Possible reason for Hutch coming forward

[caz]

if that were the case and they have a confession he lied, wasn't here, verified by other witnesses... then that probably would have been enough to charge him with lying.

Hi Abby,

How many witnesses/people confessing to the murders etc were charged with lying? Any idea?

We may presume Hutch wasn't charged with lying, in which case the police either didn't think he lied, or had no evidence that he lied, or didn't think his lies were serious enough for a prosecution to succeed - for instance if it was proved he was merely elsewhere and so couldn't have been involved.

Had they believed he lied, but not about being in the vicinity of the murder that night, evidence wouldn't have come into it. They'd have grilled him til his eyes popped.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

How many non sequesters can you string together in one post, that’s what I’d like to know.

What's a non 'sequester' when it's at home?? That's what I'd like to know.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

What's a non 'sequester' when it's at home?? That's what I'd like to know.

Love,

Caz
X

Sorry I meant to say non sequitur.

[Abby Normal]

LOL! So Hutch, knowing the police wouldn't recognise the phenomenon, came forward and felt able to describe it, as it applied to his own behaviour?

Have you had an early Christmas tipple?



But I thought the argument was that he did no such thing! LOL again! So was he stalking Kelly and watching who she picked up with that night? Or was he in the court on a murder mission and saw no other man in her company? Or was he making it all up and therefore not stalking anyone?

The police either saw nothing suspicious, or even that unusual about such behaviour or they concluded he had made it all up just for jolly. Had they thought for one second that Hutch's behaviour was a bit "weird", they'd have been all over it like a rash.

Love,

Caz
X

HI Caz

LOL! So Hutch, knowing the police wouldn't recognise the phenomenon, came forward and felt able to describe it, as it applied to his own behaviour?

basically yes, he had to account for why he was there.

Have you had an early Christmas tipple?

yes.

But I thought the argument was that he did no such thing! LOL again! So was he stalking Kelly and watching who she picked up with that night? Or was he in the court on a murder mission and saw no other man in her company? Or was he making it all up and therefore not stalking anyone?

either or Caz, it really dosnt matter. whether he was just an attention seeker or her killer, he engaged in stalking behavior.

The police either saw nothing suspicious, or even that unusual about such behaviour or they concluded he had made it all up just for jolly. Had they thought for one second that Hutch's behaviour was a bit "weird", they'd have been all over it like a rash.

they concluded he had made it all up just for jolly.

probably this

[Wickerman]

I’m not assuming anything. They didn’t find an alibi, because he didn’t have one.
And the only thing based on supposition, as you say, is that they found one.

And you know he didn't give Abberline an alibi in that interrogation, ...because?

[Abby Normal]

And you know he didn't give Abberline an alibi in that interrogation, ...because?

Because walking around all night by yourself is not an alibi.

[Wickerman]

Because walking around all night by yourself is not an alibi.

But haven't "we", you & me, both agreed, Hutch was never a suspect, only a witness?

Since when does a witness need an alibi? obviously, the subject never came up.

[caz]

HI Caz

basically yes, he had to account for why he was there.

Why? Nobody had placed him there, and if by some tiny chance he had heard all about what Sarah Lewis had said at the inquest by the time he presented himself at the cop shop, there'd have been an even tinier chance that she could have positively identified him if she saw him again. He only had to say she was mistaken. As has already been argued, he could say he had walked about all night and the police couldn't prove otherwise. Alternatively, if he really, truly believed Lewis could make trouble for him, he had no fixed abode so he could have left the area for good - which he may well have done in any case, at some point subsequent to his brief appearance in the limelight.

If he wasn't even there, and was just an attention seeker, he didn't have to account for anything.

either or Caz, it really dosnt matter. whether he was just an attention seeker or her killer, he engaged in stalking behavior.

What? If he was just an attention seeker and made it all up, he made up his own stalking behaviour, which is even odder than admitting to it if true!

No more Christmas tipple for you, my lad.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

You were addressing Abby's post, Michael, not mine. I don't really buy the 'stalker' accusation. We only have Hutch's own words for what he was doing, and the police didn't appear to get the impression that he had been indulging in stalking behaviour and was now choosing to volunteer that information.

Love,

Caz
X

My apologies Caz, and to Abby.

If you would read again my suggestion that Hutchs statement created the illusion at least that the man watching the courtyard, the one that is partly if not fully responsible for the Accomplices issuance on Saturday afternoon, was actually a friend of Marys. Just keeping an eye on her.

I don't think we can say Hutch was cleared, he was never openly investigated to our knowledge. May be lost files, maybe not. But the point is that his account makes Wideawake benign. Something he wasnt on Saturday.

