Pawn tickets in Mitre Square

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;388956]

Out of interest, Pierre, are you going to factor into your calculations the fact that you made a conscious decision to select a certain number of words from the pawn tickets? I mean, you could have just found the name of your suspect in the two names "Jane Kelly" and "Emily Birrell" excluding the addresses. Or he could have been found in just the two addresses "White's Row" and "Dorset Street" excluding the names. But you deliberately decided to choose all four didn't you? i.e. the two names AND the two addresses. So is that a truly random selection of 42 characters I wonder?

Hi Steve,

The content of the tickets are what they are. There is a total amount of letters. They are simply there. There is nothing to do but accept it.

A random selection is not done in relation to the pawn tickets. It is done from a larger archive, where you have cases containing two names and two addresses. You test the cases (drawn randomly) by searching for the letters in those cases. If you find them you note it and go ahead with the rest.

The point is that you should have a sample that resembles the data from 1888 as much as possible, so therefore you need two names and two addresses and preferably from Whitechapel, since the possibilities of street selection should match the tickets.

Do you understand?

Also, are you going to factor into your calculations the fact that you've never seen the original pawn tickets or any form of reproduction on them? There strikes me as being two consequences of that.

This is always a problem when you do history and it is a common problem generally in a lot of studies. You seldom see the original sources. If you study art, you could go and look at paintings in the Louvre but more often you use reproductions in books. You study another galax in space but you do not see it or touch it. For an historian, there are is source criticism and discussing problems, those are the tools. Nothing controversial at all.

Firstly, some newspapers said the Dorset Street pawn ticket was in the name of "Anne Kelly" not "Jane Kelly". In the absence of any official sources, how do we know which one (if either) is correct? If the former was the right name, does the absence of the "J" affect the outcome?

Well, I understand that you just want to know something about letters now, but that is not the issue here. The issue is the probability.

Secondly, how do we know if the pawn ticket said "Dorset Street" and not "Dorset St"? If the latter, which strikes me as more likely for a pawnbroker to have written on the ticket, that will reduce the number of characters to 38 so that, if you only have 2 or 3 characters left over, the name of your suspect will not be included. And if that's the case then the whole thing is redundant isn't it?

That question is no problem either. The contents are what they are, even if you try to use them in different versions. The probability is what is important here.

Best wishes, Pierre

[Pierre]

Do you have a scientific basis for making those statements? Or have you simply plucked some figures out of the air?

Basic statistics, David. If you do traditional hypothesis tests for correlations you want to have a significance level of 5 or 10 at the most. Then you can say that in five cases out of a hundred we are wrong, i.e. you may have gotten the estimate due to pure chance and there is no correlation. Now, imagine that you have a test where 20 percent is due to pure chance. That is a problem.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Basic statistics, David. If you do traditional hypothesis tests for correlations you want to have a significance level of 5 or 10 at the most. Then you can say that in five cases out of a hundred we are wrong, i.e. you may have gotten the estimate due to pure chance and there is no correlation. Now, imagine that you have a test where 20 percent is due to pure chance. That is a problem.

Firstly, can you provide a source for that significance level of 5 or 10 per cent? Should be very easy if it's "Basic statistics".

Secondly, if there is a significance level at 5 or 10 per cent (strange that you can't say which one is the correct level given that it's "Basic statistics"), what is the relevance of the 20 per cent figure that you mentioned?

[jerryd]

It's not really though Jerry. We all know that east end residents went down hopping in Kent during the summer. And the very reason that Birrell gave Eddowes her pawn ticket was because she knew Eddowes was coming back to Whitechapel and would be able to take the shirt out of pawn. Bearing in mind that Eddowes already had Birrell's ticket in her possession when she pawned Kelly's boots it's not even certain it was a coincidence because she might have been influenced in her choice of pawnbroker by the fact that she had one of Jones' tickets in her mustard tin. But if it was a coincidence that she used the same pawn shop I would suggest its neither an extraordinary nor unlikely one.

Hey David,

I was thinking more along the lines that Birrell stated she was headed for Cheltenham with her companion. An assumption can be made that she started from there, possibly spent some time in London on the way down and then headed to Kent. That's the only reason I found the pawn shop location a coincidence.

Cheltenham would have been over a 100 mile trek if I'm not mistaken. If that city was her origination, weren't there hop fields closer by to pick hops?

