Blotchy

[lynn cates]

Tod

Hello 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.

"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?

"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?

Cheers.
LC

[Heinrich]

"No one corroborated Mary Cox's concoction of Blotchy . . ."

I wonder whether interpolating "concoction" perhaps commits a petitio principii?

The onus is on those who believe in Blotchy Carroty carrying a jug of ale to provide the evidence, Lynn. I believe he is a manifestation of Mary Cox's mind.

Heinrich, Cox wasn't identifying Blotchy. She identified Mary, who was in his company. ...

Well, Robert, none of us would have considered Blotchy Carroty but for Mary Cox's statement.

...
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?

I couldn't guess what was in Mary Cox's mind, Lynn. False testimony is not uncommon.

"Joseph Barnett cannot be said to have an alibi for the time of the murder if no one knows when the murder took place. Surely this is simple enough."

It can, provided all such times are covered. Of course, it will not work if some time is NOT covered and the suspect has time/ability to go from the place covered by the alibi to the decedent's place.

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.

[lynn cates]

covered

Hello Heinrich.

"Joseph Barnett cannot be said to have an alibi for the time of the murder if no one knows when the murder took place. Surely this is simple enough."

It can, provided all such times are covered. Of course, it will not work if some time is NOT covered and the suspect has time/ability to go from the place covered by the alibi to the decedent's place.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

cui bono

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

[Robert]

Heinrich, Cox wasn't identifying Blotchy. She identified Mary, who was in his company. The conditions were irrelevant, since Cox saw Mary go into her room, accompanied by Blotchy, and she saw enough of Blotchy to know that he wasn't Barnett.

[Heinrich]

Hello Heinrich.

"This presents no problem for me accepting that Barnett murdered Mary Kelly, Lynn"

Very well, but then talk about lack of alibi is otiose.

I don't follow, Lynn. Sorry.
Joseph Barnett cannot be said to have an alibi for the time of the murder if no one knows when the murder took place. Surely this is simple enough.

[lynn cates]

Begging the question?

Hello (again) Heinrich.

"No one corroborated Mary Cox's concoction of Blotchy . . ."

I wonder whether interpolating "concoction" perhaps commits a petitio principii?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

alibi

Hello Heinrich.

"This presents no problem for me accepting that Barnett murdered Mary Kelly, Lynn"

Very well, but then talk about lack of alibi is otiose.

Cheers.
LC

[Heinrich]

Hi Heinrich

Why is a person's story not credible because no-one corroborates it?

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.

If only one person witnesses an event ,their account cannot be corroborated. In no way can that be seen as proof that the event they claim to have witnessed did not occur IMHO. ...

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

[Sally]

No one corroborated Mary Cox's concoction of Blotchy Carroty, Sally, so, for me, her story is not credible.

I think that's because it suits your belief in Barnett's guilt, Heinrich. Others did corroborate Barnett's presence that night -you know, the thing we call an 'alibi'. Yet that corroboration doesn't appear to convince you.

And anyway, you didn't answer the question - why did Cox invent Blotchy? There appears to be nothing whatever for her to gain by doing so. Unless you think differently?

[Bridewell]

Corroboration & Credibility

No one corroborated Mary Cox's concoction of Blotchy Carroty, Sally, so, for me, her story is not credible.

Hi Heinrich

Why is a person's story not credible because no-one corroborates it?

If only one person witnesses an event ,their account cannot be corroborated. In no way can that be seen as proof that the event they claim to have witnessed did not occur IMHO.

Regards, Bridewell

[Heinrich]

Ah. So Blotchy was made up. Would you care to offer an explanation for his invention, Heinrich?

Or is it a case of making the pieces fit the theory?

No one corroborated Mary Cox's concoction of Blotchy Carroty, Sally, so, for me, her story is not credible.

[Sally]

No one else saw the man with the blotchy face and a carroty moustache, Abby.

Ah. So Blotchy was made up. Would you care to offer an explanation for his invention, Heinrich?

Or is it a case of making the pieces fit the theory?

[Heinrich]

(sigh) Heinrich, if Barnett had said, "I am the last person to admit to having been seen alone with Kelly in her room," then he'd have been telling the truth.

If he had said, "I admit it, I was the last person to be seen alone with Kelly in her room," then he would probably have been lying (given that he knew of Cox's testimony). I see no reason to doubt the word of Cox.

You are making Barnett's admission too complicated, Robert. A witness placed him in Mary Kelly's dwelling and he did not deny this. No one else, even imaginary people like Blotchy Carroty, who were claimed to have been with Mary later ever corroborated their presence at the scene of the crime.

"There was no consensus as to the exact time of death, Lynn."

True--and there still is not. The earliest is Bonds'; the latest, Maxwell's. But Barnett's visit seems to precede ALL these times.

This presents no problem for me accepting that Barnett murdered Mary Kelly, Lynn.

[lynn cates]

Die Zeit.

Hello Heinrich.

"There was no consensus as to the exact time of death, Lynn."

True--and there still is not. The earliest is Bonds'; the latest, Maxwell's. But Barnett's visit seems to precede ALL these times.

Cheers.
LC