the Rent arrears

[Jeff Leahy]

No this is your destiny

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6TwAIL1cllI

[Sam Flynn]

Gareth.

Grow up.

I was born middle-aged, Chava. Right now I'm fulfilling my destiny, which is a horrible thing for an anti-teleologist to say

xxxxx ditto

[Chava]

Gareth.

Grow up.

xxxxChava

[Sam Flynn]

Vos vestros servate, meos mihi linquite mores.

I'll take that as your blessing that I should continue to pick holes in any "cart-before-horse" reasoning that I might encounter, Chava. I'm afraid I cannot fully reciprocate the magnanimity of your motto, however, because such seductive, yet dangerous, thinking is what all right-minded persons should encourage their fellow beings to avoid. The rejection of teleology is a necessary step on the road to enlightenment and emancipation. Also sprach Zarathustra

[Chava]

I thought I explained it clearly enough, Chava, but there you go. I'm not too bothered about the play on words, anyway. My main point was the one about having to presuppose that McCarthy was the murderer (or at least complicit) before one reads any sinister motive into his sending Bowyer around. A teleological argument, as I said.

Vos vestros servate, meos mihi linquite mores.

[Sam Flynn]

Honest to God, Gareth, I'm not seeing the pun. Where is the pun? Words are my business and I ought to see the pun

I thought I explained it clearly enough, Chava, but there you go. I'm not too bothered about the play on words, anyway. My main point was the one about having to presuppose that McCarthy was the murderer (or at least complicit) before one reads any sinister motive into his sending Bowyer around. A teleological argument, as I said.

[Chava]

Honest to God, Gareth, I'm not seeing the pun. Where is the pun? Words are my business and I ought to see the pun. I'm desperately looking for the pun in much the same way that poor blindfolded Jane Grey searched for the block. She knew it was there, poor girl, if only she could find it...

[Sam Flynn]

OK, let me put it this way.(My philosophy professor at UCL would be so proud!)

Ave pulcherissima alumna!

Sam Flynn (UCL)

A dislike of teleology is not genetically transmitted. So please don't use the word 'literally' wrongly. It's quite literally the wrong thing to say.

I was invoking the Darwinian genetic model of gradual change leading to an equilibrium state in the absence of a pre-defined goal, in contrast to the teleological Lamarckian model, which begins with the end-state and asserts that all other states "led" up to it.

You know the sort of thing: giraffes have tall necks because their ancestors "needed" to reach vertiginous leaves; McCarthy sent Bowyer around because he "needed" someone to discover the body. For example.

In short, it was a deliberate play on words. And, in that albeit punning sense, an aversion to teleology indeed is part of my genetic makeup.

[Blues]

Hello all...

I have one extremely large objection to the "who dunnit" conversations about Jack the Ripper - That anyone who wanted to kill someone and/or cover up a crime is capable of doing what was done to MJK. It is simply not in most people to do that. This is why I have difficulty with the copycat scenario for the MJK killing as well. This is, to me, obviously a progression. If there were several murderers on the loose at the same time capable of the deeds done that Autumn - God help us all.

Blues

[Chava]

OK, let me put it this way.(My philosophy professor at UCL would be so proud!)

- John McCarthy sent his man Bowyer to get the rent from Mary Jane Kelly

- Mary Jane Kelly had been murdered overnight and in the course of trying to get some rent, Bowyer happened to discover the body.

- Therefore John McCarthy knew that Kelly had been killed, and was trying to make sure the body was discovered sooner rather than later.

That would be a teleogical argument.

However I would put it just a little bit differently:

- John McCarthy had killed Mary Jane Kelly

- John McCarthy wanted that body discovered.

- John McCarthy sent his man Bowyer to try and get some rent, in the hope that he would do exactly what he did do, namely look through the window and see the body.

That is not teleogical.

Now let's put the McCarthy down and tiptoe quietly away, shall we?

Except for one last thing. You don't like teleology. I don't like misuse of words. A dislike of teleology is not genetically transmitted. Your father or mother may have disliked it, and you grew up disliking it, but that would likely be down to environmental factors rather than your genes. So please don't use the word 'literally' wrongly. It's quite literally the wrong thing to say.

(Did I sound patronising enough?)

[Sam Flynn]

By the way, 'what landlords usually do' is evict their tenants for non-payment of rent.

Have you ever been in rent arrears, Chava? I have, when a student in London. Was I summarily evicted? No.

Well, of course! ...Sending Bowyer across to get the rent would have put that display into motion.

Forgive me if I sound patronising (not my intention at all), but did you understand my point about that being a "teleological" argument? Namely, that in order for that to work you have to assume that McCarthy knew about the murder in the first place. I have a genuine aversion to teleology - I can't help it; it's quite literally in my genes.

I'm not trying to change your mind. You don't see him as a killer

Not strictly true, Chava. The fact is, I see nothing that remotely suggests that he was Kelly's killer that can't be refuted by means of simple, logical explanations.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Miss Marple!

So, better something than nothing!

All the best
Jukka

[Sam Flynn]

I was reading through John McCarthy's testimony at Kelly's inquest and I was struck by this, he says she owed 29 shillings in arrears and he says, ''Arrears are got as best you can.''

Well spotted, Miss Marple. That's from the very detailed, practically verbatim, report of the inquest contained in the Daily Telegraph - a valuable, and seriously overlooked, resource in my honest opinion. They tended to include some "throwaway" comments that other journalists either missed, or which other editors cut out. It helps to have as full a picture as possible, what with the records being as patchy as they otherwise are.

[miss marple]

Arrears

I was reading through John McCarthy's testimony at Kelly's inquest and I was struck by this, he says she owed 29 shillings in arrears and he says,
''Arrears are got as best you can.'' I think some rent was paid on account, every week but not the whole 4/6, so the arrears mounted up. He seems quite philosophical about it and I think many of his tenants were probably in the same position. That's why she was'nt evicted, she paid something. It was better having tenants paying something rather than nothing. There were no overheads on those properties, they were not maintained, so it was all regular money coming in for doing nothing.Miss Marple

[Chava]

Seen against that background, does "I sent my man to ask for the rent" really sound all that suspicious?

Yes.

You can't have it both ways. Either he asks for the rent for he is a landlord. Or he lets her off the rent for he is a landlord with a heart instead of a swinging brick. By the way, 'what landlords usually do' is evict their tenants for non-payment of rent.

True, that morning she may well have had a few pence if she'd hooked assiduously the night before. But she didn't and he knew it. He says he saw her drunk in the Britannia with a man at 11.00 pm.

Describing his actions in terms of "he put the discovery of the body in motion" is a teleological argument, implying as it does that he had prior knowledge of the murder scene that Bowyer had yet to find.

Well of course! The Ripper/Kelly's killer clearly enjoyed taking things apart, but the Ripper also enjoyed showing his work to an adoring public. Otherwise he wouldn't have displayed Chapman and Eddowes quite so artistically. Sending Bowyer across to get the rent would have put that display into motion.

Gareth, I'm not trying to change your mind. You don't see him as a killer and I see him as a possible candidate, and we are getting into the kind of circular argument that could go round and round and get nowhere. So let's agree to disagree and move on shall we?