Blotchy

[Errata]

Sorry, Errata, I think you are missing my point. I never meant to write about you personally.

Actually, I think you are missing my point. You have stated:

I do not believe Blotchy Carroty existed and I discount Mary Cox's testimony because it is uncorroborated. For me, belief rests on a higher standard than an unsupported claim by one person. I do not know why Mary Cox spun a yarn, whether it was a lie, faulty recall, state of her mind on the night in question, some pathology on her part, imagination, or whatever.

And you have said this in any number of ways. The belief that "an unsupported claim by one person" is the result of a lie, faulty recall, etc. does not exist in a vacuum. If uncorroborated statements are fiction because they are uncorroborated, then you are accusing any number of crime victims of being liars or mad. Which means you think I'm a liar. Or that a child who reports sexual molestation by a custodial parent is a liar.

Now, if you don't think all of those rape victims, kids, victims of abuse, stalking, etc. are liars, then you need to reevaluate what your problem with Mary Cox is. Because clearly you cannot have the rule that "uncorroborated evidence is fiction" only apply to her. It applies to about a quarter of the population, and one of them is me. You can choose to believe me and not her, both of us, neither of us, whatever. But that choice cannot come from the fact that the statements are unsupported. Unless of course you really do think that everyone who was the victim of a criminal smart enough to not commit a crime in front of witnesses is a liar. And in that case you have bigger problems than than the reputation of your Barnett theory.

[Sally]

What the above quote suggests to me, is not that Cox must have been lying, but more likely that the regulars, Tavern keepers & Landlords simply did not want to get involved.
Which is consistent with the apparent silence on what the locals knew and why they kept quiet, leaving some to speculate today that she was not seen therefore she never went out again. False methodology.

Or they just didn't remember him? Surely a lot of people must have been in and out of the pubs buying containers of beer? It would have been busy.

I just wonder whether the silence of the locals can really be expected here - true, some may not have wanted to get involved, but its hard to imagine that everyone would have kept silent - after all, since Blotchy was to all extents and purposes the last man to be seen with Kelly before her death (before Hutchinson turned up with Astroman that is) then as far as anyone knew he was the Ripper. Why would the community conspire together to keep silent - surely they would have wanted him caught.

As for the missing beer pail, I don't know how this worked - maybe somebody does - was the beer container the property of the pub or beerhouse; or was it the customer's own? And if the former, did the customer have to leave a deposit for the container, refundable when it was returned? Or was there money on the pot if it was returned - much like there used to be money on bottles of drink returned to pubs and shops in the more recent past?

If Blotchy was merely a friend or a punter who left, perhaps he took the pail with him for a mundane reason like that.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Lynn

He He...but like you, I think blotchy existed and perhaps was an old friend (or even, seen in a post-Joe light, a new one)...hence he broght some beer round...and she sang to him...I think it all happened after he'd gone and he felt he couldn't come forward...

Regards
Dave

[lynn cates]

private

Hello Sally. That occurred to me as well. I suppose that, like a hip flask, one may have a private pot for beer?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

friends

Hello Dave.

"I think blotchy existed and perhaps was an old friend . . . "

Or perhaps an associate?

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Rozzers?... **** off...

I just wonder whether the silence of the locals can really be expected here - true, some may not have wanted to get involved, but its hard to imagine that everyone would have kept silent

I can only speak for the nineteen twenties and thirties, as quoted to me by my mother (who grew up in Wapping, just next door) but NOBODY talked to the police about anything if they could help it...Wapping, being virtually an island (once you were across the bridge you were in an alien land even in the early 60s when I first visited) might've been a bit more extreme than Whitechapel, but I wouldn't bank on the difference being too much...

Dave

[Sally]

Hi Dave

I have also thought this about Blotchy -

I understand what you mean about the locals not talking to the police and I find it quite believable, yes. I still think that if the locals thought Blotchy might have been the Ripper then somebody would have come forward - it's one thing to have an anit-authority attitude, quite another to keep silent about somebody who goes about ripping up women in your backyard.

I conclude that if there was silence, it was because everybody knew who Blotchy was and nobody believed that he'd had anything to do with it.

[Sally]

Hello Sally. That occurred to me as well. I suppose that, like a hip flask, one may have a private pot for beer?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn (you'll notice that I've learned how to spell your name right now, no extra 'e's from now on!)

