Blotchy

[Cogidubnus]

Here is the story. It is from "The Echo" for November 13, 1888

Sorry Lynn...where?

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Actually Robert that is a very good point. We tend to forget how everyday occurences such as rain played such a huge part in the everyday life of the impoverished...she'd want to keep her "best" dry because otherwise it wouldn't be "best" for long and she mightn't ever be able to replace it...

Dave

[lynn cates]

gone to pot

Hello Stephen, All. Here is the story. It is from "The Echo" for November 13, 1888. At this writing, nothing was found.

I would have posted the entire page but it is too large. If you would like to see it, just PM me with your email.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

If Dew is to be believed then Kelly was a well known Spitalfields character and it seems a bit strange to me that nobody seems to know where the hell she was on the evening before she died.

We do have hints from the press. McCarthy told that Kelly had been seen out drinking between 10:00 - 11:30 pm, I think by some of his renters, on Thursday, or thereabouts.

Mrs Kennedy (Lewis?) said she saw Kelly outside the Britannia between 2:00 - 3:00 am Friday morning. As none of these sightings are to be found in police reports then we are left with more questions.
These sightings cannot be dismissed, they can be questioned, but not dismissed.

Regards, Jon S.

[Robert]

I don't know at what time it started to rain, but could this have affected choice of clothes? Kelly would have had to decide which clothes to keep dry and which to get wet, and might have changed her clothes for that reason.

[Cogidubnus]

Idle thought...

Wonder what Maria Harvey was wearing that night and the following morning?

Dave

[lynn cates]

Echo

Hello Stephen. If I recall properly it was in "The Echo."

Cheers.
LC

[Stephen Thomas]

Hello Stephen. Actually, they looked high and low for the place of sale--even down to chatting up pot boys. It was a no go.

Thanks, Lynn

I never knew that. Where is it recorded?

If Dew is to be believed then Kelly was a well known Spitalfields character and it seems a bit strange to me that nobody seems to know where the hell she was on the evening before she died.

[lynn cates]

3

Hello Miss Marple. I agree about Mrs. Maxwell's testimony being difficult. If only there were not two others who claimed an MJK sighting later in the morning it would be easier for me to dismiss her.

Cheers.
LC

[miss marple]

The Clothes Mystery

To get back to the point of the description of Mary's clothes, there is something a little odd. We know Mary had a fine head of hair and often went hatless and also I believe wore a shawl.

Elizabeth Prater only mentions Mary's clothes to a Star reporter next day, when she describes her wearing a hat and jacket, going out at about 9pm thursday night, The hat and jacket appears to be an unusual feature and she notices it because Prater herself does not possess such items.
So this takes us to Mary Ann Cox's description of Mary's clothes at 11.45pm over two and a half hours later. She describes her as having no hat, a shabby skirt and a red pelerine. Pelerine is a very specific description of a cape with pointed ends, a diagonally crossed shawl would also have pointed ends but the fabric in a shawl would not be so stiff as the fabric in a cape.
Now this is the odd thing, Mrs Maxwell's description of the woman she claimed was Mary at 9 am friday morning appears to be wearing the clothes described by Mary Ann Cox. A maroon shawl [ from a distance a pelerine could be mistaken for a shawl, or shawl could be used as a generic name if Mrs Maxwell did not know the term pelerine.] A dark skirt, that could be a shabby skirt, and the detail of a velvet bodice. The pelerine and velvet bodice seem to suggest once fine clothes, now shabby hand me downs, bought on the old clothes stalls. The sort of cheap finary a prostitute might wear.

I have never believed that Mrs M saw Mary friday morning, but maybe confused the day.
IT is a weird coincidence that the two descriptions are so close.

Or If Mary was going out at 9 in hat and jacket, maybe she was meeting someone for a chat, not a client. Did she meet Dan Barnett in the Ten Bells that night.Then come back to Millars Court and change in pro clothes and nip out again and solicite Mr Blotchy?
What clothes were burnt in the fire the cheap pro clothes or the jacket and hat. Was the hat different from Maria Harvey's black crepe bonnet?

Questions, questions but never answers.

Miss Marple

[Bridewell]

It's not important, Bridewell.


There is a way of taking pot shots at members by appearing to agree with others. You must know what I mean.


Yes, it surprises me. But I know on the internet, forums vary in the degrees of civility.


