Blotchy

[Bridewell]

The "event" was the night of the murder, Lynn, whereas the imagined detail was a man with a blotchy face and a carroty moustache (Lord help us) carrying a jug of ale, no less. Now did she see the beer or only smell it one wonders? LOL


Where are you getting this information from, Lynn; it was not part of his autopsy report.

Hi Heinrich,

It's not in the autopsy report. It's in a letter sent by Bond to the Home Office, dated Nov 10th 88. The relevant paragraph reads:

"Rigor mortis had set in, but increased during the progress of the examination. From this it is difficult to say with any degree of certainty the exact time that had elapsed since death as the period varies from 6 to 12 hours before rigidity sets in. The body was comparatively cold at 2 o'clock and the remains of a recently taken meal were found in the stomach and scattered about over the intestines. It is therefore pretty certain that the woman must have been dead about 12 hours and the partly digested food
would indicate: that death took place about 3 or 4 hours after the food was taken, so one or two o'clock in the morning would be the probable time of the murder".

Regards, Bridewell

[Bridewell]

Bridewell, eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable so we have to weigh several aspects.
i) What is the character of the witness?
Mary Cox had a criminal record for assault and had done time.
ii) What were the conditions at the time?
A dark miserable wet night.
iii) Did the witness know the person she was identifying?
Mary Cox never saw Blotchy Carroty before or since the murder.
iv) Does the testimony have corroboration?
No one else saw this man.


In this case, it is easier to believe that Blotchy Carroty never existed except in the imagination of Mary Cox.

No, it isn't. There is every reason to believe her testimony, as she had no obvious motive for lying.

Bridewell, eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable so we have to weigh several aspects.

This is a sweeping generalisation, Heinrich. The reliability of eye witness testimony decreases over time, which is why police investigators endeavour to get a written account as soon as reasonably practicable. Mary Ann Cox made a written statement on the day of the murder. She admitted, in the first sentence, that she was a prostitute, which took considerable courage, and she comes across as a credible witness. A conviction for assault does not negate this.

Some witnesses are mistaken (which you appear to have discounted in the case of Mrs Cox). Some tell lies, but not without a good motive for doing so. The remainder tell the truth to the best of their recollection. Unless I have misunderstood, you are accusing Mrs Cox of lying without giving any indication as to what her motive was for doing so. Lack of corroboration would be an issue if Cox had been with others who denied seeing Blotchy. She was alone, so her account is uncorroborated. An uncorroborated account is not presumed, in law, to be a lie. If you are saying that she is lying, please adduce some evidence in support of that assertion; if you are unable to do so, her evidence is, prima facie, valid.

[Heinrich]

And your point is? Are you suggesting that the fact that the witnesses didn't know the people they saw with Kelly personally they must have been inventing them? How does that work then?

An identification of a person well-known to a witness is more reliable than a description of someone never before seen, Sally.

Yes, Heinrich, because he had noting to hide

Had he been charged, Sally, his lawyer would have wanted someone like you on the jury.

I have shown elsewhere beyond reasonable doubt that Joseph Barnett murdered Mary Kelly. ...

Don't be silly Heinrich - of course you haven't. If you had, then don't you think the case would be solved by now?

I believe I have solved the Mary Kelly murder.

We'd all be congratulating you for your powers of astute insight.

That would be welcome.

Everything that you have suggested in support of your belief is either pure speculation or hearsay.

Not as speculative as you suggest, Sally, as I relied on direct testimony, not hearsay.

In addition, you also dismiss:
An alibi which was checked out by the police. If you think the police wouldn't have suspected Barnett as the recently estranged partner of Kelly at the time and accordingly made sure that he wasn't the culprit your view is unrealistic. If there had been the slightest evidence that Barnett might have been involved he wouldn't have been released from custody.

There was enough evidence to win a conviction of Joseph Barnett had the Metropolitan Police been minimally competent.

The witness testimony of two witnesses - for which you have so far failed to offer explanation.

Uncorroborated.

Barnett had nothing to do with Kelly's murder. There is no evidence whatever to implicate him. He was innocent. Get over it.

