Possible reason for Hutch coming forward

[RockySullivan]

Hi Varqm
because if he was the killer he was worried he had been spotted and recognized and felt it was better to come forward as a witness than be found as a suspect.

if not the killer because he wanted to profit off it somehow.

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?

[Wickerman]

Hi Varqm
because if he was the killer he was worried he had been spotted and recognized and felt it was better to come forward as a witness than be found as a suspect.

if not the killer because he wanted to profit off it somehow.

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

[Wickerman]

Simply he had info that could help,also as posters say he was a friend of Kelly,no analysis required.

In what way could it help?

[Abby Normal]

What was the reason?

Hi Varqm
because if he was the killer he was worried he had been spotted and recognized and felt it was better to come forward as a witness than be found as a suspect.

if not the killer because he wanted to profit off it somehow.

[Varqm]

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.

So why did he eventually come forward?
The inquest terminated sometime in the afternoon, the Star newspaper was among the first to hit the streets, and it did so before 6:00 pm, 4 or 5 o'clock I think.
In the Star account of the Kelly inquest they provide a subtitle to a paragraph on the testimony of Mary Cox.
"The Murderer Described".
The timeline in her account is 11:45 - 12:00, when she returned at 3:00 am all was quiet.
In my view....Hutchinson knew this to be wrong, he saw Kelly out after 12:00, so he went to tell the police the Cox suspect couldn't have been the murderer.

Simply he had info that could help,also as posters say he was a friend of Kelly,no analysis required.

[Varqm]

well that's the reason I too believe he didn't attend the inquest-absolutely. But the reason why he actually came forward is another matter.

What was the reason?

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Always has to be some kind of conspiracy.
Topping always maintained to his sons, and to everyone else, that he knew one of the victims, gave a statement to the police, and assisted them in looking for the man he saw , but to no avail.
Its really that simple.
He maintained he received Five pounds for his efforts.. a princely sum, however, we don't know how long he kept up the search, and may have been paid for a lengthy period.even if it was circulated that he was not involved .
I have never doubted his account, its not a question whether or not he saw Mr A, but was he the killer?
Regards Richard.

[DJA]

Reckon sailor man Hutchinson was a lookout for a blackmail pay off gone wrong,not a murder.

He has waited until after the inquest to tell his tale of Astrakhan man.

Phillips had a good idea what was really going on and arranged the possible reward of a pardon.

[Wickerman]

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.

So why did he eventually come forward?
The inquest terminated sometime in the afternoon, the Star newspaper was among the first to hit the streets, and it did so before 6:00 pm, 4 or 5 o'clock I think.
In the Star account of the Kelly inquest they provide a subtitle to a paragraph on the testimony of Mary Cox.
"The Murderer Described".
The timeline in her account is 11:45 - 12:00, when she returned at 3:00 am all was quiet.
In my view....Hutchinson knew this to be wrong, he saw Kelly out after 12:00, so he went to tell the police the Cox suspect couldn't have been the murderer.

[MysterySinger]

He probably wanted an association with the crimes. Some people do.

[Abby Normal]

The inquest on Kelly ended at ,for arguments sake, Monday 2-4 pm,based on the number of questions asked of witnesses and
depending on how long the witness recited his/her testimony,Hutch came at 6:00 pm.


It's safe to assume the reason Hutch came forward was because the inquest ended abruptly.there were no more inquests.

He then did not have to face the jury,coroner,etc in an inquest court where his testimony was under oath,and was liable
for contempt/fine if caught lying.In the police station he was not in the same oath and could retract his statement,for ex.
mixing up the days and end up released like witnesses who reported suspicious men who could be the ripper.besides
Astrakhan man was not present and Hutch was not "accusing/perjuring" somebody which,I assume ,was another/or additional offense.
All he had to know was in a court, as opposed to a police station,testimonies were formal,subject to fine/contempt if lying.
Before 1911 Perjury Act,perjury was confined to the courts.

Coroners act 1887

The coroner, being guided by
the information he has received, usually sends a message
to those witnesses whom he thinks material. Should
they neglect or refuse to attend, the coroner, as incident
to his office of judge of a court of record, has authority
to issue a summons to compel their appearance where
he has been credibly informed that they are able to give
evidence, and he may if necessary issue a summons to
the constable to bring them into court. If a witness
refuses without sufficient reason to obey this summons,
the coroner may fine him £2 under section 19 ; and if a
witness refuses to give evidence when sworn, or otherwise
misconducts himself in court, the coroner has power to
commit him for contempt. The coroner has also power
to issue a warrant against a witness for contempt of the
summons, under which the constable may bring up the
witness in custody.


Above, to me, the reason Hutch came forward.

well that's the reason I too believe he didn't attend the inquest-absolutely. But the reason why he actually came forward is another matter.

[Varqm]

The inquest on Kelly ended at ,for arguments sake, Monday 2-4 pm,based on the number of questions asked of witnesses and
depending on how long the witness recited his/her testimony,Hutch came at 6:00 pm.


It's safe to assume the reason Hutch came forward was because the inquest ended abruptly.there were no more inquests.

He then did not have to face the jury,coroner,etc in an inquest court where his testimony was under oath,and was liable
for contempt/fine if caught lying.
In the police station he was not in the same oath and could retract his statement,for ex.
mixing up the days and end up released like witnesses who reported suspicious men who could be the ripper.Besides
Astrakhan man was not present and Hutch was not "accusing/perjuring" somebody which,I assume ,was another/or additional offense.
All he had to know was in a court, as opposed to a police station,testimonies were formal,subject to fine/contempt if lying.
Before 1911 Perjury Act, perjury was confined to the courts (Perjury Act 1728).

Coroners act 1887

The coroner, being guided by
the information he has received, usually sends a message
to those witnesses whom he thinks material. Should
they neglect or refuse to attend, the coroner, as incident
to his office of judge of a court of record, has authority
to issue a summons to compel their appearance where
he has been credibly informed that they are able to give
evidence, and he may if necessary issue a summons to
the constable to bring them into court. If a witness
refuses without sufficient reason to obey this summons,
the coroner may fine him £2 under section 19 ; and if a
witness refuses to give evidence when sworn, or otherwise
misconducts himself in court, the coroner has power to
commit him for contempt. The coroner has also power
to issue a warrant against a witness for contempt of the
summons, under which the constable may bring up the
witness in custody.


Above, to me, the reason Hutch came forward.