Anyways, that was my line of thinking. Wrong or right as it may be.

[David Orsam]

Well, I understand that you just want to know something about letters now, but that is not the issue here. The issue is the probability.

No, the issue is whether you are truly able to "find" the name of your suspect in the names and addresses on the pawn tickets which the police found in the mustard tin. Without knowing the actual wording of the names and addresses on the pawn tickets it is impossible to answer that question is it not?

[David Orsam]

Hey David,

I was thinking more along the lines that Birrell stated she was headed for Cheltenham with her companion. An assumption can be made that she started from there, possibly spent some time in London on the way down and then headed to Kent. That's the only reason I found the pawn shop location a coincidence.

Cheltenham would have been over a 100 mile trek if I'm not mistaken. If that city was her origination, weren't there hop fields closer by to pick hops?

Anyways, that was my line of thinking. Wrong or right as it may be.

Hi Jerry,

You don't seem to have dealt with the central point I was making, which I thought was a response to the central point you were making, which is that if Jones the pawnbroker was in Eddowes' mind because Birrell had given her a pawn ticket then there was no true coincidence involved because she already had a ticket bearing the name of Jones in her possession.

You didn't mention Cheltenham in your previous post and this looks like a brand new point to me - and one which strikes me as of no significance.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

The content of the tickets are what they are. There is a total amount of letters. They are simply there. There is nothing to do but accept it.

My friend I fail to understand that statement.

To be fair to David, he is just pointing out a difference in the reported name in the newspapers and the possibility that the ticket said "st" not "street"

The question he asked was does it make a difference to your hypothesis of a hidden name on the tickets if the letters you have accepted are wrong?

The answer is either yes or no.


If you lose the "J" , does it make a difference? do you still get the name is the question?

Similarly if you lose the "reet" does that make a difference.

To simply say we must accept is not a scientific response.

I find your reply above evasive and the one below to be both evasive and and slightly misleading.

That question is no problem either. The contents are what they are, even if you try to use them in different versions. The probability is what is important here.

Actually Pierre, it seems clear that the contents are open to debate, to say they are what they are is not correct.


The sources which report the tickets it seems are not conclusive on the actual words or letters used


From what I can see there are no copies of the tickets available to study and we have different reports giving a different first name and even a difference in the spelling of Birrell.


I do not think we can be sure what the tickets therefore actually said.

That does not mean that your hypothesis is not worthy of consideration and may still be correct.

However in this case David’s comments are fully justified from a scientific point of view.


Despite your statement that

"The probability is what is important here. "


Probability is only important if the name is actually contained on the two pawn tickets.

if the name is not contained, even by a single letter than there is no probability at all as the issue does not exist.

It really a simple question.


Best wishes,

Steve

[jerryd]

Hi Jerry,

You don't seem to have dealt with the central point I was making, which I thought was a response to the central point you were making, which is that if Jones the pawnbroker was in Eddowes' mind because Birrell had given her a pawn ticket then there was no true coincidence involved because she already had a ticket bearing the name of Jones in her possession.

You didn't mention Cheltenham in your previous post and this looks like a brand new point to me - and one which strikes me as of no significance.

I'm with you.

[Elamarna]

I just want to demonstrate how important it is that we know how many letters are used, and what the actual letters on the pawn tickets were.


If we take the version Pierre has used, we can find many persons associated with the case or the police including:

John Trywhitt Drake.

William Nott-Bower, actually was John William but he did not use the John, so we could say:

J William Nott-Bower.

John Arrowsmith.

Thomas Bond (police surgeon).

Henry Kirby.

Henry Smith.

William Smith.

Walter Dew.

Henry Moore.

Rees Llewellyn (Doctor).

Its easy to find a name.

Now the issue of the actual letters, if it was "Anne" rather than "Jane"

we can make:

Robert Anderson

Henry Llewellyn


Pierre just making the point that the accuracy of the letters is more important than probability based on false data.

By the way, as far as I am aware, none of the above are the name.


Steve

[Abby Normal]

I just want to demonstrate how important it is that we know how many letters are used, and what the actual letters on the pawn tickets were.


If we take the version Pierre has used, we can find many persons associated with the case or the police including:

John Trywhitt Drake.

William Nott-Bower, actually was John William but he did not use the John, so we could say:

J William Nott-Bower.

