Pawn tickets in Mitre Square

[Scott Nelson]

Eddowes had no need to pass herself off as Emily Burrell to redeem the shirt.

Pawnbrokers Act of 1872, S.25.

Would she even have known that she didn't have to do so?

[David Orsam]

The good news is that none of it really matters, as Catherine Eddowes never got around to redeeming the flannel shirt.

You say that now Simon but it wasn't very long ago in this thread that you were telling me:

"Personally, I doubt the provenance of the Emily Burrell pawn ticket."

The grounds on which that opinion was based have now been shown to be false so I don't know where that leaves your opinion.

Having said that, I do agree with you (if you are saying as much) that the provenance of the Emily Burrell pawn ticket is wholly irrelevant to any issue relating to Eddowes' murder.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

What a busy little beaver you have been.

The good news is that none of it really matters, as Catherine Eddowes never got around to redeeming the flannel shirt.

As for Joseph Jones being a very proper pawnbroker, the opinion depends on from where you source your information.

That should keep you busy for a while.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Catherine Eddowes pawned Johns boots under the name Jane Kelly, so she could not have passed herself off as Emily Burrel to redeem the shirt. Joseph Jones and his son made a number of expert witness appearances at the Old Bailey. He kept strict accounts and was very proper about such things.

So Emily Burrell's pawn ticket was useless to Catherine and John

The good news, Simon, is that it doesn't matter whether Joshua Jones was a 'very proper' pawnbroker or not because your argument is based on a false premise. Eddowes had no need to pass herself off as Emily Burrell to redeem the shirt.

Pawnbrokers Act of 1872, S.25.

Your conclusion as set out above is, therefore, invalid.

[David Orsam]

Jones should have kept good records, as part of his license.

However...

Yes, indeed, and Simon was trying to eliminate the 'However...' part with his reference to Jones being an expert witness - but, unless Simon has some secret information about Jones, we simply don't know whether he was a 'very proper' pawnbroker or a shady character in the world of Whitechapel pawnbroking.

[Monty]

Jones should have kept good records, as part of his license.

However...

Monty

[David Orsam]

Joseph Jones and his son made a number of expert witness appearances at the Old Bailey. He kept strict accounts and was very proper about such things.

Given that the first sentence above is wrong, I assume there are no grounds for saying that Joseph Jones kept strict accounts and was "very proper about such things".

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Thank you. I'm glad somebody's awake.

I checked my notes and the error is all mine.

Regards,

Simon

Very good, thank you for confirming Simon.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Thank you. I'm glad somebody's awake.

I checked my notes and the error is all mine.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Really?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

Yes, really.

Do you know the difference between an expert witness and a witness of fact?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Really?

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Joseph Jones and his son made a number of expert witness appearances at the Old Bailey.

Incidentally, Simon, I don't know if you care about accuracy but the above statement isn't true.

[Michael W Richards]

D) Yes, but the date on that ticket was "31 August". It was issued on the day of the murder of Polly Nichols.

E) But he couldn´t have planned the murder on Kelly before Barnett moved out, or could he? So is it a pure coincidence?

And the contents of the two pawn tickets taken together - is it a pure coincidence that there were to bits of paper in a tin on the murder site in Mitre Square, giving the date for the day of the murder in Buck´s row as well as the name of the victim and the street where the next murder would occur?

And was John Kelly just protecting the memory of the deceased, thinking that she might have been pawning some stolen goods?

Regards, Pierre

I was referring to the pawn ticket issued for Johns boots Pierre, which was for the Friday, not Saturday, as John claimed. The ticket for the flannel shirt was issued when Ms Birrell went hopping, which would make the August 31st date sensible.

[David Orsam]

Hi Simon,

The above is the only part of your post that strikes me as being relevant to my question.

If I read you correctly, I think what you are saying is: Yes, it would have made fiscal sense for Eddowes to have accepted a 9d pawn ticket, which could be redeemed for 10˝d, if the value of the shirt was greater than 10˝d.

So that there is no misunderstanding, can you confirm that I have got that right?

Hi Simon,

I notice you didn't respond to this post. Am I right in thinking that you just cannot bring yourself to admit that Eddowes' acceptance of the pawn ticket could have made fiscal sense?

[packers stem]

I'm sure a sheet from a Dorset Street doss could make some lovely shirts lol