Blotchy

[Heinrich]

...
a: what is so remarkable about not knowing the length of a man's hair when the man in question is wearing a hat? This isn't the 60's.. it's not like he had long luxuriant hippie locks

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.

b: aren't a majority of things witnessed in the early hours of the morning when most people are asleep uncorroborated?

Probably so.

Saying that uncorroborated accounts should be automatically dismissed is very dangerous ground. Most rapes and sexual assaults are uncorroborated. Most incidences of child molestation and abuse are uncorroborated. If your view is truly to discount all such statements as lies or imagination then perhaps the crimes of Jack the Ripper should be the LEAST of your concerns.

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.

Yes Heinrich, but I don't think you see, do you? The 'obvious' to you - i.e. that Barnett was the Ripper - is not the 'obvious' to a lot of other people. What you consider to be conclusive and damning evidence is not so viewed by others.

This is clearly so, Sally.

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

I never suggested either, Sally.

This is not because you are right and others are wrong, necessarily.

I think members who believe Mary Cox are wrong to do so.

Nor is this because the evidence really is damning and conclusive.

The evidence against Joseph Barnett is beyond question, Sally.

This is because of your perspective, Heinrich, which is unique to you.

It does surprise me that a forum dedicated to Jack the Ripper appers to have few members who are persuaded of Joseph Barnett's guilt and write of Blotchy Carroty as if he actually existed.

...It just helps to accept that it is your view, not proven fact, and that you, like anybody else, have bias.

There is no member more unbiased than myself, Sally.

...
The point I was making is that the text of the statement is there in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook.

It's not important, Bridewell.

Cogidubnus appeared to agree when I suggested that you had contradicted yourself. You don't think you contradicted yourself, but we do. Why is that "at your expense"?

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

I am truly sorry if you don't feel you've had any encouragement on Casebook since joining, because that is a sad state of affairs.

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

However, if, by lack of encouragement, you simply mean that other members are failing to support your theory or to agree with your posts, that is a different matter entirely.

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.

[Cogidubnus]

likewise...

Dave

[Bridewell]

The Point I'm Making

[QUOTE=Heinrich;211200]I cannot find a transcript of Mary Cox's statement to the police on 9th November 1888, Bridewell, although I read a report of it which states that she "believed" the alleged man had blotches on his face and a carroty moustache. So, I have some doubt about the details while I note that in your quote you have "I believe he had blotches on his face" suggesting less than certitude.
Even granting that she mentioned to the police the blotches and carroty moustache (if somewhat less certain than at the later inquest), this should not change our minds that accepting uncorroborated claims is folly, Bridewell.

You have a closed mind where uncorroborated evidence is concerned, so I'll move on from that. I've already told you twice what she said in her witness statement, so I won't go through it again.


I think you will find I have established the case without shadow of doubt against Joseph Barnett, Bridewell.

I doubt it, but I'm prepared to keep an open mind until I've seen the evidence.

While I must accept your willingness to provide a reference to anyone but me, perhaps another member could let me have a link to the transcript.

I wasn't saying that I was willing to provide a link to anyone but you! I've already quoted the relevant portion of her witness statement twice, which hardly suggests unwillingness on my part. The point I was making is that the text of the statement is there in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook. If others were also unable to locate it, I was prepared to provide the full text to clarify matters. If you don't have a copy of the book, I'll post the entire text of the witness statement; of course I will. If you do have it, however, there is no need for me to do so when you already have the information at your disposal. That is the point I was making.

Although I have received no encouragement on Casebook since joining, I am happy for members who have their opinions supported by others in the way Cogidubnus has demonstrated admiration for your contribution at my expense /QUOTE].

Cogidubnus appeared to agree when I suggested that you had contradicted yourself. You don't think you contradicted yourself, but we do. Why is that "at your expense"? The words are your, Heinrich, not mine, and the contradiction is there for all to see, or not, as they choose. Nobody holds back when I get things round my neck (as we all do on occasions). Why should they? Don't take it personally. It's a discussion forum.