John Arrowsmith.

Thomas Bond (police surgeon).

Henry Kirby.

Henry Smith.

William Smith.

Walter Dew.

Henry Moore.

Rees Llewellyn (Doctor).

Its easy to find a name.

Now the issue of the actual letters, if it was "Anne" rather than "Jane"

we can make:

Robert Anderson

Henry Llewellyn


Pierre just making the point that the accuracy of the letters is more important than probability based on false data.

By the way, as far as I am aware, none of the above are the name.


Steve

That's amazing. Its truly stunning to me that you can get that many names out of four words. Which of course renders pierres idea moot.

[Mayerling]

[QUOTE=Pierre;388961]

Hi Steve,

This is always a problem when you do history and it is a common problem generally in a lot of studies. You seldom see the original sources. If you study art, you could go and look at paintings in the Louvre but more often you use reproductions in books. You study another galax in space but you do not see it or touch it. For an historian, there are is source criticism and discussing problems, those are the tools. Nothing controversial at all.

Best wishes, Pierre

Hello Pierre,

Yes, it is true. Until more recent centuries (say from about 300 or so A.D., when monks began keeping records in religious orders' buildings (later monastaries) record keeping was not well practiced as we would consider it (i.e., on paper). You did have cuneiform and hieroglyphics and carvings, but they all were bulky (even when used (like the Sumerians or Assyrians with cuneiform tablets) for business records (usually lists) or for government mail (as in the Egyptian empire). For our purposes we find that the extant written world of the ancients is fairly limited - which is why we have only two extant or nearly extant plays by Menander (who wrote scores more), or even only 23 plays or so Plautus (who also wrote more). One of the saddest losses of documents I know of is that of Terence. A book with six plays by him is the total number of his plays produced in his lifetime - but we know from other sources that he had written three other unproduced plays, that were being shipped to Rome, and the ship was wrecked with their loss - a loss that helped send him into a physical decline that killed him.

Disasters of nature or partly by man (such as shipwrecks or fires) or wholly by man (warfare) have destroyed large amounts of ancient documents, so that the finding of any (like the finding of Menander's play "Dyskolos" on papyri in the 1950s) is a wonderful event. About three or four years back there was the discovery of a hitherto unknown mathematical book by Archimides, found on a palymset (spelling?) - it had been used by some monk to copy down another text over the original text, and the use of modern technology enabled us to read the original book again. But these are (tragically) few and far between.

The literature and writings since the beginning of the collapse of the Roman Empire are mostly religious at first, until poetry starts reviving interest in story telling. Since art was useful in telling stories from the Bible it begins to appear. It's high points are a series of rennaisance moments, beginning in the 13th Century, again in the 15th Century into the 16th Century (the one most of us recall) and then it just spreads throughout Europe. I must add that in other parts of the world writing and art had flourished (especially in China and the Indus Valley, and in Islam) but I have been stressing European based survival of communicative items because the rest seem less useful here. The survival of written literature in Europe would be aided immensely by the development of Guttenburg's press and movable type.

Most of this is known to all of us from our younger days as students. But
we frequently push it aside because we take it for granted. Other aids in preserving old writings exist, including photographs. And they are useful, despite a comment of yous dismissing them when used to photograph "Old Masters" which should be studied closely in the original. I agree. Go to the Louvre and look closely at Gericault's brush strokes on the "Wreck of the Meduse"* if you are writing a study on his work.

But what if the painting is no longer extant? Well, many paintings of the last milenium have vanished, and a large number disappeared, were stolen, or were destroyed in the present century in two world wars. Suddenly those photographs become important - not the best evidence of a court of law, but given the situation they may become second best evidence because nothing else is available. I have a book in my library here concerning Manet's portrait of the execution of Emperor Maximilian. Fortunately we have a copy Manet did that was based on his initial painting, but the original was destroyed by order of the then government of France under Emperor Napoleon III. Fragmets were photographed of the destroyed painting, and can be compared to Manet's later copy from memory. The book also mentioned another artist's historical painting of the Battle of Solferino (1860) which, unfortunately, is black and white - the original has vanished. An art student or scholar would have to depend on the photograph in such a case.

