Blotchy

[Heinrich]

Okay - so Cox Lied. And Blotchy couldn't be traced. Ah well then, that proves it.

I was sure you would see it my way, Sally

Deciding that Cox lied without any raison d'être is nothing more than baseless speculation used to bolster a weak theory.

What theory do you mean, Sally?
i) The certitude that Joseph Barnett murdered Mary Kelly?
or
ii) Blotchy Face never existed?

The description of a man with a carrotty moustache and a blotchy face whom Cox hadn't seen before - and no reason she should have - whilst not exactly generic, is broad enough to be less than useful in tracking him down either. If the police went to every lodging house in the immediate district, how many men with carrotty moustaches and blotchy faces do you think they would find?

I agree.

And secondly, if Blotchy was the Ripper, then of course he disappeared without a trace. He seems to have been pretty good at eluding capture. Not really like Barnett at all, who walked straight into the commotion in Dorset Street, where he was sure to be taken for questioning by the police. Why would he have done that, if he'd been the Ripper?

Joseph Barnett had no hope of disappearing. He had been living with Mary Kelly after all and he was identified at the scene of the crime.

"If she did lie it could have been for any number of reasons or, in the case of an habitual liar, none"

Of course, a habitual liar would indicate a form of mental illness. To suppose that, I would need a reason.

Pathology does not need a reason, Lynn.

"i) money: Would a reporter buy her a drink at the local?"

OK, this seems to suggest that she saw MJK and then ADDED Blotchy for the reason you adduce. It may have been safer in that case to have created a more neutral character. Surely the two main features here are rather striking? But, not bad.

She likely did not see Mary Kelly either.

"ii) sympathy: Were people solicitous about her wellbeing having come so close to being murdered herself?"

Something like an enhancement? Of course, this still presupposes that she saw MJK.

All made up, Lynn.

"iii) protection: Was it Joseph Barnett she saw and wanted to deflect attention from him?'

OK. And this corresponds to your thesis. But why deflect blame from him--unless she had an interest there?

Fantasy?

"iv) vindictiveness: Did she want to give the impression that Mary Kelly brought it on herself by inviting in such a shady-sounding character to her place?"

Doesn't feel right. Like the pot calling the kettle black.

It happens all the time, Lynn.

... Yep, I can understand Blotchy keeping quiet.

You are right to laugh, Robert.

[Wickerman]

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.

Given the colour of his 'stache, ...Carrot Juice, Tomato Soup, or...a Bloody Mary?

[lynn cates]

points

Hello Heinrich.

"Pathology does not need a reason, Lynn."

True, but it needs to be established.

"She likely did not see Mary Kelly either."

Why is that likely?

"All made up, Lynn."

Why so?

"Fantasy?"

If so, then why a fantasy about him? Not sure he had anything desirable for women. He was out of work and not a terribly effective speaker.

Cheers.
LC

[Heinrich]

Hello Heinrich.

"Pathology does not need a reason, Lynn."

True, but it needs to be established.

I merely offer it as a possible character trait which would explain her mendacity.

"She likely did not see Mary Kelly either."

Why is that likely?

If she lied about seeing Blotchy Carroty she probably lied about seeing Mary too. This would be consistent.

"All made up, Lynn."

Why so?

The woman is not credible, Lynn.

"Fantasy?"

If so, then why a fantasy about him? Not sure he had anything desirable for women. He was out of work and not a terribly effective speaker.

A widowed prostitute with a child cannot be choosy.

[Sally]

Heinrich.

You're making a of judegements here, aren't you? On what basis?

I merely offer it as a possible character trait which would explain her mendacity.

Right. So first you assume that Cox was lying because it fits with your belief; then you look for a reason to justify it. That's not how it works, Heinrich. As support for your contention that Barnett was the Ripper it's worthless.

If she lied about seeing Blotchy Carroty she probably lied about seeing Mary too. This would be consistent.

Yes Heinrich, but you have no evidence that she lied, and nothing to support the contention except your wish that it was so.

The woman is not credible, Lynn.

Why not? Because she was a prostitute? Because she was a woman on her own? Your next comment seems to suggest so -

A widowed prostitute with a child cannot be choosy

I'm not sure that's very nice, Heinrich.

[miss marple]

After the Beer Act of 1830 Private houses could make and sell beer on payment of a fee. A barrel was set up in a front room for example and BEER WAS DISPENSED IN JUGS which were taken away. Probably a common sight in the East End.
Mrs Cox's testimony is quite valid. Just because Heinrich insists something is true dos not make it so.

Miss Marple

[DVV]

Hi Heinrich

Fantasy?

