Pawn tickets in Mitre Square

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;388931]

As I understand you, you are saying that the killer deliberately left a pawn ticket next to Eddowes' body for the police to find. And he did so at least partly because when, put together with the Birrell pawn ticket, some of the words on the tickets could be reassembled to form his name.

If you are not saying that the killer left the pawn ticket and that the pawn ticket belonged to Eddowes after all then could you please clarify the situation because I suspect I'm not the only person here who thinks that this is what you are saying.

As you know, I am asking what the probability is that you will find a postulated serial killerīs name in a mustard tin on a murder site. There are problems with estimating a probability for this since you do not have the type of data you need. But using a sample from a relevant archive could give an idea. Letīs say that you find the name in 1 percent of all cases, or in 2 percent. The conclusion should be that the probability for finding that name on the murder site in 1888 is low. If you find it in 20 percent of all cases in a sample, it is high. In the fist case, we would have a reason to work from a hypothesis that the name was planted at the murder site by the serial killer. In the second case, it would be best to dismiss that idea.

Whatever the outcome of the test (as soon as I have the time), the important thing is not what I think. The important thing is that we respect the sources from the past.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre
was the name you are thinking of contained either Swanson or Stoker?

Hi Abby,

no. And I must say that the main point here is the question about probability. I will get back to this when I have done the test.

Best wishes, Pierre

[Abby Normal]

Hi Pierre
was the name you are thinking of contained either Swanson or Stoker?

[David Orsam]

Surely his natural reaction would have been "I've never seen those tickets before in my life and I don't believe they belonged to Eddowes."

His surname was on one of them.

So what? A woman's first name and a very common surname.

How does that change my claim that his natural reaction would have been "I've never seen those tickets before in my life and I don't believe they belonged to Eddowes"?

[David Orsam]

Behold! "Rule out". R-u-l-e o-u-t.

Whose words are these, David? Are they mine? Are they some words from 1888? Or are they actually just the words of David?

YES! They are the words of David! (You get 1 point there, congratulations!) As very often, you are aming at interpreting the writings of other people in the wrong way. The motive is to make other people look stupid/silly/baffling and so on and so forth.

That is your BIAS, David.

No. I have never ever said the words "rule out" here. So what do you mean? I myself work exclusively with hypotheses.

Again you are simply not reading my words properly Pierre. You seem to be reading what you want to read.

I said: "and, for that reason (if I understand you correctly), you rule out the idea that this ticket belonged to Eddowes."

So I clearly wasn't quoting you, I was interpreting your posts on this forum.

As I understand you, you are saying that the killer deliberately left a pawn ticket next to Eddowes' body for the police to find. And he did so at least partly because when, put together with the Birrell pawn ticket, some of the words on the tickets could be reassembled to form his name.

If you are not saying that the killer left the pawn ticket and that the pawn ticket belonged to Eddowes after all then could you please clarify the situation because I suspect I'm not the only person here who thinks that this is what you are saying.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;388925]

Surely his natural reaction would have been "I've never seen those tickets before in my life and I don't believe they belonged to Eddowes."

His surname was on one of them.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;388922]

I find your approach here baffling Pierre.

I do not find it baffling that you find it baffling, David. What has that statement - yours - and now mine, to do with 1888? Easy to answer: Nothing.

You are, as very often, being irrelevant, David. Irrelevant.

You have pointed out that Eddowes had in her possession a pawn ticket in a false name and address - of "Jane Kelly" of 6 Dorset Street - and, for that reason (if I understand you correctly), you rule out the idea that this ticket belonged to Eddowes.

Behold! "Rule out". R-u-l-e o-u-t.

Whose words are these, David? Are they mine? Are they some words from 1888? Or are they actually just the words of David?

YES! They are the words of David! (You get 1 point there, congratulations!) As very often, you are aming at interpreting the writings of other people in the wrong way. The motive is to make other people look stupid/silly/baffling and so on and so forth.

That is your BIAS, David.

No. I have never ever said the words "rule out" here. So what do you mean? I myself work exclusively with hypotheses.

You - and only you - are the one using strong expressions like "rule out".

ONE SHOULD NOT RULE ANYTHING OUT when one analyses the sources from 1888. Remember this!

Yet you seem perfectly happy to accept that Nichols had pawned a man's shirt having given a false name and address - of "Emily Birrell" of 52 White's Row. Where's the logic in that?

Again, and again. No, I am not "happy" and no, I do not "accept" what you write above. It is merely an hypothesis for an alternative series of events in 1888.

You see, I allow myself to go with the sources. This means leaving room for alternative hypotheses.

But that is not the hypothesis that I am working to disprove right now.

[David Orsam]

"The fact"! According to YOU, David.

It's amazing that you can fail to undestand a straightforward English sentence Pierre.

