Blotchy

[Sally]

Hello Sally. Two other possibilities:

1. the potboy did not recall--a pot is a pot; a house is a house.

2. potboys had high attrition rates.

Cheers.
LC

Yes, exactly Lynn

[lynn cates]

suggestions

Hello Sally. Two other possibilities:

1. the potboy did not recall--a pot is a pot; a house is a house.

2. potboys had high attrition rates.

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

Pot

That's an interesting take, Lynn.

I observe that the Echo (along with the rest of the world at the time apparently) states that there is no reason to doubt Cox's testimony.

So the 'extraordinary' nature of the reported incident must refer to something other than Cox's imaginary mendacity I guess.

More interesting is the information about pot boys coming to collect the pots in the morning. If the pot had been Kelly's and left outside the door then it's hardly surprising that it was never discovered.

Anything could have happened to it in the interim. It could have been moved - perhaps by one of those stray dogs frequenting Whitechapel that were found dead at the scene ( ) or just kicked over by anybody passing, for example.

If pots were collected in the morning there may have been no way of telling which one was Kelly's if the practice was common.

And as we've established, people don't tend to come forward on a maybe.

[lynn cates]

refreshments

Hello Heinrich. Thanks. Yes, I feel I know your views here.

I wonder if the "extraordinary" had to do with a suspect for murder bringing refreshments with him? These items (violent murder and refreshments) almost NEVER go together. One exception might be in the LaBianca murders when Watson and some of his accomplices lingered after the two brutal murders and prepared a meal for themselves.

If BM existed, he most likely was NOT her assailant.

Cheers.
LC

[Heinrich]

Hello Heinrich. Thanks for the music.

You're welcome, Lynn. I do not know if you consider it up to standard but is is genuinely old.
You might like this instrumental version, which Mary Kelly might or might not have been singing on the night of her murder but which makes me think of her and feel sad about her awful fate. Dear Mary will never be forgotten:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4sAmzHFLsA

Did you have a go at "The Echo" article?

I did indeed and was struck by the opening sentence: "The statement that the man who accompanied Kelly home was carrying a pot of beer is considered somewhat extraordinary." I'll say. LOL Like the man himself there was no trace of it ever again. I noted also the sentence, "As far as inquiries have gone, no man answering the description given by Cox entered any tavern in the immediate neighbourhood and took away beer." You already know by now how much of a red herring I consider Blotchy Carroty to be.

[lynn cates]

article

Hello Heinrich. Thanks for the music.

Did you have a go at "The Echo" article?

Cheers.
LC

[Heinrich]

Hello Dave. Well, it depends upon the ditty. I cannot find a decent version of "On the Banks of Allan Water."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JDA5K12PLI

... If uncorroborated statements are fiction because they are uncorroborated, then you are accusing any number of crime victims of being liars or mad. ...

I do not mean that all uncorroborated statements are fiction (although I do not believe Mary Cox's vision to be true), Errata, only that as stand-alone claims, which having been investigated produce no corroboration, they are useless.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[lynn cates]

deposit

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

Cheers.
LC

[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

[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

[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.