Blotchy

[Wickerman]

.... Seems a bit unfair to to categorically assume he is a liar just because I prefer my shenanigans nocturnal.

Oh, but some people on these boards have mastered this approach to an art!

Saying that uncorroborated accounts should be automatically dismissed is very dangerous ground.

But thats the only way some of these people can maintain their arguments.
Its essential to believe that every person who lived in the area actually said that they saw no-one who looked like this.
- Even though, no such abundance of statements exists.
- Even though, not every person was interested in giving an opinion.
- Even though, the climate of the locals was to keep themselves to themselves.
- Even though, any number of locals might have had good reason to avoid any contact with police.
Keep your nose clean, your eyes closed, and your opinions to yourself (East end Survival, 101)

Regards, Jon S.

[curious]

Hi Curious,
If the killer wished to protect his own clothing, then surely the men's pilot coat covering the window would have sufficed.
The coat was a black velvet jacket, so would not have afforded much protection, so one still wonders why these two items [ Jacket and bonnet] became bloodstained?, indeed why would they be burnt by the killer, would they give a clue to their identity?
For them to have become soiled with blood , they would have either had to be worn by the killer, or been on the bed when the attack took place, the first theory would indicate all sorts of speculation..., the latter a more plausible scenario , however that would suggest that either Kelly was undressing when attacked , having taken off all her clothing except a chemise, but why then was her other clothing not have been bloodied?
Or taking the other view by the police [ the same report] that they also believed the murder happened in daylight, one could speculate that she was about to get dressed when her killer entered the room, and the jacket and bonnet were laid on the bed.
So why did the killer burn them?..possibly seeing the bloodied items the fiend, realized that if left on the bed in that condition it would indicate that the murder did not occur during the hours of the night as it would not suggest that, an important reason if one had a night time alibi...that should please Heinrich.
Regards Richard.

Hi, Richard,
Because of your interesting "take" on the Kelly murder, I have wanted to "talk" to you for sometime.

About the man's pilot coat. Undoubtedly it would have been larger and perhaps a better fit than the jacket. However, to wear it, the killer would had to have uncovered the window and risk being seen, even if he did find something with which to recover the window. Was there anything else in the room to use to cover the window? And consider how he could have gone about that with Mary still alive??

Then, if she were dead, but before he got down to serious work, he uncovered the window to wear the coat . . . very dangerous since he could not know who might be passing the window and see him.

So, while the pilot coat might had done a better job covering the killer, how could he have gone about that without risking being seen? On the other hand, Mary Kelly was said to be 5' 7" and a fairly big woman. It seems reasonable that some men of the time could possibly have worn the jacket.

In light of the difficulty tracing Mary and her background, I have considered that the jacket might possibly have identified her. A tailor's tag, perhaps? If the jacket was burned to hide Mary Kelly's true identity, why?

I have not yet come up with a scenario in which the coat could have identified the killer. Any suggestions?

Since the police believed she had been killed in the daylight, then that really does not seem reasonable. Would the killer have been conscious of trying to throw the police off on the timing? And there was so much confusion on timing here, I suspect that alibis were checked for the entire time under consideration, don't you?

[Sally]

You are right, Sally. As long as members want give equal weight the obvious as to the implausible, the chat will never end.

Yes Heinrich, but I don't think you see, do you? The 'obvious' to you - i.e. that Barnett was the Ripper - is not the 'obvious' to a lot of other people. What you consider to be conclusive and damning evidence is not so viewed by others.

This is not because you are clever and people who disagree with you are stupid (for example). This is not because you are right and others are wrong, necessarily. Nor is this because the evidence really is damning and conclusive.

This is because of your perspective, Heinrich, which is unique to you. You believe in Barnett's guilt and that belief persuades you to dismiss the evidence of anybody who gets in the way of that belief. That's all. Thus, what is 'implausible' to you is not viewed as such by others. I, for example, doubt that Barnett had anything to do with the murder of Kelly or anybody else. The pieces, as they say, do not fit. I've been through this before with you I think, but you would have to explain an awful lot of things to make it work - it just doesn't, I'm afraid. Nice though it might be to consider the case resolved, you'd need actual hard evidence to do that.

Other people, who don't have as much faith in Bad Barnett as you do are not so compelled to dismiss witness testimony because they don't have the same agenda as you do. And that's ok, you're quite entitled to hold your view. It just helps to accept that it is your view, not proven fact, and that you, like anybody else, have bias.

Now I think I'll leave you to it. This thread, after all, is about Blotchy, not Bad Barnett, for whom there are a veritable plethora of threads should we all wish to continue discussion.

