the Rent arrears

[perrymason]

Sorry, Mike, but they are.

You say:

Blotchy might have gone out unnoticed when there was nobody around to see him.

I've been saying:

Kelly might have gone out unnoticed when there was nobody around to see her.


Exchange the first and last word of each statement and try to tell them apart. (Clue: you can't; because the logic is identical in both cases.)

If you change both the phrase sections to "could have", then youll see what I mean. Blotchy "could have" left after 3am with no additions to the known accepted data and with no witnesses left still coming or going to or from the court to account for.

Mary "could have" left after 3am with the same results. However, since the key period begins with the lights first going out and the light doused, at 1:30am, that would leave an hour and a half to explain in her room without noise or light, then her coming out at 3 to street solicit.

Mary "could have" left during this 1.5 hour period, but multiple witness acounts, and 5 separate instances of the rooms status over that period do not include seeing Mary, hearing Mary, or any changes noticed from the rooms status at 1:30.

I cant see how using that criteria...being the period after 3am when witnesses are not available, and the period from 1:30am to 3am, when there are 3 witnesses that interact with the court, one a few times, and all 3 at different points in time, can be considered the same situation.

Its zero witnesses possible against 3 possible, 1 a few times. No contest which departure time or arrival time is most suspect due to possible witness opportunities....1:30 to 3....and the room is consistent.

Cheers Sam. Im done for today....all the best.

[Sam Flynn]

Oh, what's the use...?

[Supe]

Sam,

Oh, what's the use...?

You are a slow learner Mr. Flynn . . . I figured out this thread was hopeless ages ago But, a slow-learner beats a non-learner any day. Go and relax with some good music.

Don.

[perrymason]

Oh, what's the use...?

Hi Sam,

Im back for a quick retort...if you need for me to agree that the time period of 1:30 to 3am and the period from 3am offered equal opportunities for witnessed departures or arrivals.....then Ill agree, there is no use in continuing on this vein Sam. The same goes for a goal of acceptance that Mary Kelly might have gone out soliciting before 3...always possible, hardly probable given the circumstances, history and witnesses statements.

Ill never say Mary didnt go out soliciting absolutely, so you have some hope, but I wouldnt venture any speculation on why, when or whether that entailed home service without any evidence that suggests it myself.

Im not interested in frustrating you or anyone else Gareth, Id just like to see an honest representation of the known evidence....which includes nothing to found such speculation upon.

Naively I suppose, I do think its possible to better understand what likely happened with some of the victims without even trying to catch or figure out "Jack", I do realize however for that to happen people who have had long held beliefs and some stature within the community would have to either produce contrary evidence or accept the new stance...and I know one of those options would require data that is not presently available, and the second would require that knowledgable people accept a logical extension of the data that is trusted and actually exists already.....and I dont see either as likely or "pending".

My stamina on this is simple.....someone has to try and work within the known evidence for answers that are not what the mainstream student expects to hear....why?...because the "mainstream" answers have never been provable, they include possibilities that defy logic and evidence in some cases, and are for the main, puppeted opinions of the contemporary press, authorities views and conjectures.

For example....To expect me or anyone to buy that Elizabeth Stride was a Ripper victim.... despite any compelling evidence that suggests she likely wasnt, the evidence that is known that can be used to question that claim, ...soley because contemporary authorities voiced that opinion, is asking too much.....it always has been.

Those "findings" never were "findings", they were guesses, and some of them seem less than great to me. So Ill try to at least leave a record here that someone said "Im not swallowing this crap without some proof anymore". Maybe others will too.

Its not a spat with you...its with the attitude that these are all unsolvable crimes without any hints or clues as to the nature of the crimes, then opening up a world of possible answers which we all cheerfully explore.....and as a result, we get no answers that can be used pragmatically or literally. There will always be evidence missing for those solutions, unless new data is discovered.

I truly believe that some cases may be solvable logically, as is...without any unknown data, new findings that may come, or wild suggestions on illogical premises.