The weight of evidence in the Mary Kelly murder is unquestionably against Joseph Barnett.

It's not in the autopsy report. It's in a letter sent by Bond to the Home Office, dated Nov 10th 88. The relevant paragraph reads:

"Rigor mortis had set in, but increased during the progress of the examination. From this it is difficult to say with any degree of certainty the exact time that had elapsed since death as the period varies from 6 to 12 hours before rigidity sets in. The body was comparatively cold at 2 o'clock and the remains of a recently taken meal were found in the stomach and scattered about over the intestines. It is therefore pretty certain that the woman must have been dead about 12 hours and the partly digested food
would indicate: that death took place about 3 or 4 hours after the food was taken, so one or two o'clock in the morning would be the probable time of the murder".

This is most unreliable as everything he writes is qualified and he was relying on a state of rigor mortis which can ever only be a broad approximation. As for the partly digested food, this is of use without knowing at what time the meal was taken.

No, it isn't. There is every reason to believe her testimony, as she had no obvious motive for lying.

Pathological liars do not need a motive and even normally honest people can be mistaken. We should not take every witness at their word.

Bridewell, eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable so we have to weigh several aspects.

This is a sweeping generalisation, Heinrich.

Nevertheless true.

She admitted, in the first sentence, that she was a prostitute, which took considerable courage, and she comes across as a credible witness.

Not to me, Bridewell.

A conviction for assault does not negate this.

Two convictions which does not help in establishing witness credibility.

Some witnesses are mistaken (which you appear to have discounted in the case of Mrs Cox). Some tell lies, but not without a good motive for doing so. The remainder tell the truth to the best of their recollection. Unless I have misunderstood, you are accusing Mrs Cox of lying without giving any indication as to what her motive was for doing so.

She could have been fibbing, or mistaken, or too drunk herself to distinguish fact from fiction. I do not know but I would not take her statement as infallible without some corroboration.

Lack of corroboration would be an issue if Cox had been with others who denied seeing Blotchy. She was alone, so her account is uncorroborated. An uncorroborated account is not presumed, in law, to be a lie.

Nor should it be taken as indisputable fact, Bridewell.

If you are saying that she is lying, please adduce some evidence in support of that assertion; if you are unable to do so, her evidence is, prima facie, valid.

Please, Bridewell, on the face of it her story sounds ridiculous; what a child would make up ... blotchy face and carroty moustache indeed. LOL

[lynn cates]

additions

Hello Heinrich.

"The "event" was the night of the murder, Lynn, whereas the imagined detail was a man with a blotchy face and a carroty moustache (Lord help us) carrying a jug of ale, no less. Now did she see the beer or only smell it one wonders?'

No, I mean if I undergo event X and then add to it, the initial event is X. The addition/s is/are merely the accretion/s.

Put another way, it makes no sense to talk about an addition unless there is SOMETHING to add to.

"Where are you getting this information from, Lynn; it was not part of his autopsy report."

Try Evans and Rumbelow, "Scotland Yard Investigates."

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

drinking material

Hello Robert. What? No single malt?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

blotchy et carrotty

Hello (again) Heinrich.

"on the face of it her story sounds ridiculous; what a child would make up ... blotchy face and carroty moustache indeed."

Please don't be offended but a blotchy face was not uncommon for one who ate and drank a bit too much. In fact, the official description of General Frank Millen included "blotchy face."

Carrotty moustache? That would be a reddish colour. Very common amongst the Irish. Check out the description of "Red" Jim McDermott.

Cheers.
LC

[Heinrich]

"on the face of it her story sounds ridiculous; what a child would make up ... blotchy face and carroty moustache indeed."

Please don't be offended but a blotchy face was not uncommon for one who ate and drank a bit too much. In fact, the official description of General Frank Millen included "blotchy face."

Carrotty moustache? That would be a reddish colour. Very common amongst the Irish. Check out the description of "Red" Jim McDermott.

Not a bit offended, Lynn, just not persuaded this Indentikit caricature ever existed outside Mary Cox's mind.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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.