Pawn tickets in Mitre Square

[David Orsam]

I already commented on this in the Sweet Violets thread yesterday Pierre. I said:

"There is absolutely no comparison between an obviously coded message provided by a killer to the police/media and the pawn tickets found next to Eddowes' body for which there was actual sworn testimony that they were in the possession of Eddowes before she was murdered".

I appreciate that you are utterly obsessed with the notion that Jack the Ripper attempted some form of communication with the authorities but how you can compare two normal pawn tickets (for which there is no reason at all to think they are in code or in any form of "anagram type" puzzle) with an actual word puzzle is beyond me. To even think that the pawn tickets comprise a word puzzle you have to try and discredit the inquest evidence of John Kelly for which you have yet to come up with any kind of sensible motive as to why he would have lied.

And even if (which is too ridiculous to contemplate) the pawn tickets were magically planted by the killer in the form of a puzzle, you have failed to provide a convincing explanation as to why YOU have found the solution. There are, as we have seen, lots of names "hidden" in the words on the pawn tickets so why is the name that you have identified any better than anyone else's?

Furthermore, out of Jane Kelly, Emily Birrell, White's Row and Dorset Street I can extract the phrases "Miller is the killer" (and even S. Miller is the killer) and "Miller done it" and plenty more if I put my mind to it. The phrase "Samuel Miller is the killer" can also be found (in that order) in the lyrics to "Sweet Violets". So (bearing in mind that MJK was murdered in Miller's Court) do the pawn tickets and the lyrics to "Sweet Violets" in combination point to Samuel Miller, whose wife's name was Zillah, as the killer? If not, why not?

Pierre I can understand anyone who thinks this thread is a joke created by you as a laugh because it is simply so absurd. I happen to think that you are being serious, which is extraordinary, but you don't seem to realise how crazy this line of enquiry is.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;390564]

I already commented on this in the Sweet Violets thread yesterday Pierre. I said:

"There is absolutely no comparison between an obviously coded message provided by a killer to the police/media and the pawn tickets found next to Eddowes' body for which there was actual sworn testimony that they were in the possession of Eddowes before she was murdered".

Of course you can compare them. It is easy.

The message from Rader was to the press, the mustard tin was found at the murder site.

The message from Rader contained a lot of redundant letters. The mustard tin contained very few redundant letters.

The message from Rader contained biographical information. The mustard tin contained biographical information.

The message from Rader gave the police and others a chance to identify the killer. The content in the mustard tin gave the police and others a chance to identify the killer.

I appreciate that you are utterly obsessed with the notion that Jack the Ripper attempted some form of communication with the authorities but how you can compare two normal pawn tickets (for which there is no reason at all to think they are in code or in any form of "anagram type" puzzle) with an actual word puzzle is beyond me. To even think that the pawn tickets comprise a word puzzle you have to try and discredit the inquest evidence of John Kelly for which you have yet to come up with any kind of sensible motive as to why he would have lied.

No, it is you who thinks that criminal activity is not a sensible motive.

And even if (which is too ridiculous to contemplate) the pawn tickets were magically planted by the killer in the form of a puzzle, you have failed to provide a convincing explanation as to why YOU have found the solution.

That is easy to answer. If you go through the sources, you will find that there was communication.

There are, as we have seen, lots of names "hidden" in the words on the pawn tickets so why is the name that you have identified any better than anyone else's?

You have the same problem with the message from Rader. You get lots of names "hidden" in it.
And it was still sent by the killer.

Furthermore, out of Jane Kelly, Emily Birrell, White's Row and Dorset Street I can extract the phrases "Miller is the killer" (and even S. Miller is the killer) and "Miller done it" and plenty more if I put my mind to it. The phrase "Samuel Miller is the killer" can also be found (in that order) in the lyrics to "Sweet Violets". So (bearing in mind that MJK was murdered in Miller's Court) do the pawn tickets and the lyrics to "Sweet Violets" in combination point to Samuel Miller, whose wife's name was Zillah, as the killer? If not, why not?

Because there is not a set of historical sources for Samuel Miller which shows that he was the killer. You need sources 1) from his life that can 2) explain the Whitechapel murders. It is not enough to postulate that his name is in a source and that his wifeīs name is in the same source. You must be able to 3) connect that to his own life and to events in his own life. There must even be 4) indications on a micro level that he was the killer. And 5) you must be able to explain why the sources are what they are from his perspective. There must even be 6) dates in his own life explaining the dates of the murders and the communication, and you must 7) have sources that show that he was there. You must also 8) have sources that show why the murders started, 9) ended, 10) started again and 11) ended again. And last but not least you must 12) have a confession.

Do you have all this and can you connect it to Samuel Miller?

