Blotchy

[lynn cates]

Begging the question?

Hello (again) Heinrich.

"No one corroborated Mary Cox's concoction of Blotchy . . ."

I wonder whether interpolating "concoction" perhaps commits a petitio principii?

Cheers.
LC

[Heinrich]

Hello Heinrich.

"This presents no problem for me accepting that Barnett murdered Mary Kelly, Lynn"

Very well, but then talk about lack of alibi is otiose.

I don't follow, Lynn. Sorry.
Joseph Barnett cannot be said to have an alibi for the time of the murder if no one knows when the murder took place. Surely this is simple enough.

[Robert]

Heinrich, Cox wasn't identifying Blotchy. She identified Mary, who was in his company. The conditions were irrelevant, since Cox saw Mary go into her room, accompanied by Blotchy, and she saw enough of Blotchy to know that he wasn't Barnett.

[lynn cates]

cui bono

Hello (yet again) Heinrich. I think Sally's question is one of cui bono.

Let's say that Cox was drunk or fuddled or a victim of poor lighting. Very well, but what is to be gained by the invention of Blotchy?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

covered

Hello Heinrich.

"Joseph Barnett cannot be said to have an alibi for the time of the murder if no one knows when the murder took place. Surely this is simple enough."

It can, provided all such times are covered. Of course, it will not work if some time is NOT covered and the suspect has time/ability to go from the place covered by the alibi to the decedent's place.

Cheers.
LC

[Heinrich]

"No one corroborated Mary Cox's concoction of Blotchy . . ."

I wonder whether interpolating "concoction" perhaps commits a petitio principii?

The onus is on those who believe in Blotchy Carroty carrying a jug of ale to provide the evidence, Lynn. I believe he is a manifestation of Mary Cox's mind.

Heinrich, Cox wasn't identifying Blotchy. She identified Mary, who was in his company. ...

Well, Robert, none of us would have considered Blotchy Carroty but for Mary Cox's statement.

...
Let's say that Cox was drunk or fuddled or a victim of poor lighting. Very well, but what is to be gained by the invention of Blotchy?

I couldn't guess what was in Mary Cox's mind, Lynn. False testimony is not uncommon.

"Joseph Barnett cannot be said to have an alibi for the time of the murder if no one knows when the murder took place. Surely this is simple enough."

It can, provided all such times are covered. Of course, it will not work if some time is NOT covered and the suspect has time/ability to go from the place covered by the alibi to the decedent's place.

All we can be certain of is that Mary Kelly was last seen alive in the positively-identified company of Joseph Barnett. He most probably murdered her shortly afterward, before returning to his lodging to play cards or whatever.

[lynn cates]

Tod

Hello Heinrich.

"The onus is on those who believe in Blotchy Carroty carrying a jug of ale to provide the evidence, Lynn."

Quite. The argumentative onus is ALWAYS on the positive assertor. Notwithstanding, my personal custom is to accept evidence as stated UNTIL it cannot be made to harmonise with another item.

"I couldn't guess what was in Mary Cox's mind, Lynn. False testimony is not uncommon."

Right. Let's say the testimony is false. But why add Blotchy? If her lie was, say, to gain notoriety, surely it had come off just as well without such an interpolation?

"All we can be certain of is that Mary Kelly was last seen alive in the positively-identified company of Joseph Barnett. He most probably murdered her shortly afterward, before returning to his lodging to play cards or whatever."

But would that not place her TOD well in advance of even Bond's earliest estimate?

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

No...

All we can be certain of is that Mary Kelly was last seen alive in the positively-identified company of Joseph Barnett. He most probably murdered her shortly afterward, before returning to his lodging to play cards or whatever.

No, we can't. Flatly, No.

What we can be reasonably certain of is that Kelly was in the company of Barnett earlier that night.

But to assert that Kelly was last seen alive in his company is to deny the witness testimony of Cox, and yes, Hutchinson. Not one, but both of these people would be required to have resorted to total invention for your assertion to have any foundation.

Where is your evidence? Where is your support for this theory?

[Heinrich]

"The onus is on those who believe in Blotchy Carroty carrying a jug of ale to provide the evidence, Lynn."