[Bridewell]

So, I'm a little confused...

a: what is so remarkable about not knowing the length of a man's hair when the man in question is wearing a hat? This isn't the 60's.. it's not like he had long luxuriant hippie locks

b: aren't a majority of things witnessed in the early hours of the morning when most people are asleep uncorroborated? I could run naked down my block at three in the morning, and be seen by no one at all. Maybe the frat guy three houses over, but then his statement would be uncorroborated by anyone else in the neighborhood. Seems a bit unfair to to categorically assume he is a liar just because I prefer my shenanigans nocturnal.

Saying that uncorroborated accounts should be automatically dismissed is very dangerous ground. Most rapes and sexual assaults are uncorroborated. Most incidences of child molestation and abuse are uncorroborated. If your view is truly to discount all such statements as lies or imagination then perhaps the crimes of Jack the Ripper should be the LEAST of your concerns.

Absolutey spot on, Errata.

[Bridewell]

The Point I'm Making

[QUOTE=Heinrich;211200]I cannot find a transcript of Mary Cox's statement to the police on 9th November 1888, Bridewell, although I read a report of it which states that she "believed" the alleged man had blotches on his face and a carroty moustache. So, I have some doubt about the details while I note that in your quote you have "I believe he had blotches on his face" suggesting less than certitude.
Even granting that she mentioned to the police the blotches and carroty moustache (if somewhat less certain than at the later inquest), this should not change our minds that accepting uncorroborated claims is folly, Bridewell.

You have a closed mind where uncorroborated evidence is concerned, so I'll move on from that. I've already told you twice what she said in her witness statement, so I won't go through it again.


I think you will find I have established the case without shadow of doubt against Joseph Barnett, Bridewell.

I doubt it, but I'm prepared to keep an open mind until I've seen the evidence.

While I must accept your willingness to provide a reference to anyone but me, perhaps another member could let me have a link to the transcript.

I wasn't saying that I was willing to provide a link to anyone but you! I've already quoted the relevant portion of her witness statement twice, which hardly suggests unwillingness on my part. The point I was making is that the text of the statement is there in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook. If others were also unable to locate it, I was prepared to provide the full text to clarify matters. If you don't have a copy of the book, I'll post the entire text of the witness statement; of course I will. If you do have it, however, there is no need for me to do so when you already have the information at your disposal. That is the point I was making.

Although I have received no encouragement on Casebook since joining, I am happy for members who have their opinions supported by others in the way Cogidubnus has demonstrated admiration for your contribution at my expense /QUOTE].

Cogidubnus appeared to agree when I suggested that you had contradicted yourself. You don't think you contradicted yourself, but we do. Why is that "at your expense"? The words are your, Heinrich, not mine, and the contradiction is there for all to see, or not, as they choose. Nobody holds back when I get things round my neck (as we all do on occasions). Why should they? Don't take it personally. It's a discussion forum.

I am truly sorry if you don't feel you've had any encouragement on Casebook since joining, because that is a sad state of affairs. However, if, by lack of encouragement, you simply mean that other members are failing to support your theory or to agree with your posts, that is a different matter entirely. You and I are not in agreement where the reliability of Mrs Cox's evidence is concerned, but that doesn't mean lack of support, simply difference of opinion. I am sure we will agree on some threads, just not on this one.

[Cogidubnus]

likewise...

Dave

[Heinrich]

...
a: what is so remarkable about not knowing the length of a man's hair when the man in question is wearing a hat? This isn't the 60's.. it's not like he had long luxuriant hippie locks

I'd have thought that anyone who noticed the tone of a person's complexion late on a dark wet night, the color even of his moustache, the style of hat, what was in his jug, and what not, would also have noticed whether he had long or short hair.

b: aren't a majority of things witnessed in the early hours of the morning when most people are asleep uncorroborated?

Probably so.

Saying that uncorroborated accounts should be automatically dismissed is very dangerous ground. Most rapes and sexual assaults are uncorroborated. Most incidences of child molestation and abuse are uncorroborated. If your view is truly to discount all such statements as lies or imagination then perhaps the crimes of Jack the Ripper should be the LEAST of your concerns.

Indeed, assuming every accusation against a person must be true because a witness said so would pretty much make the right to a trial where allegations need to be proved, obsolete. In matters of crime, detectives need to find supporting evidence of witness statements, otherwise such statements are useless. No one other than Mary Cox claims to have seen Blotchy Carroty. He is a non-entity whose purported existence will serve only to cloud the identity of the real killer, Joseph Barnett.

