Mr Blotchy

[Sam Flynn]

That might be the case for Fisherman, but I have no dog in this fight (so to speak) and I recognise the similarities between the two cases.

You're welcome, Harry, but we'd best leave it there or we'll derail this thread, which is about Mr Blotchy after all.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn:
The primary reason why you don't acknowledge the significance of these differences is because there's an agenda to pursue.

That is the cheap way out, and much as it must be comfortable, it really is not sound. According to you, it would seem that I cannot entertain any idea at all with any credibility, if that idea in any manner can be looked upon as supporting the Lechmere theory. Is that so? The factual value of my argument will always be eaten up by how I cannot be trusted since I have a suspect, is that it?

Then I advice you to instead of trying to get rid of Harry D, you may need to see what it means when somebody who has levelled a lot of criticism against the Lechmere theory over the years, in fact says the exact same thing as I do. And that is in spite of how Harry is quite aware that the 1889 torso victims cannot have been killed by Bury - who Harry likes very much as a suspect.

So how do you handle such a thing? He has a favoured suspect, but he also seems to have the integrity to go against his own "agenda" (for it cannot be a conviction, can it - it must be an agenda, right?) and vote for a combined identity between the Ripper and the torso killer.

Well, you have already shown how you handle it - by asking him to take his business elsewhere. "Best leave it there".

How´s THAT for an agenda?

[Sam Flynn]

Well, you have already shown how you handle it - by asking him to take his business elsewhere. "Best leave it there".

How´s THAT for an agenda?

No agenda whatsoever; I have no desire to take this thread down an off-topic rabbit-hole, that's all.

[Fisherman]

No agenda whatsoever; I have no desire to take this discussion down an off topic rabbit-hole, that's all.

So exactly where do you wish to discuss it, then? No agenda and all?

[Sam Flynn]

So exactly where do you wish to discuss it, then?

I don't wish to discuss your favourite topic anywhere, quite frankly, but certainly not on this thread.

[Fisherman]

I don't wish to discuss your favourite topic anywhere, quite frankly, but certainly not on this thread.

These are discussion boards, Gareth. Discussing is what they are for. This particular thread has expanded well beyond Blotchy, but it was not until you pqinted yourself into a corner that it suddenly became something you took a disliking to. But that is the nature of things; when we are cornered, we sometimes prefer to call it day.

You have implied on this thread that people who have a suspect are not to be trusted, by commenting on my view of the shared identity of the Ripper and the Torso killer by stating "The primary reason why you don't acknowledge the significance of these differences is because there's an agenda to pursue."

This is why I wrote: "According to you, it would seem that I cannot entertain any idea at all with any credibility, if that idea in any manner can be looked upon as supporting the Lechmere theory. Is that so? The factual value of my argument will always be eaten up by how I cannot be trusted since I have a suspect, is that it?"

But you have not had the decency to give me an answer to that, claiming that your unwilligness is grounded on how this is the wrong thread for it. So I will start a new thread under Ripper discussions: General discussion: Research related: Not to be trusted, where you will have ample opportunity to clarify yourself and build under your accusations with facts - or be revealed as somebody who will resort to false accusations and who is sadly unable to substatiate them.

I bid you welcome to that thread, specifically designed for this exact discussion.

[Abby Normal]

I don't wish to discuss your favourite topic anywhere, quite frankly, but certainly not on this thread.

Hi Sam
I disagree with you on the viability of lech and torso ripper, but agree with you 100% on kennedy being a joke-anyone who thinks she is a viable witness (or person for that matter)-is being purposefully obtuse and/or has there own agenda. I also agree that torso/ripper really has no place on this thread. Unless of course its somehow germain to Blotchy.

take it to the torso thread fish. : )

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks, Abby

[Fisherman]

Hi Sam
I disagree with you on the viability of lech and torso ripper, but agree with you 100% on kennedy being a joke-anyone who thinks she is a viable witness (or person for that matter)-is being purposefully obtuse and/or has there own agenda. I also agree that torso/ripper really has no place on this thread. Unless of course its somehow germain to Blotchy.

take it to the torso thread fish. : )

It has been moved already, Abby, as stated above. The first post is up. The next one is Gareth´s. I´m waiting.

