Pawn tickets in Mitre Square

[John G]

I have followed Pierre's various postings and threads for nearly the full year now. If he had an idea of a targeted suspect, I suspect it is one he may have altered since he started.

The image I have gotten from Pierre is someone who is grasping at a set of ideas that when he thought them up sounded perfect - on paper - but that had to be tested. Hence he came to this website. And he found that many people (including myself, I'm sorry to say) got more than negative in their objections to his ideas. However (and I guess he will reject this and say I have no business saying it), he appears to have an inflated sense of his own mental abilities - to the point that he gets into absurd (not to him, but to most of us) arguments not as much on substance (which his arguments allow him to by-pass) but semantics or language. That may explain this recent curiosity I've shown on Errata's use of Lord Vortemond's name as a noun. It actually was a lingual problem that intrigued me. Not like Pierre straining to explain what he meant that David or some other critic won't accept (and which I find hard to swallow when reading the explinations).

Still, if he could restrain the attack mode he shows, Pierre might actually prove a worthy addition to this board. He certainly opened up some issues (how important they are, or how one could adequately discuss or handle them are other matters) that few of us considered. I had read of Eddowes' murder several times, and I never considered the issue of the pawn tickets.
For that thank you for bringing them up.

Jeff

As I've said before, I really don't think this mystery will be solved by resorting to anagrams, near homonyms, metaphors and the like. Frankly, it's a Stephen Knight approach to history, which effectively says: "Why resort to a commonsense explanation, based upon accurate historical research, when a more convoluted alternative, and one completely lacking in substance, is available?"

[Elamarna]

Hi Jeff,

Thanks. I would have had no reason for worrying about the pawn tickets were it not for the names they contain.

And you canīt test things from 1888 against a website. You need data from the past.

I have a really big problem now, and that is the collection of sources pointing in a direction I do not wish them to point. Nothing has changed. On the contrary.

Here is an interesting book on serial killerīs communications by the way:

Clues From Killers: Serial Murder And Crime Scene Messages, Dirk C. Gibson.

Best wishes, Pierre

Dear Pierre

I really wish you would explain why you say its a problem!

Why do you not wish the data to point in one direction?

Why do you find the truth as you see it uncomfortable?



The often repeated comments that you hope you are wrong, are not what I expect from a historian or a scientist of any note.

The prime goal of such disciplines is to reveal the "truth".

If that is not possible then the goal must be to take us to a position closer to solution than when we started, be that in this field, studying the dead sea scrolls, an area we know you are interested in, or advances in medicine.

As an Historian surely you want the past to reveal its secrets?


However you claim to be uncomfortable with the solution you are studying here. One is tempted to ask why then study history?



Despite what you repeat, it is obvious to all that this "project" is of some importance to you.
To pretend it is not is somewhat self-defeating, when one spends several hours most days on this site, and spends time researching, it strongly suggests that this "project" is important and this forum is something you wish to be involved in.

I am like Jeff, I feel that you have made a worthwhile contribution in some areas, However the portrayal of yourself as some form of martyr to History, is at once both faintly amusing and very annoying.

Hope the research come to a good conclusion for you anyway.

Regards

Steve

[Abby Normal]

So, I can't help it. I just want you to know what you are arguing.

I'm a genius. That and five bucks will get me a cup of coffee, but I am. I'm sure many people here are. Certainly there are several world class thinkers I admire, and hey, I'm a genius.

You want to know how many other names my full name spells out?

No idea. Not an effing clue. And I'm a genius so in theory if anyone was going to know how many other names my name spells out, it would be me.

Yes. I could sit down and devote a couple of days to making a list. But I haven't yet, and don't foresee doing it. It's not that its hard, it's that its a completely pointless task with little to no reward.

So you are arguing, in essence that either a genius or a psychotically dedicated individual actually sat down and Voldemort-ed his name rather that simply come up with a random alias. Not something a genius would do by the way, since a genius is smart enough to realize how much easier making **** up is.

So you are looking for Voldemort. I'm not kidding. Evil psychopath self obsessed to the point of compulsively playing Boggle with his own name, using it for nefarious undercover purposes in order to protect his real identity while still maintaining the sanctity of his own name in scrambled form. Such a singular form of narcissism that it became a major plot point in a fantasy book and movie for kids. For kids, because every adult wondered why he didn't just go with John Parker or something equally easy.

So you are looking for Voldemort. I just want to make that clear. How likely is it that some guy was actually pulling a Voldemort and got away with it?

Well Pierre's suspect is also He who cannot be named, so he's got similarity to voldemort too.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;389399]

Dear Pierre

I really wish you would explain why you say its a problem!

Why do you not wish the data to point in one direction?

Why do you find the truth as you see it uncomfortable?

Hi Steve,

because this is for real.

Best wishes, Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;389662]

Hi Steve,

because this is for real.

Best wishes, Pierre

Sorry Pierre
Historians uncover truths that they may not like all the time, as do all scientists, it is part of the discipline, why do you find that hard?


your reply is not an answer, it is evasion.


so sad that you cannot give an answer which is meaningful.