[Elamarna]

The message from Rader contained biographical information. The mustard tin contained biographical information.

Pierre

There appears to be an inconsistency here compared to your previous messages.

When asked if the alleged communication in the mustard tin contained any information or message? YOU told me no just the full name, nothing else.

That is not biographical information is it?

It appears you so often forget what you have said in previous posts.


Steve

[David Orsam]

Of course you can compare them. It is easy.

The message from Rader was to the press, the mustard tin was found at the murder site.

The message from Rader contained a lot of redundant letters. The mustard tin contained very few redundant letters.

The message from Rader contained biographical information. The mustard tin contained biographical information.

The message from Rader gave the police and others a chance to identify the killer. The content in the mustard tin gave the police and others a chance to identify the killer.

Every one of these is a false comparison.

Firstly the message from Rader was an actual and obvious message. It was clear to the press and to everyone that it must contain a message from the killer. The pawn tickets on the other hand looked like pawn tickets - not a message - and no-one - not a single person - even suspected that they would contain any form of message from the killer so that no-one looked for one.

Secondly, the point about redundant letters is moot because you can see that the puzzle contains actual words hidden within what appears at first glance to be a random sequence of letters. It doesn't involve selecting certain letters at random and rearranging them.

Thirdly, I have to echo what Steve has said. A name is not "biographical information".

Fourthly, re. "The content in the mustard tin gave the police and others a chance to identify the killer", what a lot of nonsense! The content in the mustard tin gave the police and others no chance whatsoever to identify the killer. It's literally impossible. There are probably thousands of names which can be extracted from the 42 characters in the pawn tickets and you've been given plenty. What's the point of a puzzle which is impossible to solve?

In short, Pierre, there is no comparison whatsoever between the Rader puzzle and the pawn tickets, not to mention that there is testimony that the pawn tickets were in Eddowes' possession before she was murdered. It's all madness.

[David Orsam]

No, it is you who thinks that criminal activity is not a sensible motive.

Except that, on your account, there was no "criminal activity" by Kelly (or Eddowes) because, on your account, Kelly had never seen the tickets before so that cannot possibly be a sensible motive.

[David Orsam]

That is easy to answer. If you go through the sources, you will find that there was communication.

What sources can I possibly "go through" which will show me (a) that there was communication from the killer to the police within the pawn tickets (b) that this communication involved the killer revealing his name and (c) that the name he revealed was the name of your suspect?

Pierre I regret to say that I do not believe you for one second that any such sources exist or possibly can exist.

[David Orsam]

You have the same problem with the message from Rader. You get lots of names "hidden" in it.
And it was still sent by the killer.

No the problem is yours Pierre. If there really are irrelevant names "hidden" in Rader's message (of which you have yet to prove) then it means that a killer can send a message to the press/police which contains names which have absolutely nothing to do with the murder.

So even if the pawn tickets do contain a message (which is so unlikely that it can be ignored) the name that you think you have found in the pawn tickets could easily be the wrong one couldn't it?

And that is the case even if there are other "sources" to support your argument about your suspect because it could no more than a coincidence couldn't it?

[David Orsam]

Because there is not a set of historical sources for Samuel Miller which shows that he was the killer. You need sources 1) from his life that can 2) explain the Whitechapel murders. It is not enough to postulate that his name is in a source and that his wifeīs name is in the same source. You must be able to 3) connect that to his own life and to events in his own life. There must even be 4) indications on a micro level that he was the killer. And 5) you must be able to explain why the sources are what they are from his perspective. There must even be 6) dates in his own life explaining the dates of the murders and the communication, and you must 7) have sources that show that he was there. You must also 8) have sources that show why the murders started, 9) ended, 10) started again and 11) ended again. And last but not least you must 12) have a confession.

Do you have all this and can you connect it to Samuel Miller?

This is completely the wrong answer Pierre. You see, even if I have all those historical sources and a wonderful collection of evidence against Samuel Miller (and I'm not telling you if I do nor not), and even if Samuel Miller was, in fact, the killer, that still does NOT mean that the messages I can find in the pawn tickets or the lyrics to "Sweet Violets" pointing to Miller as the killer (or the fact that Miller's wife was called Zillah) have any meaning whatsoever. They could all just be pure coincidence.

It's a good example of where you are going wrong in all your threads. You seem to think that because you have evidence against a suspect that all these weird messages that you think you find in strange places have meaning and are significant. But you can find weird messages about almost anyone in almost anything if you look hard enough. And that's the problem. Your unsupported certainty as to the killer's identity, combined with your unuspported certainty that the killer left messages for the police, is causing you to imagine things which are not there in reality.