???

[Bridewell]

Double Standards?

An identification of a person well-known to a witness is more reliable than a description of someone never before seen, Sally.

Is there any evidence for this? A witness who knows the person seen will name them. A witness who doesn't will give a description instead. Why is one more reliable than the other?


Had he been charged, Sally, his lawyer would have wanted someone like you on the jury.

Of course he would. Sally evaluates evidence and forms a conclusion based upon it. That is what a juror is supposed to do.


I believe I have solved the Mary Kelly murder.

I'm sure you do.



Not as speculative as you suggest, Sally, as I relied on direct testimony, not hearsay.

You only rely on direct testimony when it fits your theory. If it doesn't, you find a way of discrediting it. Mrs Cox's evidence is not hearsay.


There was enough evidence to win a conviction of Joseph Barnett had the Metropolitan Police been minimally competent.

No, there isn't. The Metropolitan Police questioned Barnett for hours and eliminated him as a suspect. Your hunch that they were wrong to do so does not prove incompetence.




This (Bond's letter to the Home Office) is most unreliable as everything he writes is qualified and he was relying on a state of rigor mortis which can ever only be a broad approximation. As for the partly digested food, this is of no use without knowing at what time the meal was taken.

Hang on a minute. You queried the existence of the good doctor's estimate of a time of death (which does not suggest thorough research into the Kelly murder btw). Now that you're shown where to find it, you dismiss it without reading it properly! He himself acknowledges that rigor mortis alone is an unreliable gauge, so he adds the detail concerning the partly-digested food. He takes these two elements and combines them to give an estimate. He explains why he has reached the conclusion that he has.


Pathological liars do not need a motive and even normally honest people can be mistaken. We should not take every witness at their word.

Nor should we dismiss them out of hand when they don't fit our pet theory. There is no evidence (the stuff the courts rely on) that Mrs Cox was a liar, pathological or otherwise. Your basis for stating, unequivocally, that she is a liar, seems to be that you want her to be one. We can't cross-examine these witnesses. We have to evaluate their evidence, as you say. There is no reason to believe that Mrs Cox was lying. If 'mistaken', why was she mistaken, and what was she mistaken about? Seeing someone with MJK? The appearance of the man?


Two convictions which does not help in establishing witness credibility.
She could have been fibbing, or mistaken, or too drunk herself to distinguish fact from fiction. I do not know but I would not take her statement as infallible without some corroboration.

Yes, she could have been fibbing, but what evidence is there that she was? What evidence is there that she was drunk? You are obsessed with corroboration. A corroborated statement can be seen as reinforced, but only if the circumstances warrant that. If a group of people get together and agree to tell the same lie, their statements are corroborated, but still composed of lies. It happens on a regular basis. Mrs Cox's account is uncorroborated because she was alone. That does not make her a liar, however much you may wish it so.

Nor should it be taken as indisputable fact, Bridewell.

I have never said it is "indisputable fact"! You are saying her statement is false, and arguing with anyone who contradicts you. Her evidence is what it is. Whether or no you believe it is up to you. All I have said is that, if you are going to assert that she is a liar, you have to have some solid basis for doing so.


Please, Bridewell, on the face of it her story sounds ridiculous; what a child would make up ... blotchy face and carroty moustache indeed. LOL

As has already been pointed out to you, by someone else, people who eat and drink to excess can develop blotchy faces. Many Victorian men had large moustaches, some of which will have been carrot-coloured. "On the face of it" (i.e. prima facie) her story is true. It's what's known as prima facie evidence. You cannot discredit prima facie evidence just by shouting about it. You choose to think it 'ridiculous' because it doesn't fit with your theory that Barnett was the killer.

Mrs Cox was alone, so her testimony was, of necessity, uncorroborated. This is a big issue for you, I know. But be honest, would you be using words like "uncorroborated", "ridiculous", "pathological liar" if she had given a description which fitted Barnett? Of course not, and before you suggest it, that would not make her statement suddenly become "corroborated" because no-one else was there when she saw what she saw.

You are dismissing Mrs Cox's evidence because you don't like it; because it's inconvenient to your view that Barnett was the killer of MJK. Don't get me wrong. You're perfectly entitled to do that, but please be honest about your reasons. There are no grounds to believe that a witness who admitted, from the outset, to being an "unfortunate" - with all the opprobrium that would bring - was lying, and she seems to have had no motive for doing so. The two convictions for assault, while not to her credit, are a million miles from proving her to be a liar. If she had a conviction for perjury it would be another matter entirely. If you find that (or something of equivalent value) I'll agree that her story is suspect, but not otherwise.

