Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Possible reason for Hutch coming forward

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Possible reason for Hutch coming forward

    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.
    Last edited by Varqm; 11-13-2017, 02:09 PM.
    Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
    M. Pacana

  • #2
    Originally posted by Varqm View Post
    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.
    "Is all that we see or seem
    but a dream within a dream?"

    -Edgar Allan Poe


    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

    -Frederick G. Abberline

    Comment


    • #3
      He probably wanted an association with the crimes. Some people do.

      Comment


      • #4
        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.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • #5
          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.
          My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

          Comment


          • #6
            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.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
              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?
              Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
              M. Pacana

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                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.
                Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
                M. Pacana

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Varqm View Post
                  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.
                  "Is all that we see or seem
                  but a dream within a dream?"

                  -Edgar Allan Poe


                  "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                  quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                  -Frederick G. Abberline

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Varqm View Post
                    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?
                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                      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?
                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                        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?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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
                            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by RockySullivan View Post
                              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 hes now outside her apartment. Scared someone had seen him and changes his story.
                              Classic lying behavior.
                              "Is all that we see or seem
                              but a dream within a dream?"

                              -Edgar Allan Poe


                              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                              -Frederick G. Abberline

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X