[MysterySinger]

Not forgetting the pawn ticket found in Mary Kelly's room.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;390574]

Pierre

There appears to be an inconsistency here compared to your previous messages.

When asked if the alleged communication in the mustard tin contained any information or message? YOU told me no just the full name, nothing else.

That is not biographical information is it?

It appears you so often forget what you have said in previous posts.

Steve

Hi Steve,

We seem to have different definitions of biographical information. What I mean is personal data.

And no, I do not "forget" (and that is not important).

Pierre

[Pierre]

Except that, on your account, there was no "criminal activity" by Kelly (or Eddowes) because, on your account, Kelly had never seen the tickets before so that cannot possibly be a sensible motive.

You have gotten everything I explained to you about the pawn tickets wrong. Go back and read.

[David Orsam]

You have gotten everything I explained to you about the pawn tickets wrong. Go back and read.

I don't need to go back and read anything Pierre. I've got nothing wrong.

Your hypothesis is that, despite never having seen the two pawn tickets before, and despite not having stolen them or been involved in any criminal activity regarding them, he was so worried that the police would think the tickets were stolen by Eddowes that he completely fabricated two stories about the pawn tickets, even though Eddowes was dead so it didn't matter!

A ludicrous hypothesis for which there is not only no evidence but is utterly implausible.

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;390587]

Hi Steve,

We seem to have different definitions of biographical information. What I mean is personal data.

And no, I do not "forget" (and that is not important).

Pierre

Pierre

Nice to hear from you.

Sorry but you do not get away with it that easy.

A name is not biographical information in the context you were posting, you are well aware of that.

Lets just see how you used the term:

you were comparing the contents of an alleged message in 1888 to a modern day communication from a serial killer

Rader included details of his work and life, that is clear biographical information. the links you provided were very interesting and showed much information.

However the following was posted

"The message from Rader contained biographical information. The mustard tin contained biographical information."


It is clear, given the context of that statement, with those before and after in post #302 and the links supplied about Rader, that you were inferring that the "Mustard Tin" contained information like that given by Rader.


However the "Mustard Tin" contain no such comparable information.

It does gives a list of 42 letters from which many names can be drawn out, including:

1. At least one already named suspect.

2. Several police officers involved in the case,

3. Several doctors

4. At least one senior officer from an non London force.



However there is no biographical information, comparable to that in Rader message contained in the alleged 1888 message.

You have actually agreed with this have you not?


I am very much afraid therefore that I consider the statement:

"The message from Rader contained biographical information. The mustard tin contained biographical information."


To be misleading.


Surely there is no need for such if the sources are secure and accurate and testable.

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;390592][QUOTE=Pierre;390587]

Pierre

Nice to hear from you.

Sorry but you do not get away with it that easy.

A name is not biographical information in the context you were posting, you are well aware of that.

Hi Steve,

I define a name as one biographical variable.

Lets just see how you used the term:

you were comparing the contents of an alleged message in 1888 to a modern day communication from a serial killer

Lack of sources with serial killer communications from the 1880s, yes.

Rader included details of his work and life, that is clear biographical information. the links you provided were very interesting and showed much information.

His address. His profession. But not his name as far as I know (or perhaps that is in it too, I havenīt bothered to analyse it).

However the following was posted

"The message from Rader contained biographical information. The mustard tin contained biographical information."

Yes, and I define that as information about a person, his profession or name or address. And so on and so forth.

It is clear, given the context of that statement, with those before and after in post #302 and the links supplied about Rader, that you were inferring that the "Mustard Tin" contained information like that given by Rader.

However the "Mustard Tin" contain no such comparable information.

The hypothesis is that it contains a name.

It does gives a list of 42 letters from which many names can be drawn out, including:

1. At least one already named suspect.

2. Several police officers involved in the case,

3. Several doctors

4. At least one senior officer from an non London force.

And if you start with the letters in Raderīs communication you will probably find a lot of names, even much more than from the pawn tickets.

However there is no biographical information, comparable to that in Rader message contained in the alleged 1888 message.

You have actually agreed with this have you not?

Any information which is personal, which gives a clue/clues about a person, his ID, is what I define as biographical information in this case.

I am very much afraid therefore that I consider the statement:

"The message from Rader contained biographical information. The mustard tin contained biographical information."


To be misleading.

Perhaps it is now clear to you that it is not "misleading"?

Surely there is no need for such if the sources are secure and accurate and testable.

What do you mean by "secure" and "testable"?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

And if you start with the letters in Raderīs communication you will probably find a lot of names, even much more than from the pawn tickets.

You keep saying that but where are they? Could you find some for us in the same way that the other words have been found, i.e. in vertical, horizontal or diagonal form.