Steve

[GUT]

Sorry Pierre
Historians uncover truths that they may not like all the time, as do all scientists, it is part of the discipline, why do you find that hard?


your reply is not an answer, it is evasion.


so sad that you cannot give an answer which is meaningful.

Steve

But then again, he seldom does.

[Mayerling]

[QUOTE=Pierre;389662]

Hi Steve,

because this is for real.

Best wishes, Pierre

Pierre, you really think that truth which has been buried for 128 years is "uncomfortable" because "it is real"?

How can that possibly be within reason? Facts about the past on many subjects crop up that were unknown previously - all it leads to is a deeper understanding of motivations or of causation. It does not make us totally uncomfortable, as most people don't care.

Jeff

[DJA]

I found an Emily Burel in the workhouse records she was said to be living at 52 Flower and Dean Street and the Workhouse dated Dec 1885 . Wife of Nathan..... Have copied details below.
Think this could be her....

Name: Emily Burel
Birth Date: abt 1853
Admission Age: 32
Admission Date: 14 Dec 1885
Discharge Date: 8 Apr 1886
Record Type: Admission and Discharge
Borough: Tower Hamlets
Parish or Poor Law Union: Stepney
Place: London, England
Title: Workhouses and Institutions, 1885-1887

Pat

An ex neighbour of Eddowes who pawned a shirt to help with travel costs.
Makes sense to me.

There is another 6 Dorset,possibly Court. Off Dorset Street.
Occupants in the 1881 Census.....a Barnett family. Not relatives though.

[Bridewell]

I don't know who the killer was but I'm entirely convinced that whoever it was didn't leave his name in anagram form at one of the crime scenes. Pierre, if you're relying on this kind of "evidence" to make a case for your suspect you're going down a well-trodden (and utterly discredited) route.

[David Orsam]

I don't know who the killer was but I'm entirely convinced that whoever it was didn't leave his name in anagram form at one of the crime scenes. Pierre, if you're relying on this kind of "evidence" to make a case for your suspect you're going down a well-trodden (and utterly discredited) route.

I wouldn't mind, but the 'puzzle' Pierre is telling us the killer left for the police isn't even an anagram!

[Pierre]

I wouldn't mind, but the 'puzzle' Pierre is telling us the killer left for the police isn't even an anagram!

It is not for you to decide whether or not a serial killer expressed himself through letters and in what form.

[Pierre]

I don't know who the killer was but I'm entirely convinced that whoever it was didn't leave his name in anagram form at one of the crime scenes. Pierre, if you're relying on this kind of "evidence" to make a case for your suspect you're going down a well-trodden (and utterly discredited) route.

Hi,

I am actually not relying on anything. I merely ask questions. Sometimes the sources kick back. I let them.

Hypothesis are preliminary working tools.

They are not the Bible.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

It is not for you to decide whether or not a serial killer expressed himself through letters and in what form.

You are wrong actually Pierre. I can do this as much as anyone else if I want to.

In this case, however, I wasn't 'deciding whether or not a serial killer expressed himself through letters and in what form'. I was simply stating a fact based on what you have told us.

Although you initially said in#103 that we were dealing with "An anagram for a complete, full name with all the given names and the surname", it transpires that we are not dealing with an anagram at all because, according to you, not all the letters in the puzzle have been used to create 'the solution'.

That is why I said accurately: "I wouldn't mind, but the 'puzzle' Pierre is telling us the killer left for the police isn't even an anagram!"

[Pierre]

You are wrong actually Pierre. I can do this as much as anyone else if I want to.

In this case, however, I wasn't 'deciding whether or not a serial killer expressed himself through letters and in what form'. I was simply stating a fact based on what you have told us.

Although you initially said in#103 that we were dealing with "An anagram for a complete, full name with all the given names and the surname", it transpires that we are not dealing with an anagram at all because, according to you, not all the letters in the puzzle have been used to create 'the solution'.

That is why I said accurately: "I wouldn't mind, but the 'puzzle' Pierre is telling us the killer left for the police isn't even an anagram!"

It was an answer to Steve who asked me if it is an anagram type of solution and I did not write the full expression, which I hereby point out to you that I should have written. It is an anagram type of solution.

Now, read this word puzzle from the BTK-killer. Compared to this, the mustard tin is a simple little thing.

http://www.tabloidcolumn.com/btk-puzzle.html

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Pierre;390522]

Now, read this word puzzle from the BTK-killer. Compared to this, the mustard tin is a simple little thing.

http://www.tabloidcolumn.com/btk-puzzle.html

Didnīt you have any comments on this, David?

You do not need to state the obvious again, i.e. telling us the contents of these different sources, but it would be interesting to hear some more theoretic and analytic comments for once.

One could, for example, start with such questions as:

What do you think about the BTK-killers communication?

What do you think he wanted to achieve?

What could a killer in Mitre Square have wanted to achieve with a communication in a mustard tin?

What are the differences between the two types of communication and what could they imply?

For example, you have a lot more redundant letters in the BTK-communication and there are many more words included in the communication he sent.

I am also very interested in the date of the murders and the communications left at this date as well as in a possible connection to the two sources, the mustard tin and the Goulston Street graffito. I am also very interested in what you think about the possible recipient(s) of these communications.

What are your theoretic and/or analytic opinions about this?