[Abby Normal]

Why? Nobody had placed him there, and if by some tiny chance he had heard all about what Sarah Lewis had said at the inquest by the time he presented himself at the cop shop, there'd have been an even tinier chance that she could have positively identified him if she saw him again. He only had to say she was mistaken. As has already been argued, he could say he had walked about all night and the police couldn't prove otherwise. Alternatively, if he really, truly believed Lewis could make trouble for him, he had no fixed abode so he could have left the area for good - which he may well have done in any case, at some point subsequent to his brief appearance in the limelight.

If he wasn't even there, and was just an attention seeker, he didn't have to account for anything.



What? If he was just an attention seeker and made it all up, he made up his own stalking behaviour, which is even odder than admitting to it if true!

No more Christmas tipple for you, my lad.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi caz
Whether he was just an attention seeker or the killer, he still engaged in stalking behavior. Lewis corroborates it as he was the waiting watching man by his own admission. He didn’t need to hear about Lewis testimony from inquest, since he was there he knew she had spotted him.

[Chava]

Admittedly I haven’t looked at every paper but I have looked at quite a few. And it seems that no journalist spent any time interviewing Hutch after he left the cops. It’s not like they didn’t know who he was or what he claimed, but they didn’t try and get a story. Clearly The Daily Telegraph didn’t believe him as they point out the dissimilarity between Astrakhan Man and the other descriptions and cast some shade there. Given he was ‘the last person to see Mary Jane Kelly alive’ I’d have thought some enterprising journo would have pitched him a few quid for a story. Especially since he hadn’t given it all up for free at the inquest as Mary Ann Cox had. I do find this strange. I think Abberline might have changed his mind re Hutch’s reliability and let the press know that.

[Wickerman]

Admittedly I haven’t looked at every paper but I have looked at quite a few. And it seems that no journalist spent any time interviewing Hutch after he left the cops.

Not sure what you mean here, have you read this interview?
(nearly half way down the page)

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s881114.html

The interview was taken by the Central News, and various dailies published this interview - the above being only one example.

[caz]

My apologies Caz, and to Abby.

If you would read again my suggestion that Hutchs statement created the illusion at least that the man watching the courtyard, the one that is partly if not fully responsible for the Accomplices issuance on Saturday afternoon, was actually a friend of Marys. Just keeping an eye on her.

I don't think we can say Hutch was cleared, he was never openly investigated to our knowledge. May be lost files, maybe not. But the point is that his account makes Wideawake benign. Something he wasnt on Saturday.

Hi Michael,

But Hutch wasn't 'just keeping an eye on' Kelly, according to his own account. Very far from it. His eye was wholly kept on the man she had picked up with, according to his claimed ability to describe him down to the last tiny detail. His excuse for waiting 45 minutes in the vicinity was not to keep an eye on Kelly at all, but to see the man again, for no stated reason apart from idle curiosity. Hutch said he gave up waiting and walked off, apparently with no desire to see how Kelly was doing. In fact he claimed afterwards to have had no suspicions that the man might pose any danger to Kelly. Whether the man had emerged or not, Hutch would have needed to go into that room himself in order to 'keep an eye on' Kelly and see if she was sleeping peacefully, in danger of choking on her vomit or ripped up to shreds.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi caz
Whether he was just an attention seeker or the killer, he still engaged in stalking behavior. Lewis corroborates it as he was the waiting watching man by his own admission. He didn’t need to hear about Lewis testimony from inquest, since he was there he knew she had spotted him.

Right, I get you now, Abby. I was assuming that when you allowed for Hutch being 'just an attention seeker', you allowed for him not actually being there at all.

I do wonder what kind of mentality he'd have had to come forward 'just' to seek attention, by admitting to what you call stalking behaviour, if he was genuinely there and had been seen lurking near the crime scene by a witness! There's a fine line between bravado and sheer stupidity.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Right, I get you now, Abby. I was assuming that when you allowed for Hutch being 'just an attention seeker', you allowed for him not actually being there at all.

I do wonder what kind of mentality he'd have had to come forward 'just' to seek attention, by admitting to what you call stalking behaviour, if he was genuinely there and had been seen lurking near the crime scene by a witness! There's a fine line between bravado and sheer stupidity.

Love,

Caz
X

Thanks Caz
yes, I agree, and especially if he was the killer! But I don't see it as ruling him out whether he was just an attention seeker or the killer.

gun to head, I would say more than likely he was just an attention seeker. But I would also say Aman story was a lie.

There are multiple scenarios that could have happened, but to me the most likely is that Hutch was looking for a place to crash and/or hook up with mary, never actually saw her that night, and waited/watched for her (this is where Lewis saw him) either for her to be finished with her guest (probably Blotchy) or less likely, if not home, for her return.

at the bottom of the list of likelihood scenarios, for me, is that his story was pretty much accurate as told, especially the Aman story. that part IMHO is a lie.