Off the soapbox now....best regards Sam

[Sam Flynn]

Go and relax with some good music.

I've been listening to Thomas Tallis all evening, Don. Nothing better

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam,

Im back for a quick retort...

... when you come back with a considered retort, Mike, we'll get to a better place, I'm sure

I've spelled things out in careful detail, and I can do no more.

[Chava]

So let's get back to that pesky rent. She wasn't going to be able to pay very much off it even if she had punters lined up round the block. If we believe that she was concerned about having a few pence to give the rent-man in the morning, then we have to believe that this concern occurred to her after 1.00 am. Because if she was concerned before that, she would have gone out on the stroll instead of edifying the court with her lovely singing.

Perhaps we can put aside our entrenched positions. I'm going to forget that I don't believe she went out on the stroll and try to come up with some idea as to why she went out so late. The only thing I can come up with is that McCarthy himself dropped in and had a word with her when he closed his shop up. I honestly can't come up with any other reason that would have her drunk and happily at home at 1.00 am, and out and looking for customers at 1.30-2.00 am. I could well see this happen, and I could equally believe that McCarthy wouldn't admit to it.

[perrymason]

Hi again,

Ok, I think I can easily illustrate my issues, thread specific.

Firstly, a question that needs answering....on the basis of what foundation evidence are we assessing whether Mary was even motivated by her arrears that night, or ever.. for that matter?

I really would like that answered.

Secondly, if I say that Mary and Maria were possibly doing laundry the afternoon before she dies, it is based on the fact that Maria and Mary were said to have spent the afternoon in her room, there is laundry left by Maria in the room, Maria stated she gave Mary a few coins, the melted spout could have occurred if the kettle was heated and reheated all afternoon, Mary does have a tin bath and a water pump handy, and by the account given by Maria, there seems to have been no drinking or none worth mentioning.

What foundations exist for the suggestion that arrears may have been a catalyst for any "street" work activity by Mary Kelly that night,...and what are the foundations for the suggestion that she did work in the first place (just suggested of course)?

Best regards Chava, all.

[Supe]

Michael,

Im done for today....

Tsk, tsk, you were untruthful.

And I know I'll hate myself in the morning, but . . .
on the basis of what foundation evidence are we assessing whether Mary was even motivated by her arrears that night, or ever.. for that matter?

Here, you see, is one of the basic fallacies of a certain sort of "analysis."There is no way whatsoever that we can assess Mary Kelly's motivation on that night. She is not alive for us to interview; she was not interrigated on that by anyone, and she left no diary or other introspective document in which she may have wtitten on the topic. Motivation is a very private, inwardly developed response to personally perceived exigencies that if unvoiced by the individual cannot be measured by others.

You could, I suppose, make guesses about how motivated an individual was at a particular time based on close and near-total observation over a period of time--but they would remain guesses. And, as has been pointed out repetedly on this thread, there is scarecely any data available upon which to even speculate, far less make any definitive statements.

It just ain't there. Must one echo Cromwell in his August 3, 1650, letter to the Church of Scotland to get the point across?

Now I am truly gone.

Don.

[perrymason]

Michael,

And I know I'll hate myself in the morning, but . . .
on the basis of what foundation evidence are we assessing whether Mary was even motivated by her arrears that night, or ever.. for that matter?

Here, you see, is one of the basic fallacies of a certain sort of "analysis."There is no way whatsoever that we can assess Mary Kelly's motivation on that night. She is not alive for us to interview; she was not interrigated on that by anyone, and she left no diary or other introspective document in which she may have wtitten on the topic. Motivation is a very private, inwardly developed response to personally perceived exigencies that if unvoiced by the individual cannot be measured by others.

You could, I suppose, make guesses about how motivated an individual was at a particular time based on close and near-total observation over a period of time--but they would remain guesses. And, as has been pointed out repetedly on this thread, there is scarecely any data available upon which to even speculate, far less make any definitive statements.

Now I am truly gone.

Don.