In this case we are discussing evidence (if it really considered such) of pawn tickets found on Catherine Eddowes. These have never resurfaced since the late 19th Century, and therefore we are noting what was said of them in newspaper and other sources. Hardly really first rate evidence at all - that photo of the picture of the battle of Solferino looks better and better as evidence in comparison - and that picture was painted over a decade before 1888. Whatever you say about the contents of the words on the tickets becomes a matter of the personal opinion of the person discussing the letters involved and the actual anagrams that can be created. I find it hard to really agree with any interpretation about these - until somebody turns up either the tickets or a good, clear photograph showing them and what was written on them.

Have a good day,

Jeff

[*Unnecessary point to this thread - last month was the two hundreath anniversary of the tragedy off Senagal of the French frigate, "Le Meduse". I noticed that in the newspapers last month.]

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Mayerling;388985]

Hello Pierre,

Yes, it is true. Until more recent centuries (say from about 300 or so A.D., when monks began keeping records in religious orders' buildings (later monastaries) record keeping was not well practiced as we would consider it (i.e., on paper). You did have cuneiform and hieroglyphics and carvings, but they all were bulky (even when used (like the Sumerians or Assyrians with cuneiform tablets) for business records (usually lists) or for government mail (as in the Egyptian empire). For our purposes we find that the extant written world of the ancients is fairly limited - which is why we have only two extant or nearly extant plays by Menander (who wrote scores more), or even only 23 plays or so Plautus (who also wrote more). One of the saddest losses of documents I know of is that of Terence. A book with six plays by him is the total number of his plays produced in his lifetime - but we know from other sources that he had written three other unproduced plays, that were being shipped to Rome, and the ship was wrecked with their loss - a loss that helped send him into a physical decline that killed him.

Disasters of nature or partly by man (such as shipwrecks or fires) or wholly by man (warfare) have destroyed large amounts of ancient documents, so that the finding of any (like the finding of Menander's play "Dyskolos" on papyri in the 1950s) is a wonderful event. About three or four years back there was the discovery of a hitherto unknown mathematical book by Archimides, found on a palymset (spelling?) - it had been used by some monk to copy down another text over the original text, and the use of modern technology enabled us to read the original book again. But these are (tragically) few and far between.

The literature and writings since the beginning of the collapse of the Roman Empire are mostly religious at first, until poetry starts reviving interest in story telling. Since art was useful in telling stories from the Bible it begins to appear. It's high points are a series of rennaisance moments, beginning in the 13th Century, again in the 15th Century into the 16th Century (the one most of us recall) and then it just spreads throughout Europe. I must add that in other parts of the world writing and art had flourished (especially in China and the Indus Valley, and in Islam) but I have been stressing European based survival of communicative items because the rest seem less useful here. The survival of written literature in Europe would be aided immensely by the development of Guttenburg's press and movable type.

Most of this is known to all of us from our younger days as students. But
we frequently push it aside because we take it for granted. Other aids in preserving old writings exist, including photographs. And they are useful, despite a comment of yous dismissing them when used to photograph "Old Masters" which should be studied closely in the original. I agree. Go to the Louvre and look closely at Gericault's brush strokes on the "Wreck of the Meduse"* if you are writing a study on his work.

But what if the painting is no longer extant? Well, many paintings of the last milenium have vanished, and a large number disappeared, were stolen, or were destroyed in the present century in two world wars. Suddenly those photographs become important - not the best evidence of a court of law, but given the situation they may become second best evidence because nothing else is available. I have a book in my library here concerning Manet's portrait of the execution of Emperor Maximilian. Fortunately we have a copy Manet did that was based on his initial painting, but the original was destroyed by order of the then government of France under Emperor Napoleon III. Fragmets were photographed of the destroyed painting, and can be compared to Manet's later copy from memory. The book also mentioned another artist's historical painting of the Battle of Solferino (1860) which, unfortunately, is black and white - the original has vanished. An art student or scholar would have to depend on the photograph in such a case.

In this case we are discussing evidence (if it really considered such) of pawn tickets found on Catherine Eddowes. These have never resurfaced since the late 19th Century, and therefore we are noting what was said of them in newspaper and other sources. Hardly really first rate evidence at all - that photo of the picture of the battle of Solferino looks better and better as evidence in comparison - and that picture was painted over a decade before 1888. Whatever you say about the contents of the words on the tickets becomes a matter of the personal opinion of the person discussing the letters involved and the actual anagrams that can be created. I find it hard to really agree with any interpretation about these - until somebody turns up either the tickets or a good, clear photograph showing them and what was written on them.

