Blotchy

[curious]

Hello Richard. Now this is the kind of discussion I am delighted to see.

Is it possible that her meeting with Blotchy were the one for which she dressed?

Would it make a difference if Christer is right about the night of the A-man meeting?

If my two theses are correct, could the sightings then be made to harmonise?

Cheers.
LC

Morning, Lynn,
This is a cryptic message, and more detail would make for a better opportunity for discussion, me thinks.

[lynn cates]

expatiation

Hello Velma. Since Richard discussed the possibility that MJK had dressed up for a meeting, I wondered if her meeting was with precisely BM?

I am also quite gung ho on Christer's theory that Hutch spotted A-Man the night BEFORE MJK died.

Cheers.
LC

[curious]

Hello Velma. Since Richard discussed the possibility that MJK had dressed up for a meeting, I wondered if her meeting was with precisely BM?

I am also quite gung ho on Christer's theory that Hutch spotted A-Man the night BEFORE MJK died.

Cheers.
LC

gotcha. On what is the latter theory based? Other than Hutch's story, is there any indication from any other source that A-Man was lurking around the day before?

I can see MJK dressing up in an effort to attract a long-term fella because of her past history -- Barnett, Fleming, Morganstone, etc.

I know your partiality to Red Jim for Blotchy, of course, but can see other reasons for her dressing respectably -- the desire for a long term man in her life, for instance.

[lynn cates]

theory

Hello Velma. Well, the best answer is to read the article. Its nuances deserve more than a short blurb from me.

Notwithstanding, a short version includes the question, "If it was a cold rainy night, why was A-Man's coat opened enough for Hutch to identify his accoutrements?"

(Oh, where's that bloody Christer when you need him? heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[curious]

Hello Velma. Well, the best answer is to read the article. Its nuances deserve more than a short blurb from me.

Notwithstanding, a short version includes the question, "If it was a cold rainy night, why was A-Man's coat opened enough for Hutch to identify his accoutrements?"

(Oh, where's that bloody Christer when you need him? heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

ah, since you and I have had this discussion before, I know I have read the article, but it is completely out of my head at this moment.

and do we know the weather of the night before?

[lynn cates]

weather

Hello Velma. If I recall properly, Christer indicated it was less incommodious, hence an open coat would not have been out of place.

Cheers.
LC

[richardnunweek]

Hi Curious,
If the killer wished to protect his own clothing, then surely the men's pilot coat covering the window would have sufficed.
The coat was a black velvet jacket, so would not have afforded much protection, so one still wonders why these two items [ Jacket and bonnet] became bloodstained?, indeed why would they be burnt by the killer, would they give a clue to their identity?
For them to have become soiled with blood , they would have either had to be worn by the killer, or been on the bed when the attack took place, the first theory would indicate all sorts of speculation..., the latter a more plausible scenario , however that would suggest that either Kelly was undressing when attacked , having taken off all her clothing except a chemise, but why then was her other clothing not have been bloodied?
Or taking the other view by the police [ the same report] that they also believed the murder happened in daylight, one could speculate that she was about to get dressed when her killer entered the room, and the jacket and bonnet were laid on the bed.
So why did the killer burn them?..possibly seeing the bloodied items the fiend, realized that if left on the bed in that condition it would indicate that the murder did not occur during the hours of the night as it would not suggest that, an important reason if one had a night time alibi...that should please Heinrich.
Regards Richard.

[Bridewell]

Context

You must be confusing me with another member, Bridewell; I did read the witness depositions.

Heinrich,

She gave two accounts. One was her original witness statement, made to the police on the day of the murder. The other, broadly similar, was the actual testimony she gave to the coroner. The description (blotchy face and carroty moustache) is included in both.

Let's put this reply in its context:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bridewell
How have you formed your "water-tight case" against Joseph Barnett without reading the text of the original witness statements?

You must be confusing me with another member, Bridewell; I did read the witness depositions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bridewell
and, more to the point, how can you possibly dismiss the evidence of any witness whose original account you have not read?

I did read the witness depositions, Bridewell. Mary Cox's was the most ludicrous.


In an earlier post, one of the reasons you advanced in support of Mary Cox's mendacity was that she only added the detail about his blotchy face and carroty moustache "to compensate for not seeing the length of his hair".

What did she add it to? Please explain.