[Abby Normal]

It has been moved already, Abby, as stated above. The first post is up. The next one is Gareth´s. I´m waiting.

thank you fish

[Jon Guy]

Hi Jon. One skin complaint that I'm considering is favus, mostly when I consider Jack being German. The mention of a "removed boil" in the case of John Cleary had me wondering. When I read up on the Coram Street mystery, it described the accused doctor of having "pimples", which weren't evident at his trial. Apparently they can be peeled off, which is what I consider for the bloody handkerchiefs discovered in that case. Dr William Gull treated a 20 year old man for the condition in 62.
pg 275
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?...85;skin=mobile

Hi Robert

The man who allegedly attacked Annie Farmer had a visible boil, and John Pizer also recently had a boil of some kind.

[jerryd]

Here's a quetion for jerryd, if Arnold had a boil or boils why did the reporter suggest Dennis Lynch as John Leary? Did Dennis Lynch also have boils or a skin condition? Or was Arnold's skin condition perhaps not so prominent or not in the description the newspaper man heard

The reporter (Mellor) suggested a man he knew by the name of John Cleary that was an ex-compositor for the Globe. The description of this Globe man was entirely different from that of John Arnold. Dennis Lynch didn't come into the picture until Donald Swanson started digging down at Whitehorse Yard for the identity of who was the man that appeared at the Herald office.

[RockySullivan]

The reporter (Mellor) suggested a man he knew by the name of John Cleary that was an ex-compositor for the Globe. The description of this Globe man was entirely different from that of John Arnold. Dennis Lynch didn't come into the picture until Donald Swanson started digging down at Whitehorse Yard for the identity of who was the man that appeared at the Herald office.

Oh I thought Mellor meant Cleary was Lynch. It's just so strange as you've pointed out that mellor was involved with this and found the limb

[Chava]

Getting back to Lewis and Hutch, it’s worth remembering that Lewis testifies to seeing a man in the entrance to the Court at the inquest. Hutch comes forward after the inquest. Lewis does not corroborate Hutch, he corroborates her. We can’t use Lewis to prove the veracity of Hutch’s testimony.

As for the cry of murder, I would be amazed if this came from Kelley. First off there is no sound from any other victim—and they were all killed in areas of high population with possible witnesses as close as 10’ away. Second if Kelley had time to cry out she had time to struggle. And you would see the signs of a struggle in that mass of blood in and around the bed. It would be impossible to avoid. That could have been a cry in the street. We cannot assume it’s associated with Kelley. And given the other victims’ silence I must assume it isn’t.

Now there is one thing that works against Mr Blotchy being the killer: Kelly’s stomach does not contain beer. However my guess is Mr B drowned his impatience in that beer while his prospective victim sang. And sang. And sang.

[Craig H]

Some interesting posts earlier about possible sightings of Blotchy. Are they describing the same man who would appear to live in a lodging house in Thrawl Street ?

Mary Cox’s description of man going into Kelly’s room on November 8
Stout, aged around 35 or 36, about 5’5” tall, shabbily dressed in a long overcoat and a billycock hat, had a blotchy face and small side whiskers, carroty moustache, carrying a pail of beer.

Joseph Taylor and Mrs Fiddymont’s description of man at Prince Alfred pub at 7 a.m Septembers 8
This is several hours after Annie Chapman death.

Thin, about 5’8”, between 40 and 50 years (another article quoted Taylor say the man was between 30 and 40 years) , shabby genteel look, pepper & salt trousers, dark coat, eyes as wild as a hawk’s, ginger-coloured moustache curling a little at the end, short sandy hair, a light blue check shirt which was torn badly, blood under his right ear, dried blood between the fingers of his hand.

The man had a peculiar springy walk that I would recognise again. He carried himself very erect, like a horse soldier. He crossed Brushfeld St several times (Taylor thought he seemed confused, I think he was checking to see if Taylor was following him).

Mrs Fiddymont added that the man's head was grimy, as if it had been bloody, and had been dampened or spit upon in the endeavour to rub the blood off instead of washing it. The man did not look in the least like a butcher.
Taylor followed him to Halfmoon Street (near Bishopsgate Street and Artillery Lane). On another occasion Taylor saw the man come out of a lodging house in Thrawl Street.

Mr Galloway’s sighting on Wednesday, 14 November (early hours)

Galloway was suspicious as the man was similar to the published description by Mary Cox. The man was short, stout, about 35 to 40 years of age, a carroty colour moustache (not particularly heavy), his face blotchy through drink and dissipation, wore a long, dirty brown overcoat, and altogether presented a most villainous appearance. He darted back almost immediately to the other side of the road.

This was near Thrawl Street.

It would seem that they are describing the same man ?