Have a good day,

Jeff

[*Unnecessary point to this thread - last month was the two hundreath anniversary of the tragedy off Senagal of the French frigate, "Le Meduse". I noticed that in the newspapers last month.]

Hi Jeff,

palimpsest is the word for the type of reused manuscript ("pali", Greek word for again).

You are confusing academic history with the juridical system when you write:

"...not the best evidence of a court of law".

No one will ever take Jack the Ripper to court. It is now a case for history. What we have is sources from the past. They are always problematic, even if they are understood to be "originals".

We go from finding sources, to hypothesizing, to interpreting, to establishing historical facts, and back to dismissing hypotheses, making new interpretations and establishing new historical facts.

That is the common process in all research and it is not a matter of evidence of a court of law, but a matter of scientific evidence.

We must have a laid back and relaxed approach to this fact.

But we must have a scientifically rigorous approach when doing history.

Donīt you agree with all of this?

Best wishes, Pierre

[Pierre]

Firstly, can you provide a source for that significance level of 5 or 10 per cent? Should be very easy if it's "Basic statistics".

Secondly, if there is a significance level at 5 or 10 per cent (strange that you can't say which one is the correct level given that it's "Basic statistics"), what is the relevance of the 20 per cent figure that you mentioned?

Hi David,

Here is a tutorial for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWFDXt-MlNs

You can also go to your library or preferably to the universtity library and read the stats books. All of them include hypothesis testing.

A significance level of 20 means that if you have a random sample and find a correlation in the sample, the correlation is due to chance in 20 percent of all cases.

If you want to use hypothesis testing in history you need data sources. What we have is specific type of historical material. It is not suitable for pure hypothesis tests. But the thinking is similar. Small number of "hits": low probability that the result is due to chance. High number, high probability that the result is due to chance.

[Elamarna]

Pierre

Interesting conversation with Jeff I see.

However you have not attempted to address the issue of do different words, especially "Anne" rather than "Jane" and the use of "st" rather than "street" make a difference to your anagram solution.

The examples I listed show just how many names can be found which can be linked, indeed that list is far from exhaustive!

The point is that if you do not use all the letters, in this case 42, it is possible to find many links, if you had found a name using all 42 it would be very suggestive of a genuine anagram.

However given that you have admitted not all 42 are used, the probability must be that any name found is purely coincidence.

All I would like to know is the answer to the question David posed?

Would the changes that are possible to the letters on the pawn tickets, surely you cannot argue they are not possible, make the finding of the name you propose possible or not?
Yes or No?


I am myself already certain of the answer to that question, however I am interested in your thought processes, and why you sometimes find it difficult to give clear answers, when doing so gives nothing away with regards to your view on naming a person, unless proven.



Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

Here's a couple of questions and observations I have.

Why did Emily Birrell have a ticket pawned under her name at Jone's pawn Shop in Church Street, Whitechapel. That's quite a coincidence to have two women (unknown to each other) run into each other way down in Maidstone and they both had used the same pawn shop in Whitechapel. Out of all the pawn shops in the City, why this one? Unless Birrell had lodged in Whitechapel at one time.

Also, I think something to think about is this. There were two White's Rows in the area. One we associate with a lodging house near Dorset Street. 8, Whites Row. The other, was merely an extension of Buck's Row heading west and intersected at Baker's Row just south of Church Street (which, coincidentally, was an extension of Hanbury Street). Then, both of these pawn tickets end up with Catherine Eddowes.

My suggestion is the pawn ticket for the flannel shirt was taken from the body of Polly Nichols. That means if the Emily Birrell story is true, she and her male companion may know who the killer was. Otherwise, why would they have the ticket? If the story is not true, who did Eddowes get the ticket from and did this prompt her to purportedly say she knew who the killer was?

*I have the wrong Church Street. Jone's was on the Church Street just north of Fashion Street.

Hi Jerry,

I'm not sure this suggestion has any legs. David raised some good points about the probability/coincidence of using the particular pawn shop, especially if the Emily Burel found by Paddy in post #106 is the same Emily Birrell.
The big problem, for me, is that Polly was murdered in the early hours of 31st Aug long before any pawn shop would have been open, so the ticket couldn't have been taken from her body.