You also said (see 110) "I was commenting on her deposition, Bridewell. I am not aware of her mentioning a blotchy face or a carroty moustache to the police".

Who do you think took her "deposition"?! I ask that because the "Best Evidence" principle dictates that her earliest disclosure (i.e. the witness statement made on the day of the murder - to the police) takes precedence. This contains the "blotchy face" and "carroty moustache" reference which you claim to be a later addition.

One other point:

In Post 69 (no smirking at the back!) you said, in answer to Lynn:

"Lynn, I am not a psychologist"

You also said, elsewhere, "I couldn't guess what was in Mary Cox's mind, Lynn".

So far, so good. However,

In Post 106, in reply to my question:

How do you know that she only mentioned the detail she did see to compensate for not seeing the length of his hair?

you reply:

That is my guess based on human psychology!

So, at one point, we have you saying you're not a psychologist, and can't "guess what was in Mary Cox's mind"

Yet, at another, you're telling us that you can (and do) guess her motives, "based on human psychology".

I have no objection to your contradicting the rest of us. It's part of the fun,, after all. When you start contradicting yourself, however, it tends to undermine your position.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Cogidubnus]

A bull...a veritable bull...oh good shot sir!

[Heinrich]

She gave two accounts. One was her original witness statement, made to the police on the day of the murder. The other, broadly similar, was the actual testimony she gave to the coroner. The description (blotchy face and carroty moustache) is included in both.

I cannot find any account of Mary Cox telling the police that she saw a man with a blotchy face and carroty moustache. Could you provide me with a link please?

Let's put this reply in its context:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bridewell
How have you formed your "water-tight case" against Joseph Barnett without reading the text of the original witness statements?

I read the depositions which were made under oath. I also read some other reports of statements, for example, Cox's statement, 9 November 1888, quoted in Evans and Skinner, pp. 364–365; Fido, p. 87 which has no mention of a blotchy face or carroty moustache.

... In an earlier post, one of the reasons you advanced in support of Mary Cox's mendacity was that she only added the detail about his blotchy face and carroty moustache "to compensate for not seeing the length of his hair".

What did she add it to? Please explain.

She added the details of the blotchy face and the carroty moustache only having admitted that she did not know whether the alleged character had long or short hair.

You also said (see 110) "I was commenting on her deposition, Bridewell. I am not aware of her mentioning a blotchy face or a carroty moustache to the police".

Who do you think took her "deposition"?

The coroner at the inquest.

In Post 69 (no smirking at the back!) you said, in answer to Lynn:

"Lynn, I am not a psychologist"

You also said, elsewhere, "I couldn't guess what was in Mary Cox's mind, Lynn".

So far, so good. However,

In Post 106, in reply to my question:

How do you know that she only mentioned the detail she did see to compensate for not seeing the length of his hair?

you reply:

That is my guess based on human psychology!

So, at one point, we have you saying you're not a psychologist, and can't "guess what was in Mary Cox's mind"

Yet, at another, you're telling us that you can (and do) guess her motives, "based on human psychology".

I have no objection to your contradicting the rest of us. It's part of the fun,, after all. When you start contradicting yourself, however, it tends to undermine your position.

I did not contradict myself, Bridewell. I mentioned that I could not be sure why Mary Cox was making up stuff because, for one reason, I am not a psychologist (nor indeed a mindreader) but in hazarding a guess at the specific request of Lynn, I used everyday "human psychology" as to why anyone would lie. I provided several reasons only having qualified that I did not know for sure.

Dismissing testimony which has no independent support is advisable, Bridewell, because if everyone is to be believed then we could never identify the culprit. Incidentally, the police seem to have dismissed George Hutchinson's fabrication of the man of "Jewish appearance", despite an extremely detailed description of the man right down to the color of his eyelashes in the middle of a dark winter night. No one else had seen him, you see.

[Sally]

Dismissing testimony which has no independent support is advisable, Bridewell, because if everyone is to be believed then we could never identify the culprit. Incidentally, the police seem to have dismissed George Hutchinson's fabrication of the man of "Jewish appearance", despite an extremely detailed description of the man right down to the color of his eyelashes in the middle of a dark winter night. No one else had seen him, you see.

Good Lord, Heinrich, you really are way off here, aren't you? I'm afraid it's all a lot more complicated than that. If only it was as simple as 'the boyfriend did it' and all the 'testimony which has no independent support' could really just be dismissed out of hand.

