness." Yeah right.

Regardless he still would have been a person of interest and would have been questioned and his answers would have to be sufficient witness or no witness status.

c.d.