Blotchy

[Heinrich]

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

Please don't be offended but a blotchy face was not uncommon for one who ate and drank a bit too much. In fact, the official description of General Frank Millen included "blotchy face."

Carrotty moustache? That would be a reddish colour. Very common amongst the Irish. Check out the description of "Red" Jim McDermott.

Not a bit offended, Lynn, just not persuaded this Indentikit caricature ever existed outside Mary Cox's mind.

[lynn cates]

blotchy et carrotty

Hello (again) Heinrich.

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

Please don't be offended but a blotchy face was not uncommon for one who ate and drank a bit too much. In fact, the official description of General Frank Millen included "blotchy face."

Carrotty moustache? That would be a reddish colour. Very common amongst the Irish. Check out the description of "Red" Jim McDermott.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

drinking material

Hello Robert. What? No single malt?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

additions

Hello Heinrich.

"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?'

No, I mean if I undergo event X and then add to it, the initial event is X. The addition/s is/are merely the accretion/s.

Put another way, it makes no sense to talk about an addition unless there is SOMETHING to add to.

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

Try Evans and Rumbelow, "Scotland Yard Investigates."

Cheers.
LC

[Heinrich]

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?

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

Yes, Heinrich, because he had noting to hide

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

I have shown elsewhere beyond reasonable doubt that Joseph Barnett murdered Mary Kelly. ...

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?

I believe I have solved the Mary Kelly murder.

We'd all be congratulating you for your powers of astute insight.

That would be welcome.

Everything that you have suggested in support of your belief is either pure speculation or hearsay.

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

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

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

Uncorroborated.

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

The weight of evidence in the Mary Kelly murder is unquestionably against Joseph Barnett.

It's not in the autopsy report. It's in a letter sent by Bond to the Home Office, dated Nov 10th 88. The relevant paragraph reads:

"Rigor mortis had set in, but increased during the progress of the examination. From this it is difficult to say with any degree of certainty the exact time that had elapsed since death as the period varies from 6 to 12 hours before rigidity sets in. The body was comparatively cold at 2 o'clock and the remains of a recently taken meal were found in the stomach and scattered about over the intestines. It is therefore pretty certain that the woman must have been dead about 12 hours and the partly digested food
would indicate: that death took place about 3 or 4 hours after the food was taken, so one or two o'clock in the morning would be the probable time of the murder".

This 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 use without knowing at what time the meal was taken.

No, it isn't. There is every reason to believe her testimony, as she had no obvious motive for lying.

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

Bridewell, eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable so we have to weigh several aspects.

This is a sweeping generalisation, Heinrich.

Nevertheless true.

She admitted, in the first sentence, that she was a prostitute, which took considerable courage, and she comes across as a credible witness.

Not to me, Bridewell.

A conviction for assault does not negate this.

Two convictions which does not help in establishing witness credibility.

Some witnesses are mistaken (which you appear to have discounted in the case of Mrs Cox). Some tell lies, but not without a good motive for doing so. The remainder tell the truth to the best of their recollection. Unless I have misunderstood, you are accusing Mrs Cox of lying without giving any indication as to what her motive was for doing so.

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.

Lack of corroboration would be an issue if Cox had been with others who denied seeing Blotchy. She was alone, so her account is uncorroborated. An uncorroborated account is not presumed, in law, to be a lie.

Nor should it be taken as indisputable fact, Bridewell.

If you are saying that she is lying, please adduce some evidence in support of that assertion; if you are unable to do so, her evidence is, prima facie, valid.

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

[Bridewell]

Bridewell, eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable so we have to weigh several aspects.
i) What is the character of the witness?
Mary Cox had a criminal record for assault and had done time.
ii) What were the conditions at the time?
A dark miserable wet night.
iii) Did the witness know the person she was identifying?
Mary Cox never saw Blotchy Carroty before or since the murder.
iv) Does the testimony have corroboration?
No one else saw this man.


In this case, it is easier to believe that Blotchy Carroty never existed except in the imagination of Mary Cox.

No, it isn't. There is every reason to believe her testimony, as she had no obvious motive for lying.

Bridewell, eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable so we have to weigh several aspects.

This is a sweeping generalisation, Heinrich. The reliability of eye witness testimony decreases over time, which is why police investigators endeavour to get a written account as soon as reasonably practicable. Mary Ann Cox made a written statement on the day of the murder. She admitted, in the first sentence, that she was a prostitute, which took considerable courage, and she comes across as a credible witness. A conviction for assault does not negate this.

Some witnesses are mistaken (which you appear to have discounted in the case of Mrs Cox). Some tell lies, but not without a good motive for doing so. The remainder tell the truth to the best of their recollection. Unless I have misunderstood, you are accusing Mrs Cox of lying without giving any indication as to what her motive was for doing so. Lack of corroboration would be an issue if Cox had been with others who denied seeing Blotchy. She was alone, so her account is uncorroborated. An uncorroborated account is not presumed, in law, to be a lie. If you are saying that she is lying, please adduce some evidence in support of that assertion; if you are unable to do so, her evidence is, prima facie, valid.

[Bridewell]

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


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

Hi Heinrich,

It's not in the autopsy report. It's in a letter sent by Bond to the Home Office, dated Nov 10th 88. The relevant paragraph reads:

"Rigor mortis had set in, but increased during the progress of the examination. From this it is difficult to say with any degree of certainty the exact time that had elapsed since death as the period varies from 6 to 12 hours before rigidity sets in. The body was comparatively cold at 2 o'clock and the remains of a recently taken meal were found in the stomach and scattered about over the intestines. It is therefore pretty certain that the woman must have been dead about 12 hours and the partly digested food
would indicate: that death took place about 3 or 4 hours after the food was taken, so one or two o'clock in the morning would be the probable time of the murder".

Regards, Bridewell

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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!!

[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.

[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?