Blotchy

[DVV]

Hi Heinrich

Fantasy?

???

[miss marple]

After the Beer Act of 1830 Private houses could make and sell beer on payment of a fee. A barrel was set up in a front room for example and BEER WAS DISPENSED IN JUGS which were taken away. Probably a common sight in the East End.
Mrs Cox's testimony is quite valid. Just because Heinrich insists something is true dos not make it so.

Miss Marple

[Sally]

Heinrich.

You're making a of judegements here, aren't you? On what basis?

I merely offer it as a possible character trait which would explain her mendacity.

Right. So first you assume that Cox was lying because it fits with your belief; then you look for a reason to justify it. That's not how it works, Heinrich. As support for your contention that Barnett was the Ripper it's worthless.

If she lied about seeing Blotchy Carroty she probably lied about seeing Mary too. This would be consistent.

Yes Heinrich, but you have no evidence that she lied, and nothing to support the contention except your wish that it was so.

The woman is not credible, Lynn.

Why not? Because she was a prostitute? Because she was a woman on her own? Your next comment seems to suggest so -

A widowed prostitute with a child cannot be choosy

I'm not sure that's very nice, Heinrich.

[Heinrich]

Hello Heinrich.

"Pathology does not need a reason, Lynn."

True, but it needs to be established.

I merely offer it as a possible character trait which would explain her mendacity.

"She likely did not see Mary Kelly either."

Why is that likely?

If she lied about seeing Blotchy Carroty she probably lied about seeing Mary too. This would be consistent.

"All made up, Lynn."

Why so?

The woman is not credible, Lynn.

"Fantasy?"

If so, then why a fantasy about him? Not sure he had anything desirable for women. He was out of work and not a terribly effective speaker.

A widowed prostitute with a child cannot be choosy.

[lynn cates]

points

Hello Heinrich.

"Pathology does not need a reason, Lynn."

True, but it needs to be established.

"She likely did not see Mary Kelly either."

Why is that likely?

"All made up, Lynn."

Why so?

"Fantasy?"

If so, then why a fantasy about him? Not sure he had anything desirable for women. He was out of work and not a terribly effective speaker.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Well Heinrich, I suppose it could have been a pot of anything. Milk is a good bet. Or a pot of the finest champagne. If Blotchy was one of Lynn's countrymen, it could have been porridge. Why on earth she thought it might be beer is quite beyond me.

Given the colour of his 'stache, ...Carrot Juice, Tomato Soup, or...a Bloody Mary?

[Heinrich]

Okay - so Cox Lied. And Blotchy couldn't be traced. Ah well then, that proves it.

I was sure you would see it my way, Sally

Deciding that Cox lied without any raison d'être is nothing more than baseless speculation used to bolster a weak theory.

What theory do you mean, Sally?
i) The certitude that Joseph Barnett murdered Mary Kelly?
or
ii) Blotchy Face never existed?

The description of a man with a carrotty moustache and a blotchy face whom Cox hadn't seen before - and no reason she should have - whilst not exactly generic, is broad enough to be less than useful in tracking him down either. If the police went to every lodging house in the immediate district, how many men with carrotty moustaches and blotchy faces do you think they would find?

I agree.

And secondly, if Blotchy was the Ripper, then of course he disappeared without a trace. He seems to have been pretty good at eluding capture. Not really like Barnett at all, who walked straight into the commotion in Dorset Street, where he was sure to be taken for questioning by the police. Why would he have done that, if he'd been the Ripper?

Joseph Barnett had no hope of disappearing. He had been living with Mary Kelly after all and he was identified at the scene of the crime.

"If she did lie it could have been for any number of reasons or, in the case of an habitual liar, none"

Of course, a habitual liar would indicate a form of mental illness. To suppose that, I would need a reason.

Pathology does not need a reason, Lynn.

"i) money: Would a reporter buy her a drink at the local?"

OK, this seems to suggest that she saw MJK and then ADDED Blotchy for the reason you adduce. It may have been safer in that case to have created a more neutral character. Surely the two main features here are rather striking? But, not bad.

She likely did not see Mary Kelly either.

"ii) sympathy: Were people solicitous about her wellbeing having come so close to being murdered herself?"

Something like an enhancement? Of course, this still presupposes that she saw MJK.

All made up, Lynn.

"iii) protection: Was it Joseph Barnett she saw and wanted to deflect attention from him?'

OK. And this corresponds to your thesis. But why deflect blame from him--unless she had an interest there?

Fantasy?

"iv) vindictiveness: Did she want to give the impression that Mary Kelly brought it on herself by inviting in such a shady-sounding character to her place?"

Doesn't feel right. Like the pot calling the kettle black.

It happens all the time, Lynn.