I am truly sorry if you don't feel you've had any encouragement on Casebook since joining, because that is a sad state of affairs. However, if, by lack of encouragement, you simply mean that other members are failing to support your theory or to agree with your posts, that is a different matter entirely. You and I are not in agreement where the reliability of Mrs Cox's evidence is concerned, but that doesn't mean lack of support, simply difference of opinion. I am sure we will agree on some threads, just not on this one.

[Bridewell]

So, I'm a little confused...

a: what is so remarkable about not knowing the length of a man's hair when the man in question is wearing a hat? This isn't the 60's.. it's not like he had long luxuriant hippie locks

b: aren't a majority of things witnessed in the early hours of the morning when most people are asleep uncorroborated? I could run naked down my block at three in the morning, and be seen by no one at all. Maybe the frat guy three houses over, but then his statement would be uncorroborated by anyone else in the neighborhood. Seems a bit unfair to to categorically assume he is a liar just because I prefer my shenanigans nocturnal.

Saying that uncorroborated accounts should be automatically dismissed is very dangerous ground. Most rapes and sexual assaults are uncorroborated. Most incidences of child molestation and abuse are uncorroborated. If your view is truly to discount all such statements as lies or imagination then perhaps the crimes of Jack the Ripper should be the LEAST of your concerns.

Absolutey spot on, Errata.

[Sally]

You are right, Sally. As long as members want give equal weight the obvious as to the implausible, the chat will never end.

Yes Heinrich, but I don't think you see, do you? The 'obvious' to you - i.e. that Barnett was the Ripper - is not the 'obvious' to a lot of other people. What you consider to be conclusive and damning evidence is not so viewed by others.

This is not because you are clever and people who disagree with you are stupid (for example). This is not because you are right and others are wrong, necessarily. Nor is this because the evidence really is damning and conclusive.

This is because of your perspective, Heinrich, which is unique to you. You believe in Barnett's guilt and that belief persuades you to dismiss the evidence of anybody who gets in the way of that belief. That's all. Thus, what is 'implausible' to you is not viewed as such by others. I, for example, doubt that Barnett had anything to do with the murder of Kelly or anybody else. The pieces, as they say, do not fit. I've been through this before with you I think, but you would have to explain an awful lot of things to make it work - it just doesn't, I'm afraid. Nice though it might be to consider the case resolved, you'd need actual hard evidence to do that.

Other people, who don't have as much faith in Bad Barnett as you do are not so compelled to dismiss witness testimony because they don't have the same agenda as you do. And that's ok, you're quite entitled to hold your view. It just helps to accept that it is your view, not proven fact, and that you, like anybody else, have bias.

Now I think I'll leave you to it. This thread, after all, is about Blotchy, not Bad Barnett, for whom there are a veritable plethora of threads should we all wish to continue discussion.

[curious]

Hi Curious,
If the killer wished to protect his own clothing, then surely the men's pilot coat covering the window would have sufficed.
The coat was a black velvet jacket, so would not have afforded much protection, so one still wonders why these two items [ Jacket and bonnet] became bloodstained?, indeed why would they be burnt by the killer, would they give a clue to their identity?
For them to have become soiled with blood , they would have either had to be worn by the killer, or been on the bed when the attack took place, the first theory would indicate all sorts of speculation..., the latter a more plausible scenario , however that would suggest that either Kelly was undressing when attacked , having taken off all her clothing except a chemise, but why then was her other clothing not have been bloodied?
Or taking the other view by the police [ the same report] that they also believed the murder happened in daylight, one could speculate that she was about to get dressed when her killer entered the room, and the jacket and bonnet were laid on the bed.
So why did the killer burn them?..possibly seeing the bloodied items the fiend, realized that if left on the bed in that condition it would indicate that the murder did not occur during the hours of the night as it would not suggest that, an important reason if one had a night time alibi...that should please Heinrich.
Regards Richard.

