Blotchy

[lynn cates]

bravo

Hello Caroline. Well done.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Column A or column B?

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

Cheers.
LC

[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.

[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.

[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

[Fisherman]

A, then? Yes? Caz?

Just kidding, Caz - brilliantly made point there!

The best,
Fisherman

[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

[Robert]

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

[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.

[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]

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]

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..

[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.

[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.

[Robert]

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

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