Who are the mostly likely suspects?

[Uncle Jack]

My top 5 would be:

01. Severin Klosowski
02. James Kelly
03. William H. Bury
04. Hyam Hyams
05. Jacob Levy

[Wickerman]

This is very much how I think the beer container would have been
have a look at

http://www.bottless.net/The_History_of_The_Beer_Growler_s/605.htm?searching=Y

for more info
Chris

Where did the suggestion of a "Pail" come from?

I understood Blotchy was said to have carried a "can" or "pot" of ale, or beer.

I had always understood it to mean the typical pewter-type beer mug.


Antique Victorian Pewter James Yates Beer Mug - 19th Century 1/2 Half Pint Small Tankard Stein Vintage 1800s Dark Charcoal Grey Patina Cup

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

suggestion

Hello Velma.

"if pot boys went around and picked them up outside doors, how did they know where to return them?"

A sensible suggestion. Given the proliferation of area pubs, the only other solution would be for each pub to use a trademark kind/colour.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

options

Hello Greg. Well, if so, it might be that the pub's name were included. Another good guess is that they were sold. Those who could not afford to buy one could perhaps put down a deposit and "rent" one.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

sound

Hello Velma. I think those are all sound assumptions. And I think it must have been a fairly vigourous business to have hired boys for the work.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

speculation

Hello Stephen.

"Did Victorian pubs supply or loan containers for takeaway alcohol?"

My guess is that, like bottles, a deposit was charged and returned when the can was.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

under no allusion

Hello Michael.

"He had nothing to hide and was probably a familiar blotchy face to the denizens of the Court whether they could out a name to him or not."

But should not that fact have been alluded to when his description was given?

Cheers.
LC

[curious]

Yes an interesting discussion indeed.

I guess Blotchy took his pot with him for one of 3 reasons.

1) He wasn't finished with his brew
2) He owned it
3) He didn't want to leave behind any evidence.....

It's a good question whether the establishments had its names on the pails or if someone purchased one, would they put their own name on it?

These people were poor so perhaps bucket stealing was a problem....?


Greg

I wondered if the names were on them because there seemed to be so many drinking establishments in the area, and if pot boys went around and picked them up outside doors, how did they know where to return them?

[The Good Michael]

I'm pretty sure he just took the pot when he was finished with his liaison. Interesting to note that the coroner suggested the man's heels were worn down as he made no noise walking with Kelly.

Mike

[GregBaron]

Whose bucket is it?

Yes an interesting discussion indeed.

I guess Blotchy took his pot with him for one of 3 reasons.

1) He wasn't finished with his brew
2) He owned it
3) He didn't want to leave behind any evidence.....

It's a good question whether the establishments had its names on the pails or if someone purchased one, would they put their own name on it?

These people were poor so perhaps bucket stealing was a problem....?


Greg

[curious]

Hello Greg. In "The Echo" story, such containers were said to be placed next the door when emptied (remember the milk man of olden days and their glass containers?). Then "pot boys" would collect and return them.

But none to report at Millers Court.

Cheers.
LC

I take it the "pots" were marked with the name of the establishments to which they belonged?

Wasn't there a bucket removed from Millers Court? The police removed it, covered with a newspaper. The papers speculated that it had been filled with flesh, but I haven't read any thing that stated what was in the bucket.

I'm guessing that could NOT have been the beer pot since the authorities were checking with the pot boys?

[Stephen Thomas]

Hello Stephen. I wonder whether Blotchy could not have owned his own container? But not sure where he'd have bought the beer.

As I said, Lynn, an excellent discussion.

Did Victorian pubs supply or loan containers for takeawy alchohol?

I suspect that punters brought their own.

[The Good Michael]

It seems to me that Blotchy and Kelly were at the pub and went home together, probably as they had done once a week for the past 6 months. He casually walked along with her, beer pail swinging, while she engaged in loud, obnoxious, and probably ribald singing in her completely inebriated state. He had no idea this was going to be his last time with her and he acted as he had done all other times before. He had nothing to hide and was probably a familiar blotchy face to the denizens of the Court whether they could out a name to him or not.

Mike

[lynn cates]

own property

Hello Stephen. I wonder whether Blotchy could not have owned his own container? But not sure where he'd have bought the beer.

Cheers.
LC

[Stephen Thomas]

Excellent discussiom, guys.

Blotchyface was obviously carrying a bucket of beer or as ventrloquists call it, a gucket of geer. Strange indeed that no pub emloyee was located who remembered selling said bucket of beer. There's a very quaint passage in the Booth Poverty Map notebooks in 1898 where a prissy researcher says how terrible it is that children are sent to pubs to collect beer and the worldly wise Spitalfields policeman sardonically replies that, au contraire, this is a good thing because the child takes the beer and takes it home, but if the mother goes to the pub she tends to stay there for the rest of the evening.