But then we wouldn't be here, would we?

[Heinrich]

Good Lord, Heinrich, you really are way off here, aren't you? I'm afraid it's all a lot more complicated than that. If only it was as simple as 'the boyfriend did it' and all the 'testimony which has no independent support' could really just be dismissed out of hand.

But then we wouldn't be here, would we?

You are right, Sally. As long as members want give equal weight the obvious as to the implausible, the chat will never end.

[Bridewell]

I cannot find any account of Mary Cox telling the police that she saw a man with a blotchy face and carroty moustache. Could you provide me with a link please?

I've already told you where it is. It's in her statement made to the police on the day of the murder. I've also given you the relevant paragraph verbatim in Post 110, but here it is again:

"The man whom I saw was about 36 years old, about 5' 5" high, complexion fresh and I believe he had blotches on his face, small side whiskers, and a thick carroty moustache, dressed in shabby dark clothes, dark overcoat and black felt hat".

This was her account on the day of the murder. She repeated the same detail in her oral testimony at the inquest.


I read the depositions which were made under oath. I also read some other reports of statements, for example, Cox's statement, 9 November 1888, quoted in Evans and Skinner, pp. 364–365; Fido, p. 87 which has no mention of a blotchy face or carroty moustache.

If, by Evans & Skinner, you mean The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Handbook, her statement is in there, complete, between pp 404-405 in the paperbook edition. Please don't keep pretending it isn't there, because it is.

If there is anyone apart from you who says they can't find this description in the original statement, dated 9th November, I'll post the text in its entirety. If no-one else makes such a claim, please accept that you need to locate the statement and read it from beginning to end.

I did not contradict myself, Bridewell.

I think you did. Others can make their own mind up on that one, but it looks as though Cogidubnus is of the same opinion (see Post 144)

Dismissing testimony which has no independent support is advisable, Bridewell,

Treating it with caution is advisable. Dismissing it out of hand is silly, but I guess we're back to your claim that uncorroborated evidence is unbelievable.

I don't think we're ever going to see eye to eye on this thread, Heinrich. I look forward to reading your watertight case against Barnett in due course.

Regards, Bridewell

[Heinrich]

"The man whom I saw was about 36 years old, about 5' 5" high, complexion fresh and I believe he had blotches on his face, small side whiskers, and a thick carroty moustache, dressed in shabby dark clothes, dark overcoat and black felt hat".

I cannot find a transcript of Mary Cox's statement to the police on 9th November 1888, Bridewell, although I read a report of it which states that she "believed" the alleged man had blotches on his face and a carroty moustache. So, I have some doubt about the details while I note that in your quote you have "I believe he had blotches on his face" suggesting less than certitude.
Even granting that she mentioned to the police the blotches and carroty moustache (if somewhat less certain than at the later inquest), this should not change our minds that accepting uncorroborated claims is folly, Bridewell.

I don't think we're ever going to see eye to eye on this thread, Heinrich. I look forward to reading your watertight case against Barnett in due course.

I think you will find I have established the case without shadow of doubt against Joseph Barnett, Bridewell.

While I must accept your willingness to provide a reference to anyone but me, perhaps another member could let me have a link to the transcript.

Although I have received no encouragement on Casebook since joining, I am happy for members who have their opinions supported by others in the way Cogidubnus has demonstrated admiration for your contribution at my expense.

[Errata]

So, I'm a little confused...

a: what is so remarkable about not knowing the length of a man's hair when the man in question is wearing a hat? This isn't the 60's.. it's not like he had long luxuriant hippie locks

b: aren't a majority of things witnessed in the early hours of the morning when most people are asleep uncorroborated? I could run naked down my block at three in the morning, and be seen by no one at all. Maybe the frat guy three houses over, but then his statement would be uncorroborated by anyone else in the neighborhood. Seems a bit unfair to to categorically assume he is a liar just because I prefer my shenanigans nocturnal.

Saying that uncorroborated accounts should be automatically dismissed is very dangerous ground. Most rapes and sexual assaults are uncorroborated. Most incidences of child molestation and abuse are uncorroborated. If your view is truly to discount all such statements as lies or imagination then perhaps the crimes of Jack the Ripper should be the LEAST of your concerns.