Yes Heinrich, but I don't think you see, do you? The 'obvious' to you - i.e. that Barnett was the Ripper - is not the 'obvious' to a lot of other people. What you consider to be conclusive and damning evidence is not so viewed by others.

This is clearly so, Sally.

This is not because you are clever and people who disagree with you are stupid (for example).

I never suggested either, Sally.

This is not because you are right and others are wrong, necessarily.

I think members who believe Mary Cox are wrong to do so.

Nor is this because the evidence really is damning and conclusive.

The evidence against Joseph Barnett is beyond question, Sally.

This is because of your perspective, Heinrich, which is unique to you.

It does surprise me that a forum dedicated to Jack the Ripper appers to have few members who are persuaded of Joseph Barnett's guilt and write of Blotchy Carroty as if he actually existed.

...It just helps to accept that it is your view, not proven fact, and that you, like anybody else, have bias.

There is no member more unbiased than myself, Sally.

...
The point I was making is that the text of the statement is there in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook.

It's not important, Bridewell.

Cogidubnus appeared to agree when I suggested that you had contradicted yourself. You don't think you contradicted yourself, but we do. Why is that "at your expense"?

There is a way of taking pot shots at members by appearing to agree with others. You must know what I mean.

I am truly sorry if you don't feel you've had any encouragement on Casebook since joining, because that is a sad state of affairs.

Yes, it surprises me. But I know on the internet, forums vary in the degrees of civility.

However, if, by lack of encouragement, you simply mean that other members are failing to support your theory or to agree with your posts, that is a different matter entirely.

No, Bridewell, I do not mean that. I am referring to the tone of posts from members who not only do not share my opinion but do so in a mean-spirited way, making personally insulting remarks or condescending jokes. Ganging-up against a lone member who dares to question the accepted script, namely Mary Cox's reliability as a witness, is calculated to browbeat a person into leaving the board. Some of us joined Casebook to learn and discuss, not to be mocked.

[Sally]

Originally Posted by Sally
This is not because you are clever and people who disagree with you are stupid (for example).

I never suggested either, Sally.

Yes I know that Heinrich, which is why I wrote 'for example'. It was a hypothetical point, not an accusation.

Anyway, as I said, this thread has been derailed quite enough I think, so I'll leave you to it. See you on the next Barnett thread.

[Robert]

"The evidence against Joseph Barnett is beyond question, Sally......There is no member more unbiased than myself, Sally."

Yes, Heinrich, I can't understand why posters would want to rib you. Such behaviour seems totally inexplicable.

[Errata]

I'd have thought that anyone who noticed the tone of a person's complexion late on a dark wet night, the color even of his moustache, the style of hat, what was in his jug, and what not, would also have noticed whether he had long or short hair.

But he had a hat on. I mean, the is Victorian London. His hair length was going to be short, or shorter. Which would be covered by a hat. I mean, if he had 80's rock god hair, it would be unusual for her not to know that. But 1/2 inch hair vs. 2 inch hair is going to be obscured by a hat.

Indeed, assuming every accusation against a person must be true because a witness said so would pretty much make the right to a trial where allegations need to be proved, obsolete. In matters of crime, detectives need to find supporting evidence of witness statements, otherwise such statements are useless. No one other than Mary Cox claims to have seen Blotchy Carroty. He is a non-entity whose purported existence will serve only to cloud the identity of the real killer, Joseph Barnett.

But you aren't talking about the ease or relative difficulty of prosecuting a suspect. You are saying that uncorroborated evidence is not evidence. That it is lie or a figment of someone's imagination. No one saw what Mary Cox saw, so it is fiction. No one saw me get raped, and I can guarantee you it was not fiction. My attackers made sure they weren't seen. That doesn't make me a liar. But according to your argument, it does make me a liar. That my claim should be immediately dismissed because there wasn't an audience. No trial, no chance to confront my attackers, no counseling, no concession to the fact that I may have in fact been a victim. Dismissed as a liar or a crazy person.

No one is saying you have to believe Mary Cox's story. Despite it's relatively benign nature. She says she saw the victim with a man. Well, the victim was a prostitute so could easily be seen with half a dozen or more men a night. She didn't say she witnessed the murder, or that the man she with Kelly was her murderer. She saw Kelly with a guy. Okay. You don't have to believe that. There are any number of problems with eyewitness testimony that could come into play. But to say that uncorroborated evidence is fiction is quite frankly, infamy. How dare you? Do you think people who have gone through such trauma WANT to go through the intensely humiliating process of trying to prove themselves in "he said/she said" cases? Why do you get to judge who is and is not worthy of the process of justice? Why don't I deserve justice?