... Yep, I can understand Blotchy keeping quiet.

You are right to laugh, Robert.

[Sally]

I must disagree. The moustache would have been fairly common, in certain ethnic groups, and the blotchy face, perhaps for an overindulgent person. Coinciding in one individual? A bit rare.

I don't think so Lynn. I think carrotty moustaches would have been fairly well represented in the diverse population of Whitechapel - 'carrotty' in dim lighting could be anything from fair to downright ginger or blazing red.

As for the blotchy face - that could have had a wide range of causes, from sunburn, to a skin complaint, to habitual drunkenness etc. etc.

The description is insufficient to lead easily to identification on its own.

[lynn cates]

"Red" Jim

Hello Robert. Yes, silence was called for.

Of course, I am a bit biased, but every time I read about Blotchy I think about "Red" Jim.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

features

Hello Sally.

"The description of a man with a carrotty moustache and a blotchy face whom Cox hadn't seen before - and no reason she should have - whilst not exactly generic, is broad enough to be less than useful in tracking him down either. If the police went to every lodging house in the immediate district, how many men with carrotty moustaches and blotchy faces do you think they would find?"

I must disagree. The moustache would have been fairly common, in certain ethnic groups, and the blotchy face, perhaps for an overindulgent person. Coinciding in one individual? A bit rare.

Cheers.
LC

[Robert]

I can understand Blotchy not coming forward. After all, it wasn't unknown for the police to frame someone - and in Blotchy's case, some over-zealous policeman might try to make out that Blotchy was the last person seen with the murdered woman in her room! And then refuse to listen to anything Blotchy said.

Yep, I can understand Blotchy keeping quiet.

[lynn cates]

liars

Hello Heinrich. Some of these are good.

"If she did lie it could have been for any number of reasons or, in the case of an habitual liar, none"

Of course, a habitual liar would indicate a form of mental illness. To suppose that, I would need a reason.

"Why does anyone lie?"

Now you're talking!

"i) money: Would a reporter buy her a drink at the local?"

OK, this seems to suggest that she saw MJK and then ADDED Blotchy for the reason you adduce. It may have been safer in that case to have created a more neutral character. Surely the two main features here are rather striking? But, not bad.

"ii) sympathy: Were people solicitous about her wellbeing having come so close to being murdered herself?"

Something like an enhancement? Of course, this still presupposes that she saw MJK.

"iii) protection: Was it Joseph Barnett she saw and wanted to deflect attention from him?'

OK. And this corresponds to your thesis. But why deflect blame from him--unless she had an interest there?

"iv) vindictiveness: Did she want to give the impression that Mary Kelly brought it on herself by inviting in such a shady-sounding character to her place?"

Doesn't feel right. Like the pot calling the kettle black.

"One could go on, if you know what I mean."

Indeed. And some of these are better than others.

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

Okay - so Cox Lied. And Blotchy couldn't be traced. Ah well then, that proves it.

Except -

Deciding that Cox lied without any raison d'être is nothing more than baseless speculation used to bolster a weak theory.

True, no trace of Blotchy turned up - however:

The description of a man with a carrotty moustache and a blotchy face whom Cox hadn't seen before - and no reason she should have - whilst not exactly generic, is broad enough to be less than useful in tracking him down either. If the police went to every lodging house in the immediate district, how many men with carrotty moustaches and blotchy faces do you think they would find?

And secondly, if Blotchy was the Ripper, then of course he disappeared without a trace. He seems to have been pretty good at eluding capture. Not really like Barnett at all, who walked straight into the commotion in Dorset Street, where he was sure to be taken for questioning by the police. Why would he have done that, if he'd been the Ripper?

Oh but of course. I expect it was a devillishly clever double bluff on his part. For such a mentally deranged criminal mastermind, he appears to have led an extremely mundane, and dare I suggest, stable life.

Absolute Hokum.

[Heinrich]

Hello Heinrich. To be fair, no trace of him turned up.

Of course, it would be helpful to ascertain why Cox lied--if she did. ...

If she did lie it could have been for any number of reasons or, in the case of an habitual liar, none:
Why does anyone lie?
i) money: Would a reporter buy her a drink at the local?
ii) sympathy: Were people solicitous about her wellbeing having come so close to being murdered herself?
iii) protection: Was it Joseph Barnett she saw and wanted to deflect attention from him?
iv) vindictiveness: Did she want to give the impression that Mary Kelly brought it on herself by inviting in such a shady-sounding character to her place?

One could go on, if you know what I mean.

[lynn cates]

no trace

Hello Heinrich. To be fair, no trace of him turned up.

Of course, it would be helpful to ascertain why Cox lied--if she did.

Cheers.
LC