Don,

If you choose to look at this night in that court as something apart or different from any regular Thursday evening, or evening before a Holiday,.. leading up to Mary's murder, then I can see you taking the events, or more appropriately the lack of them seen or heard, as just isolated data.

I see no reason to. None of the witnesses expressed anything that could suggest odd or unusual occurrences,... before the 3:45am cry out anyway.

That being said, then anything we know that might show patterns, behaviors, historical events relevant to this kind of situation that Mary was said to have previously are valid and important.

They include: eviction for rent non-payment, or running up arrears in other than Millers Court, running up arrears in Millers Court, records that seem to indicate Mary never brought a client into her room in the court.....not while Barnett lived there nor after, records that indicate Mary was by all accounts attractive and marketable....making a conclusion of "shortfall by lack of opportunity" if she did work, not really viable.., the only man that she is not personally known to have been friendly with that enters that room other than Joe B or Joe F is Blotchy Face..... and she sings to him off and on, for almost an hour and a half, after saying they were going to have a "song" to Cox, there is no evidence that she knew Hutchinson or Mrs Maxwell at all other than by the statements made by the respective witnesses themselves, there is no evidence that she was in fear or eviction prior to this night nor that she showed intentions to earn that night as a result,.......

Theres lots more where that came from, but we do have some data to make some calculated guesses about what transpired in the absence of activity....including the most obvious conclusion which you and Sam dismiss...no activity heard or seen = no activity present.

You both defend a position that suggests there could be evidence that is present that can be used to nullify a suggestion she stayed in, yet you both agree,.... there is none actually present here.

So whats the basis for your contentions again...theres not enough data on that particular night, all whores always whore, Mary might have behaved differently that night than she has historically, (which is by ignoring arrears and getting evicted eventually),.. but we cant see it in evidence because theres no witnesses who happened to see or hear her after she first enters her room with Blotchy...despite the fact that we have 3 give statements about the status of the singing and her room and light at various times throughout the time of arrival until almost 3am?

Im making an argument based on witnesses that we know knew Mary Kelly personally, that were in the court that same night,........and on patterns of behaviour that are documented by those closest to her on the stand.

Your position is that there isnt enough evidence about the events of that single night to make asumptions, and that the multiple witnesses in the court just happened to miss the exits and entrances of Mary Kelly that are no where in the trusted records.

You made a smart remark about my return the same night I said I was done...which makes me disinterested in continuing here on this thread, because I can see that Im arguing with people who would debate Michael Jacksons pedophile tendencies.

You can carry on with your mocking tone and arguments that have absolutely no foundations without my injecting logic and reason into the mix...seems incompatible with this nonsense anyway.

Best regards

Im deleting my thread subscription, so any taunts or rebuttals I wont see, so please understand that I will not know if you ask me a question.

[c.d.]

Firstly, a question that needs answering....on the basis of what foundation evidence are we assessing whether Mary was even motivated by her arrears that night, or ever.. for that matter?

I really would like that answered.

Well are we assuming that McCarthy was in the Mother Theresa mold and would have let Mary stay there indefinitely without paying any rent?

c.d.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello c.d.!

Then comes the next question;

Did MJK want to stay out of the street or not?!

All the best
Jukka

[c.d.]

Hi Jukka,

I'm afraid I don't understand your question. Are you asking whether Mary was afraid to be on the street?

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

including the most obvious conclusion which you and Sam dismiss...no activity heard or seen = no activity present.

The conclusion you draw ("no activity heard or seen = no activity present") is a possibility, but is by no means the most likely, nor the most obvious, Mike. It might be the most "knee-jerk" conclusion, however - but we must consider the evidence very carefully. When we do, the safest conclusion based on the known facts - namely, that there were very, very few witnesses to anything that night, and that Blotchy left unobserved - is that we have no way of ruling out the possibility that Mary slipped out unobserved also. Actually, she could have done so several times.

[c.d.]

Hi Sam,

I also have to wonder if she might have gone out in search of liquor and somehow ran into her killer.

c.d.