No, Bridewell, I do not mean that. I am referring to the tone of posts from members who not only do not share my opinion but do so in a mean-spirited way, making personally insulting remarks or condescending jokes. Ganging-up against a lone member who dares to question the accepted script, namely Mary Cox's reliability as a witness, is calculated to browbeat a person into leaving the board. Some of us joined Casebook to learn and discuss, not to be mocked.

Heinrich,

I, too, have unsubscribed from this thread, because attempts to discuss the subject (Blotchy) are constantly derailed by your tedious and
repetitive insistence that such an individual never existed, and by your unwillingness to respect the opinions of others on that subject.

See you on another thread.

Regards, Bridewell

[Heinrich]

... You are saying that uncorroborated evidence is not evidence.

No, only that it needs support to be useful, Errata.

Dismissed as a liar or a crazy person.

Of course, if a person is accused of a crime then a mere accusation should not be taken as proof. Too many innocent people have been imprisoned because of false testimony.

How dare you? Do you think people who have gone through such trauma WANT to go through the intensely humiliating process of trying to prove themselves in "he said/she said" cases? Why do you get to judge who is and is not worthy of the process of justice? Why don't I deserve justice?

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

[Errata]

I'd have thought that anyone who noticed the tone of a person's complexion late on a dark wet night, the color even of his moustache, the style of hat, what was in his jug, and what not, would also have noticed whether he had long or short hair.

But he had a hat on. I mean, the is Victorian London. His hair length was going to be short, or shorter. Which would be covered by a hat. I mean, if he had 80's rock god hair, it would be unusual for her not to know that. But 1/2 inch hair vs. 2 inch hair is going to be obscured by a hat.

Indeed, assuming every accusation against a person must be true because a witness said so would pretty much make the right to a trial where allegations need to be proved, obsolete. In matters of crime, detectives need to find supporting evidence of witness statements, otherwise such statements are useless. No one other than Mary Cox claims to have seen Blotchy Carroty. He is a non-entity whose purported existence will serve only to cloud the identity of the real killer, Joseph Barnett.

But you aren't talking about the ease or relative difficulty of prosecuting a suspect. You are saying that uncorroborated evidence is not evidence. That it is lie or a figment of someone's imagination. No one saw what Mary Cox saw, so it is fiction. No one saw me get raped, and I can guarantee you it was not fiction. My attackers made sure they weren't seen. That doesn't make me a liar. But according to your argument, it does make me a liar. That my claim should be immediately dismissed because there wasn't an audience. No trial, no chance to confront my attackers, no counseling, no concession to the fact that I may have in fact been a victim. Dismissed as a liar or a crazy person.

No one is saying you have to believe Mary Cox's story. Despite it's relatively benign nature. She says she saw the victim with a man. Well, the victim was a prostitute so could easily be seen with half a dozen or more men a night. She didn't say she witnessed the murder, or that the man she with Kelly was her murderer. She saw Kelly with a guy. Okay. You don't have to believe that. There are any number of problems with eyewitness testimony that could come into play. But to say that uncorroborated evidence is fiction is quite frankly, infamy. How dare you? Do you think people who have gone through such trauma WANT to go through the intensely humiliating process of trying to prove themselves in "he said/she said" cases? Why do you get to judge who is and is not worthy of the process of justice? Why don't I deserve justice?

According to you, no one should even consider that my story may be true. Not that it can't be prosecuted because it can't be proven, not that it should not have the same evidentiary weight as a claim supported by witnesses, but that it should be brushed aside as the ramblings of an attention seeking pathological liar.

If you want to discount Mary Cox's statement, that fine. There are a couple dozen ways to do that without calling ME a liar. Or a six year old who spends every night locked in a closet. Or a woman who is getting death threats from a stalker. If you see Mary Cox as a liar, fine. If you see her testimony as irrelevant, fine. But don't ever try to argue that uncorroborated testimony is the province of liars and lunatics. It isn't true, and serves no other purpose than to disgust.

[Robert]

"The evidence against Joseph Barnett is beyond question, Sally......There is no member more unbiased than myself, Sally."

Yes, Heinrich, I can't understand why posters would want to rib you. Such behaviour seems totally inexplicable.

[Sally]

Originally Posted by Sally
This is not because you are clever and people who disagree with you are stupid (for example).

I never suggested either, Sally.

Yes I know that Heinrich, which is why I wrote 'for example'. It was a hypothetical point, not an accusation.

Anyway, as I said, this thread has been derailed quite enough I think, so I'll leave you to it. See you on the next Barnett thread.