Here's what I said:

"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."

First consider the effect of the word "might" in that sentence.

Then consider that the sentence is based on the premise that the Birrell story is true which means that it is then a fact that she had one of Jones' tickets in her mustard tin.

It's really not difficult Pierre.

[David Orsam]

The "very" reason. "Gave". "She knew". "Would be able to".

You are speaking in concrete dimensions. You are speaking as if you describe a "reality". As if it is simply there to see. You believe you can take the sources from the past "at face value".

You have misunderstood Pierre. What I am saying in response to Jerry's theory is that if the Birrell story is true then it follows that Eddowes had a ticket from Jones the pawnbroker in her possession at the time she decided where to pawn Kelly's boots. So there is not necessarily any coincidence involved here at all.

[David Orsam]

And John Kelly would not have known about those events, so he would have invented the Birell-story anyway, thinking the tickets were stolen or produced from stolen goods. And with his name on the other one, he could have become a suspect for theft.

This is very strange thinking Pierre. You are saying that Kelly had seen neither the pawn tickets nor the goods before, yet his first reaction on hearing about them would have been to think that Eddowes had been involved in theft and that the police would then suspect HIM of theft?

Surely his natural reaction would have been "I've never seen those tickets before in my life and I don't believe they belonged to Eddowes."

If he believes the boots were stolen then by making up a story about how he pawned them with Eddowes he is only potentially incriminating himself isn't he? Because he's now admitted to having been in possession of the stolen boots and put them into the pawn shop.

Your explanation of his behaviour is convoluted, unnatural and frankly ridiculous.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;388921]

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.

The "very" reason. "Gave". "She knew". "Would be able to".

You are speaking in concrete dimensions. You are speaking as if you describe a "reality". As if it is simply there to see. You believe you can take the sources from the past "at face value".

Bearing in mind that Eddowes already had Birrell's ticket in her possession

"Had". No, David. "Bearing in mind", your mind, that YOU THINK she "had". Since you believe everything you read to correspond to a simple reality in the past.

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.

"The fact"! According to YOU, David.

But if it was a coincidence that she used the same pawn shop I would suggest its neither an extraordinary nor unlikely one.

Preserving the discourse. So that no one might think any new thoughts about the sources. So that no new knowledge may be produced.

[David Orsam]

OK. This means that the pawn ticket should have been produced on 31 August and that Polly Nichols should have been the person going to the pawn shop with a shirt and obtaining the ticket. She would have been the one to have given the name Emily Birrell. That implies a lie / non true statement from Nichols.

The killer would then have taken the ticket, as he took other things from the victims.

I find your approach here baffling Pierre. You have pointed out that Eddowes had in her possession a pawn ticket in a false name and address - of "Jane Kelly" of 6 Dorset Street - and, for that reason (if I understand you correctly), you rule out the idea that this ticket belonged to Eddowes.

Yet you seem perfectly happy to accept that Nichols had pawned a man's shirt having given a false name and address - of "Emily Birrell" of 52 White's Row. Where's the logic in that?

[David Orsam]

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.

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.

[David Orsam]

The most reasonable individual is - Sir William Thornley Stoker.

A little anachronistic because he wasn't knighted until 1895 but as plain William Thornley Stoker this is still a good find!

[Abby Normal]

Hi, All.

Having little else to pursue on this otherwise quiet Sunday and wordplay being an enjoyable pastime, I set aside a few moments to examine your 'Mustard Tin' conundrum.

Using the letters provided I discerned the names of several well-known persons from that time, none of whom, as far as I am aware, have been considered likely contenders for the mantle of serial killer.

The most reasonable individual is - Sir William Thornley Stoker.

He was educated in England and Ireland and took to a medical career becoming surgeon to the Royal City of Dublin hospital, then chair of Anatomy at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. His mother was Charlotte Mathilda Blake Thornley and an early feminist. One of his brothers was the noted writer, Bram Stoker.

Bram, had married a former lover of Oscar Wilde and was manager at the Lyceum Theatre in London. This position introduced him to much of the literary and artistic society in London at the time.
In 'Dracula', an evil and malevolent creature travels by ship to the shores of England and then, moving only by night, sets about seducing women, puncturing their throats and sucking their lifeblood from them.
Perhaps this is a parallel to his surgeon brother, who lived mostly in Ireland but, had he been the ripper, would have travelled by ship to England to then move under the cover of darkness, seeking females to corrupt and, using his medical knowledge, then draw blood from their necks and remove organs from their bodies.
Perhaps, we can further speculate, his mother's involvement in feminism, her overt political and social ideologies, brought about in Sir William, a deep-seated loathing towards women.

Yours, Caligo

nice!
howver, Pierre has said many times his suspect was a police officer, or at least worked for them. was stoker with the police?