Blotchy

[Sally]

Hi Dave

I have also thought this about Blotchy -

I understand what you mean about the locals not talking to the police and I find it quite believable, yes. I still think that if the locals thought Blotchy might have been the Ripper then somebody would have come forward - it's one thing to have an anit-authority attitude, quite another to keep silent about somebody who goes about ripping up women in your backyard.

I conclude that if there was silence, it was because everybody knew who Blotchy was and nobody believed that he'd had anything to do with it.

[Cogidubnus]

Rozzers?... **** off...

I just wonder whether the silence of the locals can really be expected here - true, some may not have wanted to get involved, but its hard to imagine that everyone would have kept silent

I can only speak for the nineteen twenties and thirties, as quoted to me by my mother (who grew up in Wapping, just next door) but NOBODY talked to the police about anything if they could help it...Wapping, being virtually an island (once you were across the bridge you were in an alien land even in the early 60s when I first visited) might've been a bit more extreme than Whitechapel, but I wouldn't bank on the difference being too much...

Dave

[lynn cates]

friends

Hello Dave.

"I think blotchy existed and perhaps was an old friend . . . "

Or perhaps an associate?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

private

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

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Lynn

He He...but like you, I think blotchy existed and perhaps was an old friend (or even, seen in a post-Joe light, a new one)...hence he broght some beer round...and she sang to him...I think it all happened after he'd gone and he felt he couldn't come forward...

Regards
Dave

[Sally]

What the above quote suggests to me, is not that Cox must have been lying, but more likely that the regulars, Tavern keepers & Landlords simply did not want to get involved.
Which is consistent with the apparent silence on what the locals knew and why they kept quiet, leaving some to speculate today that she was not seen therefore she never went out again. False methodology.

Or they just didn't remember him? Surely a lot of people must have been in and out of the pubs buying containers of beer? It would have been busy.

I just wonder whether the silence of the locals can really be expected here - true, some may not have wanted to get involved, but its hard to imagine that everyone would have kept silent - after all, since Blotchy was to all extents and purposes the last man to be seen with Kelly before her death (before Hutchinson turned up with Astroman that is) then as far as anyone knew he was the Ripper. Why would the community conspire together to keep silent - surely they would have wanted him caught.

As for the missing beer pail, I don't know how this worked - maybe somebody does - was the beer container the property of the pub or beerhouse; or was it the customer's own? And if the former, did the customer have to leave a deposit for the container, refundable when it was returned? Or was there money on the pot if it was returned - much like there used to be money on bottles of drink returned to pubs and shops in the more recent past?

If Blotchy was merely a friend or a punter who left, perhaps he took the pail with him for a mundane reason like that.

[Errata]

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

Actually, I think you are missing my point. You have stated:

I do not believe Blotchy Carroty existed and I discount Mary Cox's testimony because it is uncorroborated. For me, belief rests on a higher standard than an unsupported claim by one person. I do not know why Mary Cox spun a yarn, whether it was a lie, faulty recall, state of her mind on the night in question, some pathology on her part, imagination, or whatever.

And you have said this in any number of ways. The belief that "an unsupported claim by one person" is the result of a lie, faulty recall, etc. does not exist in a vacuum. If uncorroborated statements are fiction because they are uncorroborated, then you are accusing any number of crime victims of being liars or mad. Which means you think I'm a liar. Or that a child who reports sexual molestation by a custodial parent is a liar.

Now, if you don't think all of those rape victims, kids, victims of abuse, stalking, etc. are liars, then you need to reevaluate what your problem with Mary Cox is. Because clearly you cannot have the rule that "uncorroborated evidence is fiction" only apply to her. It applies to about a quarter of the population, and one of them is me. You can choose to believe me and not her, both of us, neither of us, whatever. But that choice cannot come from the fact that the statements are unsupported. Unless of course you really do think that everyone who was the victim of a criminal smart enough to not commit a crime in front of witnesses is a liar. And in that case you have bigger problems than than the reputation of your Barnett theory.

[lynn cates]

sing it

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

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

a few pence maybe...

[lynn cates]

killer

Hello Jon. I can't say I EVER suspected poor old Blotchy of being the killer. But I tend to believe he actually did exist.

Of course, I don't see him as a client either. Why pay good money to be regaled by Irish folk music? (Of course, one might spend a few bob on Scots.)

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. I know what you mean. Apparently, however, SY took her story seriously--at least for a while.

Cheers.
LC

Quite true Lynn, nothing wrong with that. In fact it might be well to keep in mind that the earliest Whitechapel assault, that of Ada Wilson involved a man with a "sunburnt face" (red face?).

Its the beer mug that suggest to me no intent. This is the "square-peg-in-the-round-hole" assuming this guy was the Whitechapel murderer.
Now, ...if he'd carried a black bag?



Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

serious

Hello Jon. I know what you mean. Apparently, however, SY took her story seriously--at least for a while.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

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

Actually, for me, this is the most interesting observation..

"As far as enquiries have gone, no man answering the description given by Cox entered any Tavern in the immediate neighbourhood, and took away beer."

I have always questioned that Cox got her times wrong, not that she lied. But her evidence only has value if she knew what time it truely was, and most people did not. So why should she?

What the above quote suggests to me, is not that Cox must have been lying, but more likely that the regulars, Tavern keepers & Landlords simply did not want to get involved.
Which is consistent with the apparent silence on what the locals knew and why they kept quiet, leaving some to speculate today that she was not seen therefore she never went out again. False methodology.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

old

Hello Dave. It's like me--old and slow.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Ah ok...the pics have appeared now!