According to you, no one should even consider that my story may be true. Not that it can't be prosecuted because it can't be proven, not that it should not have the same evidentiary weight as a claim supported by witnesses, but that it should be brushed aside as the ramblings of an attention seeking pathological liar.

If you want to discount Mary Cox's statement, that fine. There are a couple dozen ways to do that without calling ME a liar. Or a six year old who spends every night locked in a closet. Or a woman who is getting death threats from a stalker. If you see Mary Cox as a liar, fine. If you see her testimony as irrelevant, fine. But don't ever try to argue that uncorroborated testimony is the province of liars and lunatics. It isn't true, and serves no other purpose than to disgust.

[Heinrich]

... You are saying that uncorroborated evidence is not evidence.

No, only that it needs support to be useful, Errata.

Dismissed as a liar or a crazy person.

Of course, if a person is accused of a crime then a mere accusation should not be taken as proof. Too many innocent people have been imprisoned because of false testimony.

How dare you? Do you think people who have gone through such trauma WANT to go through the intensely humiliating process of trying to prove themselves in "he said/she said" cases? Why do you get to judge who is and is not worthy of the process of justice? Why don't I deserve justice?

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

[Bridewell]

It's not important, Bridewell.


There is a way of taking pot shots at members by appearing to agree with others. You must know what I mean.


Yes, it surprises me. But I know on the internet, forums vary in the degrees of civility.


No, Bridewell, I do not mean that. I am referring to the tone of posts from members who not only do not share my opinion but do so in a mean-spirited way, making personally insulting remarks or condescending jokes. Ganging-up against a lone member who dares to question the accepted script, namely Mary Cox's reliability as a witness, is calculated to browbeat a person into leaving the board. Some of us joined Casebook to learn and discuss, not to be mocked.

Heinrich,

I, too, have unsubscribed from this thread, because attempts to discuss the subject (Blotchy) are constantly derailed by your tedious and
repetitive insistence that such an individual never existed, and by your unwillingness to respect the opinions of others on that subject.

See you on another thread.

Regards, Bridewell

[miss marple]

The Clothes Mystery

To get back to the point of the description of Mary's clothes, there is something a little odd. We know Mary had a fine head of hair and often went hatless and also I believe wore a shawl.

Elizabeth Prater only mentions Mary's clothes to a Star reporter next day, when she describes her wearing a hat and jacket, going out at about 9pm thursday night, The hat and jacket appears to be an unusual feature and she notices it because Prater herself does not possess such items.
So this takes us to Mary Ann Cox's description of Mary's clothes at 11.45pm over two and a half hours later. She describes her as having no hat, a shabby skirt and a red pelerine. Pelerine is a very specific description of a cape with pointed ends, a diagonally crossed shawl would also have pointed ends but the fabric in a shawl would not be so stiff as the fabric in a cape.
Now this is the odd thing, Mrs Maxwell's description of the woman she claimed was Mary at 9 am friday morning appears to be wearing the clothes described by Mary Ann Cox. A maroon shawl [ from a distance a pelerine could be mistaken for a shawl, or shawl could be used as a generic name if Mrs Maxwell did not know the term pelerine.] A dark skirt, that could be a shabby skirt, and the detail of a velvet bodice. The pelerine and velvet bodice seem to suggest once fine clothes, now shabby hand me downs, bought on the old clothes stalls. The sort of cheap finary a prostitute might wear.

I have never believed that Mrs M saw Mary friday morning, but maybe confused the day.
IT is a weird coincidence that the two descriptions are so close.

Or If Mary was going out at 9 in hat and jacket, maybe she was meeting someone for a chat, not a client. Did she meet Dan Barnett in the Ten Bells that night.Then come back to Millars Court and change in pro clothes and nip out again and solicite Mr Blotchy?
What clothes were burnt in the fire the cheap pro clothes or the jacket and hat. Was the hat different from Maria Harvey's black crepe bonnet?

Questions, questions but never answers.

Miss Marple

[lynn cates]

3

Hello Miss Marple. I agree about Mrs. Maxwell's testimony being difficult. If only there were not two others who claimed an MJK sighting later in the morning it would be easier for me to dismiss her.

Cheers.
LC

[Stephen Thomas]

Hello Stephen. Actually, they looked high and low for the place of sale--even down to chatting up pot boys. It was a no go.

Thanks, Lynn

I never knew that. Where is it recorded?

If Dew is to be believed then Kelly was a well known Spitalfields character and it seems a bit strange to me that nobody seems to know where the hell she was on the evening before she died.