Hi, Richard,
Because of your interesting "take" on the Kelly murder, I have wanted to "talk" to you for sometime.

About the man's pilot coat. Undoubtedly it would have been larger and perhaps a better fit than the jacket. However, to wear it, the killer would had to have uncovered the window and risk being seen, even if he did find something with which to recover the window. Was there anything else in the room to use to cover the window? And consider how he could have gone about that with Mary still alive??

Then, if she were dead, but before he got down to serious work, he uncovered the window to wear the coat . . . very dangerous since he could not know who might be passing the window and see him.

So, while the pilot coat might had done a better job covering the killer, how could he have gone about that without risking being seen? On the other hand, Mary Kelly was said to be 5' 7" and a fairly big woman. It seems reasonable that some men of the time could possibly have worn the jacket.

In light of the difficulty tracing Mary and her background, I have considered that the jacket might possibly have identified her. A tailor's tag, perhaps? If the jacket was burned to hide Mary Kelly's true identity, why?

I have not yet come up with a scenario in which the coat could have identified the killer. Any suggestions?

Since the police believed she had been killed in the daylight, then that really does not seem reasonable. Would the killer have been conscious of trying to throw the police off on the timing? And there was so much confusion on timing here, I suspect that alibis were checked for the entire time under consideration, don't you?

[Wickerman]

.... Seems a bit unfair to to categorically assume he is a liar just because I prefer my shenanigans nocturnal.

Oh, but some people on these boards have mastered this approach to an art!

Saying that uncorroborated accounts should be automatically dismissed is very dangerous ground.

But thats the only way some of these people can maintain their arguments.
Its essential to believe that every person who lived in the area actually said that they saw no-one who looked like this.
- Even though, no such abundance of statements exists.
- Even though, not every person was interested in giving an opinion.
- Even though, the climate of the locals was to keep themselves to themselves.
- Even though, any number of locals might have had good reason to avoid any contact with police.
Keep your nose clean, your eyes closed, and your opinions to yourself (East end Survival, 101)

Regards, Jon S.

[Errata]

So, I'm a little confused...

a: what is so remarkable about not knowing the length of a man's hair when the man in question is wearing a hat? This isn't the 60's.. it's not like he had long luxuriant hippie locks

b: aren't a majority of things witnessed in the early hours of the morning when most people are asleep uncorroborated? I could run naked down my block at three in the morning, and be seen by no one at all. Maybe the frat guy three houses over, but then his statement would be uncorroborated by anyone else in the neighborhood. Seems a bit unfair to to categorically assume he is a liar just because I prefer my shenanigans nocturnal.

Saying that uncorroborated accounts should be automatically dismissed is very dangerous ground. Most rapes and sexual assaults are uncorroborated. Most incidences of child molestation and abuse are uncorroborated. If your view is truly to discount all such statements as lies or imagination then perhaps the crimes of Jack the Ripper should be the LEAST of your concerns.

[Heinrich]

"The man whom I saw was about 36 years old, about 5' 5" high, complexion fresh and I believe he had blotches on his face, small side whiskers, and a thick carroty moustache, dressed in shabby dark clothes, dark overcoat and black felt hat".

I cannot find a transcript of Mary Cox's statement to the police on 9th November 1888, Bridewell, although I read a report of it which states that she "believed" the alleged man had blotches on his face and a carroty moustache. So, I have some doubt about the details while I note that in your quote you have "I believe he had blotches on his face" suggesting less than certitude.
Even granting that she mentioned to the police the blotches and carroty moustache (if somewhat less certain than at the later inquest), this should not change our minds that accepting uncorroborated claims is folly, Bridewell.

I don't think we're ever going to see eye to eye on this thread, Heinrich. I look forward to reading your watertight case against Barnett in due course.

I think you will find I have established the case without shadow of doubt against Joseph Barnett, Bridewell.

