Blotchy

[Heinrich]

...
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 might have believed her own story, Caz, but if she knowingly lied, she might have lacked the seriousness of false testimony.

"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.

Mary Cox did not identify "Red" Jim McDermott by name, Lynn.

"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.

I do not share your credulity, Lynn.

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.

Forgive my repetition, Bridewell, in my attempts to address repeated objections to my argument. I try to answer everyone who has an issue with my water-tight case against Joseph Barnett.

"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.

I was commenting on her deposition, Bridewell. I am not aware of her mentioning a blotchy face or a carroty moustache to the police.

"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?

I noted her additional detail only after she plead ignorance about the detail of the length of her alleged mystery man.

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![/B]

Actually, it is Mary Cox who attempted to 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?

That is my guess based on human psychology.

[lynn cates]

"I 'ave me doubts."

Hello Heinrich.

"Mary Cox did not identify "Red" Jim McDermott by name, Lynn."

As I said. The point is that the description is not null--at least one person in Middlesex County at that time answered to that description.

"I do not share your credulity, Lynn."

Credulity has NOTHING to do with it. I doubt MANY pieces of evidence from the WCM. They fall into two broad categories.

1. Mistakes.

2. Prevarications.

Under number 1, I may list Mrs. Long's time of 5.30. Why do I think it a mistake? It does not cohere with Cadosch's time. Add 15 minutes (hypothesis: she heard the quarter hour struck) and voila!

Under number 2, I may list John's testimony about Kate's early release from Mile End Casual Ward. Why a lie? People did NOT get out of casual wards that early. His answer was an evasion, as was a good bit of his other testimony.

But in each case, there must be a reason to doubt in the first place.

Cheers.
LC

[Robert]

Heinrich, Joseph Barnett is a respectable candidate. But as for your case against him being watertight : I think you have a burst pipe.

[Sally]

Gawd...

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.

Didn't you Heinrich? I shall have to have a read through your recent posts.

Or maybe I won't bother. The fact of the matter is not that you 'don't know why' Cox lied; but that you don't know that she lied at all. You are assuming that she did - in fact you need her to have done so otherwise it damages your conviction that Barnett was the Ripper. That's the way to build a theory, evidently, deny the plausibility of anything that doesn't fit with your conviction.

And what's this regarding a 'higher standard'? Please, try not to be ridiculous Heinrich. As Bridewell has eloquently demonstrated to you, an event witnessed by only one person, an uncorroborated event, does not by any standards make it a lie.

If you wish to pursue this 'logic' then virtually nobody ever saw anybody who could have been the Ripper; and virtually all of the witnesses in the case were liars because their accounts were uncorroborrated.

It's fundamentally flawed, as are your arguments regarding Barnett.

But of course, it's your perogative to remain convinced in the face of strong evidence to the contrary.

[Bridewell]

Forgive my repetition, Bridewell, in my attempts to address repeated objections to my argument. I try to answer everyone who has an issue with my water-tight case against Joseph Barnett.

Your repetition is, of course, forgiven, but if your case was water-tight, no-one would have an issue with it.

I was commenting on her deposition, Bridewell. I am not aware of her mentioning a blotchy face or a carroty moustache to the police.

You should be. It's in her witness statement dated Friday 9th November:

"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


I noted her additional detail only after she plead ignorance about the detail of the length of hair of her alleged mystery man.

What additional detail? The description is in her original witness statement!

Actually, it is Mary Cox who attempted to have it both ways.

Please explain.

That is my guess based on human psychology.

So your answer 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?

is that you don't. You guessed.

How have you formed your "water-tight case" against Joseph Barnett without reading the text of the original witness statements and, more to the point, how can you possibly dismiss the evidence of any witness whose original account you have not read?

Regards, Bridewell

[DVV]

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

Closing words for me.

[Bridewell]

Closing words for me.

I suspect your optimism will prove to be misplaced.

[Robert]

Of course, something may look watertight, but then.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2GkncV2jOo

[Heinrich]

...
"I do not share your credulity, Lynn."

Credulity has NOTHING to do with it. ...

Let's agree to disagree, Lynn. 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.

Heinrich, Joseph Barnett is a respectable candidate. But as for your case against him being watertight : I think you have a burst pipe.

If every member of this forum habitually dismiss cogent and compelling arguments, Robert, no one will ever identify any murderer for a hundred years and more. I am taking it that you think Blotchy Face murdered Mary Kelly also but I venture to claim this leaves you not better informed in any substantial way.

Didn't you Heinrich? I shall have to have a read through your recent posts.

I recommend this, Sally.

Or maybe I won't bother.

Oh! Alright then.

