mjks real name

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Yes, but it is also consistent with some sort of cover story. Problem is, cover for what?

Cheers.
LC

Having a child?

[lynn cates]

tasteless

Hello Jon. Rather an insipid thing to evoke all the stories MJK concocted and fed to Barnett.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Rather an insipid thing to evoke all the stories MJK concocted and fed to Barnett.

Cheers.
LC

Ah, Oak trees from acorns?

Jon

[lynn cates]

mole hills

Hello Jon. Perhaps mountains and mole hills?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Perhaps mountains and mole hills?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.
Would the story be any less important if she only lived with him, common-law, as we call it today?

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

normal circumstances

Hello Jon. Under normal circumstances, concocting an elaborate but false story seems like much ado about nothing. Married, unmarried, child, no child, prostitution--all those would be normal circumstances for an East End lady.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Under normal circumstances, concocting an elaborate but false story seems like much ado about nothing. Married, unmarried, child, no child, prostitution--all those would be normal circumstances for an East End lady.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.
But what part is false?
Claiming she was briefly married doesn't seem to serve any purpose to us. So if we knew the context of why she brought the issue up in the first place we might understand better why she made the claim.
As an example, if she was known to be in receipt of a perpetuity allowance due to his death. Or, monies received due to some negligence . Or possibly this "brother" when he visited let something slip about her having a child back home.
Anything along those lines might make her feel obligated to explain, "because I was briefly married years ago".

Don't we hear that total fabrications are rare, but that embellishing a basic truth is more common?
We have not been able to establish a marriage, but a common-law partnership may have existed. I know its easier to just dismiss everything we can't prove but life is not so straightforward.
I'm not in favor of throwing out everything she claimed, or more properly, everything people claimed she said.
Someone so young might have felt obligated to stretch the truth of why she fell so fast in life. If they were not born into this way of life (as MJK wasn't?) then many of these prostitutes only went this way later in life, after the death or abandonment of a supporting spouse?

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

which?

Hello Jon. What part is false? Well, try the whole thing.

"Don't we hear that total fabrications are rare, but that embellishing a basic truth is more common?"

Yes, the fundamentum in re. I can live with that--indeed, I assume it. But what counts as that?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hi Lynn.
Well this is the basic point I've been making all along, that until we can sort the wheat from the chaff, everything should remain on the table, provisionally. And I think it is with most people. To not reject a claim is not the same as believing the claim, its prettywell reserving judgement, which is the preferred course of action, I think.

Regards, Jon S.