While I must accept your willingness to provide a reference to anyone but me, perhaps another member could let me have a link to the transcript.

Although I have received no encouragement on Casebook since joining, I am happy for members who have their opinions supported by others in the way Cogidubnus has demonstrated admiration for your contribution at my expense.

[Bridewell]

I cannot find any account of Mary Cox telling the police that she saw a man with a blotchy face and carroty moustache. Could you provide me with a link please?

I've already told you where it is. It's in her statement made to the police on the day of the murder. I've also given you the relevant paragraph verbatim in Post 110, but here it is again:

"The man whom I saw was about 36 years old, about 5' 5" high, complexion fresh and I believe he had blotches on his face, small side whiskers, and a thick carroty moustache, dressed in shabby dark clothes, dark overcoat and black felt hat".

This was her account on the day of the murder. She repeated the same detail in her oral testimony at the inquest.


I read the depositions which were made under oath. I also read some other reports of statements, for example, Cox's statement, 9 November 1888, quoted in Evans and Skinner, pp. 364–365; Fido, p. 87 which has no mention of a blotchy face or carroty moustache.

If, by Evans & Skinner, you mean The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Handbook, her statement is in there, complete, between pp 404-405 in the paperbook edition. Please don't keep pretending it isn't there, because it is.

If there is anyone apart from you who says they can't find this description in the original statement, dated 9th November, I'll post the text in its entirety. If no-one else makes such a claim, please accept that you need to locate the statement and read it from beginning to end.

I did not contradict myself, Bridewell.

I think you did. Others can make their own mind up on that one, but it looks as though Cogidubnus is of the same opinion (see Post 144)

Dismissing testimony which has no independent support is advisable, Bridewell,

Treating it with caution is advisable. Dismissing it out of hand is silly, but I guess we're back to your claim that uncorroborated evidence is unbelievable.

I don't think we're ever going to see eye to eye on this thread, Heinrich. I look forward to reading your watertight case against Barnett in due course.

Regards, Bridewell

[Heinrich]

Good Lord, Heinrich, you really are way off here, aren't you? I'm afraid it's all a lot more complicated than that. If only it was as simple as 'the boyfriend did it' and all the 'testimony which has no independent support' could really just be dismissed out of hand.

But then we wouldn't be here, would we?

You are right, Sally. As long as members want give equal weight the obvious as to the implausible, the chat will never end.

[Sally]

Dismissing testimony which has no independent support is advisable, Bridewell, because if everyone is to be believed then we could never identify the culprit. Incidentally, the police seem to have dismissed George Hutchinson's fabrication of the man of "Jewish appearance", despite an extremely detailed description of the man right down to the color of his eyelashes in the middle of a dark winter night. No one else had seen him, you see.

Good Lord, Heinrich, you really are way off here, aren't you? I'm afraid it's all a lot more complicated than that. If only it was as simple as 'the boyfriend did it' and all the 'testimony which has no independent support' could really just be dismissed out of hand.

But then we wouldn't be here, would we?

[Heinrich]

She gave two accounts. One was her original witness statement, made to the police on the day of the murder. The other, broadly similar, was the actual testimony she gave to the coroner. The description (blotchy face and carroty moustache) is included in both.

I cannot find any account of Mary Cox telling the police that she saw a man with a blotchy face and carroty moustache. Could you provide me with a link please?

Let's put this reply in its context:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bridewell
How have you formed your "water-tight case" against Joseph Barnett without reading the text of the original witness statements?

I read the depositions which were made under oath. I also read some other reports of statements, for example, Cox's statement, 9 November 1888, quoted in Evans and Skinner, pp. 364–365; Fido, p. 87 which has no mention of a blotchy face or carroty moustache.

... In an earlier post, one of the reasons you advanced in support of Mary Cox's mendacity was that she only added the detail about his blotchy face and carroty moustache "to compensate for not seeing the length of his hair".

