Blotchy

[caz]

Hi Heinrich,

Let me put this more plainly. I am a prostitute (shaddap at the back) living close to where another prostitute has just been untimely ripp'd from arsehole to breakfast by some unknown nutter who seems to be making a habit of mutilating women just like me. So what do I do?

A) Say nothing to the police about nobody - they can keep their sodding noses out of my business.

B) Give them as accurate a description as I can of any man I saw with the victim or hanging round the court, in the desperate hope that he will quickly be picked up and get what's coming to him before he gets the urge to off another prossie.

C) Give myself permanent insomnia by inventing a suspect (whether I saw anyone or not) that will get the police haring off in completely the wrong direction, so the prostitute killer gets a free pass to come and get me or others like me, any night of his choice.

Answer on a saucy postcard.

Clue: it's not C). Not in a million years.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

A, then? Yes? Caz?

Just kidding, Caz - brilliantly made point there!

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

coda

Hello Heinrich.

"Let's agree to disagree, Lynn."

Just as you wish.

"Clearly you place complete faith in the veracity of Mary Cox and you are certain that Blotchy Face did exist and is probably Mary Kelly's murderer in that case while I do not believe a word she said."

One final time: I have no faith whatsoever in her testimony BUT I have seen no reason to disbelieve it. And you have given me none.

Cheers.
LC

[Heinrich]

...
I do not believe Cox saw Mary with Blotchy [ at least that night] simply because in order to have done so , Kelly would have had to return to her room between 9pm/midnight to ''Change down'', which does not seem likely.
Regards Richard.

Good point.

[Robert]

Cox was clearly having a bit of fun, thinking that whatever story she gave the police, they would instantly dismiss it as uncorroborated twaddle, especially in view of her supposed criminal record. Imagine her horror when they took her seriously! But she was now in too deep, and had to persist with the story.

[lynn cates]

Column A or column B?

Hello Richard. Interesting idea. Are you suggesting confusion or prevarication?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

bravo

Hello Caroline. Well done.

Cheers.
LC

[Heinrich]

Cox was clearly having a bit of fun, thinking that whatever story she gave the police, they would instantly dismiss it as uncorroborated twaddle, especially in view of her supposed criminal record. Imagine her horror when they took her seriously! But she was now in too deep, and had to persist with the story.

Very possible.

[Heinrich]

... One final time: I have no faith whatsoever in her testimony BUT I have seen no reason to disbelieve it. And you have given me none.

"No faith whatsoever", you say. Well that makes several of us in agreement after all.

[caz]

Not talking to me now, Heinrich?

Have I touched a nerve, or are you working on making answer C) sound even remotely credible?

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Heinrich
To blindly discount a witness because there story does not fit your suspect to the point you are doing has lost you any credibility IMHO. Cox testimony about Blotchy should in no way even diminish Barnetts candidicy for her murderer as he could have killed her anytime after Blotchy left that evening so I cant even fathom why you are trying to discredit her and going to such ridiculous lengths to do so.

Please go start another thread-this one has been totally derailed.

And this is coming from someone who considers barnett a viable suspect. Good Lord.

[Heinrich]

Not talking to me now, Heinrich?

Have I touched a nerve, or are you working on making answer C) sound even remotely credible?

Sorry, Caz, I did not think you had meant to be serious.
I do not believe Mary Cox but I do not know why she gave false testimony.

Heinrich
To blindly discount a witness because there story does not fit your suspect to the point you are doing has lost you any credibility IMHO.

More than once, Abby, I have stated that my disregard of Mary Cox's story about Blotchy Carroty is not dependent on my belief that Joseph Barnett murdered Mary Kelly. Simply put, I do not take her at her word and there is no supporting evidence for her yarn.

Please go start another thread-this one has been totally derailed.

I did not start this thread, Abby. The subject is Blotchy Carroty whom I consider a bogus concoction and I stated so. As a courtesy I have answered everyone who made a comment about my opinion. Almost everyone has kept on-topic and most have been mannerly.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Lynn,
The clothing difference would suggest confusion , either on the part of Prater, or Cox, the former has to be the most accurate , simply because she said she[ Kelly] was wearing her jacket and 'bonnet', the latter item was only left with Kelly that evening by Mrs Harvey who stated' I shall leave my bonnet then'
prior to that, it has been commented that Kelly never wore a hat.
Also the remark made by Prater ''I don't even own them'[when describing the items] rings true.
The Blotchy account also has a ring of truth about it , however the different clothing described is a worry, and could apply to a previous night, as it lacks a time pointer, unlike Praters account who appears via the bonnet to have strong claims .
If both parties were right , then the alternative is, that initially Kelly went out in her smartest clothes complete with Harvey's bonnet, which may have been a planned event, or was a desperate act to attract a man of some substance, because of her plight, and because a prearranged meeting failed to occur, or nobody was around, returned home to dress down , and then returned to the streets..
I would like to have the clothing description which Hutchinson would surely have been asked about ie, Mary's clothes, he must have been asked , especially as he described Mr A in so much detail.
It would clarify matters to say the least..
Was she dressed in Cox's description . or was she still wearing her Smart attire, is that the reason she attracted the smart Mr A?
And last but not least, why did the police believe the clothes Prater saw Kelly in as 'burnt because of them being bloodstained'?.
Its a pity Peter Falk died..I am sure Colombo would get to the bottom of all this.
Regards Richard.

[lynn cates]

2 theses

Hello Richard. Now this is the kind of discussion I am delighted to see.

Is it possible that her meeting with Blotchy were the one for which she dressed?

Would it make a difference if Christer is right about the night of the A-man meeting?

If my two theses are correct, could the sightings then be made to harmonise?

Cheers.
LC

[curious]

And last but not least, why did the police believe the clothes Prater saw Kelly in as 'burnt because of them being bloodstained'?.
Its a pity Peter Falk died..I am sure Colombo would get to the bottom of all this.
Regards Richard.

Could her coat and hat have been used as housewives use smocks or housecoats? Perhaps donned by whoever was doing the slicing and dicing in that room in order to protect their own clothing and hair from flying blood, etc. That way, when the person exited the room, his/her own clothing was clean.