Quite. The argumentative onus is ALWAYS on the positive assertor. Notwithstanding, my personal custom is to accept evidence as stated UNTIL it cannot be made to harmonise with another item.

Mary Cox's testimony does not harmonize with anyone else's, Lynn.

"I couldn't guess what was in Mary Cox's mind, Lynn. False testimony is not uncommon."

Right. Let's say the testimony is false. But why add Blotchy? If her lie was, say, to gain notoriety, surely it had come off just as well without such an interpolation?

Lynn, I am not a psychologist, but there is such a phenomenon as false memory whereby a person will recollect an event and add details which do not correspond to reality. Witnesses in such circumstances are simply mistaken.

"All we can be certain of is that Mary Kelly was last seen alive in the positively-identified company of Joseph Barnett. He most probably murdered her shortly afterward, before returning to his lodging to play cards or whatever."

But would that not place her TOD well in advance of even Bond's earliest estimate?

Thomas Bond did not give an opinion about the time of death, Lynn.

No, we can't. Flatly, No.

What we can be reasonably certain of is that Kelly was in the company of Barnett earlier that night.

But to assert that Kelly was last seen alive in his company is to deny the witness testimony of Cox, and yes, Hutchinson. Not one, but both of these people would be required to have resorted to total invention for your assertion to have any foundation.

No one else identified anyone by name in Mary Kelly's company after the positive identification by Maria Harvey of Joseph Barnett, Sally. Furthermore, Joseph Barnett did not deny he was at the scene of the crime.

Where is your evidence? Where is your support for this theory?

I have shown elsewhere beyond reasonable doubt that Joseph Barnett murdered Mary Kelly. There is a long thread on Joseph Barnett where I provided the motive, means, and opportunity he had in Post #285

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2983&page=29

The whole thread is worth a read.

[Wickerman]

Hello (yet again) Heinrich. I think Sally's question is one of cui bono.

Let's say that Cox was drunk or fuddled or a victim of poor lighting. Very well, but what is to be gained by the invention of Blotchy?

Cheers.
LC

Obviously Lynn, ...because Cox killed Mary, to shut up that blasted singing!!

[lynn cates]

punctus contra punctum

Hello Heinrich.

"Mary Cox's testimony does not harmonize with anyone else's, Lynn.'

Indeed. But neither is it disharmonising.

"Lynn, I am not a psychologist, but there is such a phenomenon as false memory whereby a person will recollect an event and add details which do not correspond to reality. Witnesses in such circumstances are simply mistaken."

Quite. But that presupposes an initial event--it is not made up of whole cloth.

"Thomas Bond did not give an opinion about the time of death, Lynn."

Actually, he placed TOD between 1.00 and 2.00.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

folk music

Hello Jon.

"Obviously Lynn, ...because Cox killed Mary, to shut up that blasted singing!!"

Indeed. Irish folk music CAN have such an effect--Scots, NEVER. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Heinrich]

...
"Lynn, I am not a psychologist, but there is such a phenomenon as false memory whereby a person will recollect an event and add details which do not correspond to reality. Witnesses in such circumstances are simply mistaken."

Quite. But that presupposes an initial event--it is not made up of whole cloth.

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

"Thomas Bond did not give an opinion about the time of death, Lynn."

Actually, he placed TOD between 1.00 and 2.00.

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

[Robert]

Well Heinrich, I suppose it could have been a pot of anything. Milk is a good bet. Or a pot of the finest champagne. If Blotchy was one of Lynn's countrymen, it could have been porridge. Why on earth she thought it might be beer is quite beyond me.

[Sally]

No one else identified anyone by name in Mary Kelly's company after the positive identification by Maria Harvey of Joseph Barnett, Sally.

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?

Furthermore, Joseph Barnett did not deny he was at the scene of the crime.

Yes, Heinrich, because he had noting to hide


I have shown elsewhere beyond reasonable doubt that Joseph Barnett murdered Mary Kelly. There is a long thread on Joseph Barnett where I provided the motive, means, and opportunity he had.

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? We'd all be congratulating you for your powers of astute insight. Everything that you have suggested in support of your belief is either pure speculation or 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.

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

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