What did she add it to? Please explain.

She added the details of the blotchy face and the carroty moustache only having admitted that she did not know whether the alleged character had long or short hair.

You also said (see 110) "I was commenting on her deposition, Bridewell. I am not aware of her mentioning a blotchy face or a carroty moustache to the police".

Who do you think took her "deposition"?

The coroner at the inquest.

In Post 69 (no smirking at the back!) you said, in answer to Lynn:

"Lynn, I am not a psychologist"

You also said, elsewhere, "I couldn't guess what was in Mary Cox's mind, Lynn".

So far, so good. However,

In Post 106, in reply to my question:

How do you know that she only mentioned the detail she did see to compensate for not seeing the length of his hair?

you reply:

That is my guess based on human psychology!

So, at one point, we have you saying you're not a psychologist, and can't "guess what was in Mary Cox's mind"

Yet, at another, you're telling us that you can (and do) guess her motives, "based on human psychology".

I have no objection to your contradicting the rest of us. It's part of the fun,, after all. When you start contradicting yourself, however, it tends to undermine your position.

I did not contradict myself, Bridewell. I mentioned that I could not be sure why Mary Cox was making up stuff because, for one reason, I am not a psychologist (nor indeed a mindreader) but in hazarding a guess at the specific request of Lynn, I used everyday "human psychology" as to why anyone would lie. I provided several reasons only having qualified that I did not know for sure.

Dismissing testimony which has no independent support is advisable, Bridewell, because if everyone is to be believed then we could never identify the culprit. Incidentally, the police seem to have dismissed George Hutchinson's fabrication of the man of "Jewish appearance", despite an extremely detailed description of the man right down to the color of his eyelashes in the middle of a dark winter night. No one else had seen him, you see.

[Cogidubnus]

A bull...a veritable bull...oh good shot sir!

[Bridewell]

Context

You must be confusing me with another member, Bridewell; I did read the witness depositions.

Heinrich,

She gave two accounts. One was her original witness statement, made to the police on the day of the murder. The other, broadly similar, was the actual testimony she gave to the coroner. The description (blotchy face and carroty moustache) is included in both.

Let's put this reply in its context:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bridewell
How have you formed your "water-tight case" against Joseph Barnett without reading the text of the original witness statements?

You must be confusing me with another member, Bridewell; I did read the witness depositions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bridewell
and, more to the point, how can you possibly dismiss the evidence of any witness whose original account you have not read?

I did read the witness depositions, Bridewell. Mary Cox's was the most ludicrous.


In an earlier post, one of the reasons you advanced in support of Mary Cox's mendacity was that she only added the detail about his blotchy face and carroty moustache "to compensate for not seeing the length of his hair".

What did she add it to? Please explain.

You also said (see 110) "I was commenting on her deposition, Bridewell. I am not aware of her mentioning a blotchy face or a carroty moustache to the police".

Who do you think took her "deposition"?! I ask that because the "Best Evidence" principle dictates that her earliest disclosure (i.e. the witness statement made on the day of the murder - to the police) takes precedence. This contains the "blotchy face" and "carroty moustache" reference which you claim to be a later addition.

One other point:

In Post 69 (no smirking at the back!) you said, in answer to Lynn:

"Lynn, I am not a psychologist"

You also said, elsewhere, "I couldn't guess what was in Mary Cox's mind, Lynn".

So far, so good. However,

In Post 106, in reply to my question:

How do you know that she only mentioned the detail she did see to compensate for not seeing the length of his hair?

you reply:

That is my guess based on human psychology!

So, at one point, we have you saying you're not a psychologist, and can't "guess what was in Mary Cox's mind"

Yet, at another, you're telling us that you can (and do) guess her motives, "based on human psychology".

I have no objection to your contradicting the rest of us. It's part of the fun,, after all. When you start contradicting yourself, however, it tends to undermine your position.

Regards, Bridewell.