Regards, Bridewell

[lynn cates]

credibility

Hello Heinrich.

"I merely offer it as a possible character trait which would explain her mendacity."

It could, given that she was in fact mendacious.

"If she lied about seeing Blotchy Carroty she probably lied about seeing Mary too. This would be consistent."

Yes, but this is an "If...Then _ _ _"

"The woman is not credible, Lynn."

OK, there are many people who are not credible. When someone prevaricates, I become wary of that person and expect an untruth in future. In a phrase, the person is "not credible." What was Cox's untruth that caused her not to be credible?

Cheers.
LC

[miss marple]

How do we know that the witness is the same Mary Ann Cox who was convicted of assault in 1887/8? Just glancing through the Census of 1891 their are several Mary Ann Coxes, some living or born in the East End.
Cox is nearly as frequent as Kelly as a common name.
Miss Marple

[Heinrich]

Heinrich.

You're making a of judegements here, aren't you? On what basis?

I am merely exercising my critical faculty, Sally

Right. So first you assume that Cox was lying because it fits with your belief; then you look for a reason to justify it. ...

Sally, I never claimed Mary Cox lied. Lynn wanted me to provide a reason why she might have lied and I provided several. I could have made up twice as many. 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.

Yes Heinrich, but you have no evidence that she lied, and nothing to support the contention except your wish that it was so.

The point is that we have no evidence to support Mary Cox's tale.

Why not? Because she was a prostitute? Because she was a woman on her own?

No, Sally. I do not believe Mary Cox because her statement about Blotchy Carroty is unsupported by anyone else. Her testimony is useless.

I'm not sure that's very nice, Heinrich.

It is not possible always to be nice when impeaching a witness, Sally.

...
Mrs Cox's testimony is quite valid. Just because Heinrich insists something is true dos not make it so.

One cannot rely on a person's testimony on the grounds that she described a common enough sight, Miss Marple. Mary Cox insisting that she saw Blotchy Carroty does not make him anything other than a construct of her own mind, sober or inebriated.

[B]..."On the face of it" (i.e. prima facie) her story is true. It's what's known as prima facie evidence. ...

Let's put it this way, Bridewell, you are easier to persuade than I am.

Mrs Cox was alone, so her testimony was, of necessity, uncorroborated. This is a big issue for you, I know.

Yes, I made this clear.

But be honest, would you be using words like "uncorroborated", "ridiculous", "pathological liar" if she had given a description which fitted Barnett? Of course not, and before you suggest it, that would not make her statement suddenly become "corroborated" because no-one else was there when she saw what she saw.

Joseph Barnett did admit to being at the scene of the crime on the night of the murder.

You are dismissing Mrs Cox's evidence because you don't like it; because it's inconvenient to your view that Barnett was the killer of MJK. Don't get me wrong. You're perfectly entitled to do that, but please be honest about your reasons.

Bridewell, it is unfair to accuse me of being dishonest; I dismiss Mary Cox's deposition because I consider it worthless.

There are no grounds to believe that a witness who admitted, from the outset, to being an "unfortunate" - with all the opprobrium that would bring - was lying, and she seems to have had no motive for doing so.

I have addressed this point several times, Bridewell. There is, in fact, no reason to believe Mary Cox.

The two convictions for assault, while not to her credit, are a million miles from proving her to be a liar. If she had a conviction for perjury it would be another matter entirely. If you find that (or something of equivalent value) I'll agree that her story is suspect, but not otherwise.

Nevertheless, her convictions for antisocial behavior do not support her reliability as a trustworthy witness, able to convince a jury of law-abiding citizens.

"I merely offer it as a possible character trait which would explain her mendacity."

It could, given that she was in fact mendacious.

Right.

"If she lied about seeing Blotchy Carroty she probably lied about seeing Mary too. This would be consistent."

Yes, but this is an "If...Then _ _ _"

Right again.

"The woman is not credible, Lynn."

OK, there are many people who are not credible. When someone prevaricates, I become wary of that person and expect an untruth in future. In a phrase, the person is "not credible." What was Cox's untruth that caused her not to be credible? ...

Her unbelievable description of a phantom who was never seen before nor since Mary Kelly's murder. Her testimony was like drawing molar teeth, never mentioning the blotchy face or carroty moustache except to compensate for her lack of observation about failing to notice the length of the alleged man's hair. She clearly convinced you, Lynn, but not me.

[caz]

If Mrs Cox and any of her female neighbours had thought for one second that Joe Barnett was responsible for carving up Kelly, it would have terrified the living daylights out of them in case he wasn't finished. As it was, there was still a vicious killer on the loose, Barnett or no.