I can see that, yes, but it would have to be a pretty small pot for beer to be easily portable - or else what would be the point?

So perhaps it was returnable to the beerhouse or pub and that's why it didn't turn up in Kelly's room - Blotchy had simply taken it back.

So if Blotchy took the beer pot away when he left, how - if - does this affect his candidacy as Ripper? (for the sake or argument let's have it that the Ripper exists)

Does this indicate any probability that Blotchy was merely a punter/friend/associate who left after a song and a beer and bit of how's your father?

Or does this indicate any likelihood that Blotchy was the Ripper, considering that he seems to have been careful with money, apparently taking all the victims' money/valuables (what little they may have had) away with him?

Hmm.

[Cogidubnus]

I went to a pub near the Level in Brighton in the nineteen eighties which still would let you "take out a pot" in a jug containing between four and six pints pulled straight off the pump...if you were a regular they let you take out an old enamel pot...if not you paid a small deposit and took away a plastic jug...

Dave

[lynn cates]

friendly Blotchy

Hello Sally.

"So if Blotchy took the beer pot away when he left, how - if - does this affect his candidacy as Ripper? (for the sake or argument let's have it that the Ripper exists)"

I think it detracts from his candidacy.

"Does this indicate any probability that Blotchy was merely a punter/friend/associate who left after a song and a beer and bit of how's your father?"

Seems that way to me.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

deposit

Hello Dave. That's about what I was thinking. Pay a deposit and go on.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

I went to a pub near the Level in Brighton in the nineteen eighties which still would let you "take out a pot" in a jug containing between four and six pints pulled straight off the pump...if you were a regular they let you take out an old enamel pot...if not you paid a small deposit and took away a plastic jug...

Dave

When I was pubing-it, as part of my ill-spent youth, some of the older crowd would bring their beer mugs with them, and often they were pewter mugs, cheap and well battered.
Strikes me as this is what Blotchy might have carried.

Regards, Jon S.

[curious]

So if Blotchy took the beer pot away when he left, how - if - does this affect his candidacy as Ripper? (for the sake or argument let's have it that the Ripper exists)

It seems to me not to enter into the equation at all.

Sally as you point out, JtR took valuables from his victims. Therefore, being a frugal sort, he would never have left anything of value behind.

Poor people or even those who are thrifty are not likely to willingly leave a possession behind which they probably can not replace.

So, just because the beer pot was taken when Blotchy left, the action does not indicate him either as or as not the Ripper -- IMO.

[Wickerman]

Or they just didn't remember him?

Yes, as is most often the case.

We have a case here where a school girl of 17 yrs old disappeared on entering her school. She was with her 15 year old brother, they took different paths around the main building and he never saw her again.
This girl disappeared in plain sight of hundreds of teenagers, adult teachers and parents dropping their kids off.
Not one statement from anyone at school acknowledges seeing this girl. This was two-three years ago. Her body has just been found beneath a highway overpass.

People can go unnoticed yet a good few members here think that 'no evidence' means it never happened. Specifically, that because no-one came forward to say they saw Kelly, means (in their opinion), that she never went out again.
A flawed argument if ever there was one.

Why would the community conspire together to keep silent - surely they would have wanted him caught.

No-one says they conspired together. Keeping your nose out of everyone else's business is often the better policy. Gossiping to each other was to be expected, but gossiping to the police was another matter entirely.

The populace didn't trust the police, they could have hauled in Blotchy on your say-so, then released him for lack of evidence, as was often the case.
You'll spend the rest of your short life looking over your shoulder, never daring to fall asleep at night again. What kind of life is that?

Regards, Jon S.

[Sally]

People can go unnoticed yet a good few members here think that 'no evidence' means it never happened. Specifically, that because no-one came forward to say they saw Kelly, means (in their opinion), that she never went out again.
A flawed argument if ever there was one.

People do go unnoticed - I don't read too much into the fact that Blotchy and Kelly apparently fell into this category: the pubs were doubtless very crowded - no tv in those days - and most people are generally to absorbed in their own business to notice other people in more than a general way unless somebody does something extraordinary, or an extraordinary occurrence takes place - especially if in familiar surroundings.

I suspect that Kelly and Blotchy just faded into the crowd with a hundred other drinkers. It's quite possible that even if some people had thought they maybe might have seen the couple, they wouldn't have come forward, because as you say, a lot of people wouldn't have wanted to get involved - not on a maybe, anyway.