If you wish to pursue this 'logic' then virtually nobody ever saw anybody who could have been the Ripper; and virtually all of the witnesses in the case were liars because their accounts were uncorroborrated.

Don't forget, Joseph Barnett did corroborate Maria Harvey's account, putting himself as the last identified person at the crime scene.

But of course, it's your perogative to remain convinced in the face of strong evidence to the contrary.

By all means, do consider Mary Cox an unimpeachable witness, Sally.

So your answer 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?

is that you don't. You guessed.

Yes, I really do not know which of any number of reasons actually accounts for her false testimony, 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.

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.

[DVV]

I suspect your optimism will prove to be misplaced.

Hi Bridewell, right you are, I think... But here is a theory in which Cox is aware that Barnett is the Ripper... and does not bother at all. So, quite logically, instead of asking us to prove Cox wasn't a liar (which is a nonsense, since she has no reason to lie and fabricate Blotchy), Heinrich should provide evidence that she was a complete nuts.
I have nothing against Barnett candidacy, I must say. The problem is Cox in Heinrich scenario.

[Sally]

If every member of this forum habitually dismiss cogent and compelling arguments, Robert, no one will ever identify any murderer for a hundred years and more. I am taking it that you think Blotchy Face murdered Mary Kelly also but I venture to claim this leaves you not better informed in any substantial way.

Well this is true, isn't it, Heinrich, because Blotchy remains unidentified. That makes him absolutle no less likely than Barnett to have murdered Kelly. In fact Blotchy is more likely to have murdered Kelly because Barnett had an alibi. Small consideration, I know, but there we are. That we don't know who Blotchy was makes not a whit of difference to his candidacy for Kelly's killer. Not a jot. It's irrelevant.

Don't forget, Joseph Barnett did corroborate Maria Harvey's account, putting himself as the last identified person at the crime scene.

Nobody can deny this Heinrich, but so what? You think this is significant, clearly. But is isn't. Barnett had an alibi. Do you seriously think the police didn't know that Barnett had been in Kelly's room earlier that night? Do you honestly believe that they wouldn't have been entirely satisfied as to his allibi before releasing him from custody?

But of course, since all that is in the way of Barnett's guilt, the police must become incompetent. Sigh.

By all means, do consider Mary Cox an unimpeachable witness, Sally.

So far, Heinrich, you have consistently failed to provide any compelling reason or even an iota of evidence in support for your contention that Cox invented Blotchy. There is no reason to disbelieve her. There is nothing remotely outlandish in her account and no apparent motive for making him up. Your vision of her mendacity is merely necessary to your conviction of Barnett's guilt.

As I said, everyone's entitlted to their opinion. Yours has little evidential support, however. Barnett having been with Mary earlier that night doesn't make him her murderer. Barnett was not the last identified person to have seen Kelly alive, Cox was. Or Hutchinson. More than one person heard her singing at a time when Barnett was safely tucked up in his lodgings.

Next you'll be telling us that Barnett and Cox were in it together..

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
Lets widen the plot, it was stated in the infamous ''Gossip sheet'' [ Wheeler's], that Barnett and a female witness, who was a resident of the court had formed a relationship, the female finding Barnett ''romantic' because of his involvement with the dead woman.
Now that would not have been Cox....surely not?
Love is blind and all that..did she see , or hear something which would be better not mentioned to the police.
If the amorous admirer of Barnett was not Cox .. other names please.
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

Mrs Barnett

Hi Richard

If this report has any truth in it (and isn't just a juicy bit of gossip ) then maybe that was Louisa. Both Barnett and Louisa stated in the 1911 census that they'd been together for 23 years - which would put the start of their relationship in 1888 if correct.

[richardnunweek]

Morning Sally,
Indeed it seems our Joseph wasted no time in hitching up with a new one, but the Gossip sheet indicates that the admirer was a witness at the inquest , and was a court resident, so apparently attended the funeral also, as one of the six women present.
So we have, Maria Harvey,Lizzie Prater. Mrs Cox, Sara Lewis, Mrs Maxwell, possibly also Julia V,or Lizzie A.
The big suspicion I have against Mrs Cox is her description of Kelly's clothing when seen with Blotchy, it does not tally with Elizabeth Prater's version when she saw[ and spoke to] Mary at 9pm.
She was then wearing her jacket and bonnet, the same bonnet that Mrs Harvey left a few hours previous with the words 'I shall leave you my bonnet then''
The same articles that were burnt in the fire, because according to the police were 'Burnt because they were bloodstained..Work that one out?
Clearly the bonnet was left as a gesture from Harvey, for Mary to either wear that night to attract[ which apparently she did] or to use the following morning to attend the Lord Mayor's show.
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.

[Robert]

Good grief no, Heinrich. I do not think the murderer was Blotchy.