So why the hell would Cox have invented Blotchy and stuck with him, giving whoever the real killer was a nice little break while the cops fannied around the area looking for innocent men with blotches and ginger face furniture? Was she tired of living?

She'd have had to be stark staring mad to invent a 'last man in' under those circumstances.

Game over - unless it can be shown that Cox was carted off to an asylum shortly afterwards.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

material implication

Hello Heinrich. Delighted we agree on conditional logic. Of course, the truth table for them indicates a T whenever the antecedent is F--irrespective of the consequent.

"Her unbelievable description of a phantom who was never seen before nor since Mary Kelly's murder."

As I've stated before, this description matches "Red" Jim McDermott who was said to be a suspect. Does that make him BM? Not at all; does, however, indicate that the description was not null.

"Her testimony was like drawing molar teeth, never mentioning the blotchy face or carroty moustache except to compensate for her lack of observation about failing to notice the length of the alleged man's hair. She clearly convinced you, Lynn, but not me."

Not so clear. As I've said before, I never doubt a piece of testimony unless I have cause to.

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Sally, I never claimed Mary Cox lied. Lynn wanted me to provide a reason why she might have lied and I provided several. I could have made up twice as many. 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.

"I never claimed Mary Cox lied."

You have a funny way of showing it.


The point is that we have no evidence to support Mary Cox's tale.

This is not the point. We have no reason to disbelieve it.


No, Sally. I do not believe Mary Cox because her statement about Blotchy Carroty is unsupported by anyone else. Her testimony is useless.

Okay, Heinrich. I'll give you a scenario:

I see a punk, with a purple mohican haircut throw a stone at my neighbour's window. The window doesn't break and the stone lands in some undergrowth. Nobody but me witnesses this incident.

Did the incident happen? Yes, it did.

Am I telling the truth if I claim that it did? Yes, I am.

Is the incident corroborated? No.

Am I therefore lying? No.

Am I therefore mistaken? No.

If I had two convictions for assault, would I become a liar? No.

If, a hundred and twenty-three years from now, someone read my account and dismissed it because (a) it's not corroborated and (b) a purple mohican haircut is simply (to them) not believable, does my account become a lie? No.

Do I become a liar? No.

Please apply this structured thought process to the evidence of Mrs Cox.That is all I ask.

How can an incident seen by only one person ever be corroborated?


Joseph Barnett did admit to being at the scene of the crime on the night of the murder.

That's not disputed.


Bridewell, it is unfair to accuse me of being dishonest; I dismiss Mary Cox's deposition because I consider it worthless.


How is it unfair for me to accuse you of being dishonest, yet okay for you to make the same accusation against Mary Cox? Do you have objective grounds for dismissing her evidence as worthless?


I have addressed this point several times, Bridewell. There is, in fact, no reason to believe Mary Cox.

On the contrary. There is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve her.


Nevertheless, her convictions for antisocial behavior do not support her reliability as a trustworthy witness, able to convince a jury of law-abiding citizens.

Firstly, there is no proof that this Mary Ann Cox was the person convicted of these offences. Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that she was, the convictions are for assaults, not dishonesty. They are not relevant.

Her unbelievable description of a phantom who was never seen before nor since Mary Kelly's murder. , never mentioning the blotchy face or carroty moustache except to compensate for her lack of observation about failing to notice the length of the alleged man's hair. She clearly convinced you, Lynn, but not me.

Heinrich, you keep telling us that her description was "unbelievable", but adduce no evidence in support of that assertion. Constant repetition of an opinion does not constitute evidence.

Her testimony was like drawing molar teeth.

She made a statement to the police on the day of the murder and she gave evidence at the inquest.


"Never mentioning the blotchy face or carroty moustache except to compensate for her lack of observation about failing to notice the length of the alleged man's hair."
First point: Are you saying that you'd find her account credible if she had included a wealth of additional material, or that, not having seen the length of the man's hair, she should not have provided details of what she did see?
Second point: In an earlier post you included, among your reasons for discounting her testimony, the poor lighting conditions. Now you are dismissing it because she didn't notice more than she did. I don't think you can have it both ways!
Third point: How do you know that she only mentioned the detail she did see to compensate for not seeing the length of his hair?

I am not accusing you of lying, because I have no justification for doing so, but I am going to be consistent.
I am also not accusing Mrs Cox of lying, for exactly the same reason.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

I never doubt a piece of testimony unless I have cause to.

Cheers.
LC

And so say all of us!