Pawn tickets in Mitre Square

[David Orsam]

I already know that.

That's fine so now why not address the issue:

As the only person in the entire world who has ever lived who thinks that there is a hidden message in the pawn tickets, does that really not send you a message of its own loud and clear?

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi, Pierre.

I am asking here for some clarification regarding the pawn tickets.

The 2 tickets contain between them this information: 'Flannel', 'Shirt', 'Emily', 'Birrell', 'Whites (or 'White's')', 'Row', 'Mans (or Man's)', 'Pair', 'Boots', 'Jane (or 'Anne' -as reported in the Times, 2nd, October, 1888) ', 'Kelly', 'Dorset' and 'Street'. They also contain, presumably printed not written, references to 'Jones' 'Pawnbroker' and 'Church Street', 'August' and September' possibly 'Joseph', and the written and/or printed numbers '31', '2', '6', '52', '9','28' '1888' and the individual letters 'S' and 'd'.

Having followed this thread from its beginning, I understand that your position is that some or all of the above words contain or will reveal, in some manner, the name of the person you believe may be the perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders. This name, you initially conjectured, was hidden there purposefully by the killer as a form of concealed communication. to be discovered by the use the reader's anagrammatical skills.

There has lately appeared to be some confusion as to the precise method in which the name might be discerned. My questions to you upon this matter are these:

Q.1; Do the words, as shown above, contain the exact letters that can be directly used to form his actual name?

Q.2; Or is it that they contain the letters that can be used to form words that are more general clues to his identity or personality, such as his profession, location, age, method or motivation?

Irregardless of which of those answers is in the affirmative, can you assist in removing any confusion about this matter by stating comprehensively and precisely which of the words, letters, and numbers, as found on the tickets in the tin, you believe should be used for such purpose.

Thank you,
Yours, Caligo

[John G]

I'm afraid I can only echo what has already been said. However complex a hidden message-such as some of the Zodiac ciphers which have yet to be cracked-there would be no point in a killer devising such a code unless it was understood to be a code by the intended recipients.

I would also add that this is no way to carry out historical research, and I'm not aware of any respected historian who has ever adopted such a surreal approach.


Mind you, having said that, following the publication of the Maybrick Diary, I believe the professor of history at Cardiff University said he was 95% certain that James Maybrick was JtR, so maybe I could be mistaken!

[Pierre]

OH PIERRE, it is not the same and you know it, the continual failure to admit mistakes demonstrates immature, inflexible thinking.

It is not comparable, you were comparing it to the data in Rader, you have not even tried to address this issue, so be it. We will not agree on this!

Please provide evidence to back up these claims, that is what scientist do my friend, a claim with out supporting data is no claim at all.

Really?

How can you possible claim that this is the only time that name has ever been used?

What evidence do you have to support such an utterly outlandish claim as that?

You have checked every name ever recorded in any historical source anywhere in the world have you?

Considering that much of this will be in non digital format the research involved would take years, you have done this have you?

yes I am; however it appears you are not today.

MY Dear Pierre, I was not rude in that comment, however I was honest in my view, I find your statement misleading, your response is therefore very odd

Answer all 3 points,
it does not matter what we call the criteria we apply, what I suggested is very much the same as yours in its meaning

Basically my friend once again you are claiming only your approach will work.
However that approach is full of personal views, hypotheses which you suggest, and decide yourself are valid, no peer review or checking at all.

The approach is often not in the slightest scientific

See my point above, and of course I was correct, your research amounts to a computer search.

You cannot check all names ever used on a computer, what nonsense to suggest you can.

Sadly Pierre you are adding little to any debate at present, which I personally find a great shame.

Steve

Hi Steve,

When I say it is unique in history, I hope that you understand what history is.

History is not the past. The past is gone.

Therefore we use archives for names.

In the archives you might find 1 million people sharing the same name. Or you will find a name used by one unique person.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;390679]

I'm afraid I can only echo what has already been said. However complex a hidden message-such as some of the Zodiac ciphers which have yet to be cracked-there would be no point in a killer devising such a code unless it was understood to be a code by the intended recipients.

Hi John,

or rather a code understood by a serial killer as being understood or "perhaps understood" by the recipients.

As history shows, the communications of a serial killer is not always understood. That, however, do not prevent serial killers from communication.

I would also add that this is no way to carry out historical research, and I'm not aware of any respected historian who has ever adopted such a surreal approach.

Well, as soon as a source is produced it is a source from the past and will thereby be an object for history.

Therefore, all researchers who examine sources from the past are making good or bad history.

But since you say it is "surreal", and if we follow your thinking, all the cryptologists who have been working with such sources should stop examining historical sources from the past and go home.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

When I say it is unique in history, I hope that you understand what history is.

History is not the past. The past is gone.

Therefore we use archives for names.

In the archives you might find 1 million people sharing the same name. Or you will find a name used by one unique person.

Regards, Pierre

Sorry Pierre

You are avoiding the question.

In addition you are once again questioning if people understand basic concepts, I really hoped we had got beyond this level of response when face with a question you do not wish to answer, it appears I was wrong.



Have you checked every archive, every data source that exists, written as well as digital records, to see if this name as been used more than once?

Of course you will need to check not just the UK, but anywhere English was spoken, if this person had an British name that is.

That means not just the UK, but the whole British Empire, the USA at the very least

Simply question really

Have you done such an exhaustive check to support your statement?

The answer is equally simple:

YES, which means you have spent years search old records all over the world, searching for this one name or

No.

In which case you statement is simply wrong.


Of course you did not answer, but replied in a form which attempts to divert away from an answer.
You did not answer, one assumes because we know the answer cannot be yes.

Sadly


Steve

[Pierre]

Sorry Pierre

You are avoiding the question.

In addition you are once again questioning if people understand basic concepts, I really hoped we had got beyond this level of response when face with a question you do not wish to answer, it appears I was wrong.

Have you checked every archive, every data source that exists, written as well as digital records, to see if this name as been used more than once?

Of course you will need to check not just the UK, but anywhere English was spoken, if this person had an British name that is.

That means not just the UK, but the whole British Empire, the USA at the very least

Simply question really

Have you done such an exhaustive check to support your statement?

The answer is equally simple:

YES, which means you have spent years search old records all over the world, searching for this one name or

No.

In which case you statement is simply wrong.

Of course you did not answer, but replied in a form which attempts to divert away from an answer.
You did not answer, one assumes because we know the answer cannot be yes.

Sadly


Steve

Hi Steve,

Why should you bother with searching small and unknown archives to hypothesize about how common you can expect a name to be?

It is enough to search the digital census archives to answer this question.

If you get 1 million persons having the same name, you know that 1 million people used that name.

If you get 20 hits you have 20 people. That would make it easy to sort out those who are not relevant.

If you get one and that one is relevant, you have one and not 1 million - not even two, not 20 or 100. If you found another 50 in an unknown archive, you would soon sort out those who where not relevant. (Not relevant = not being in the area, not living in that time period, not having other necessary characteristics, not having a motive and so on and so forth.)

But why would the big archives have missed those?

That name is not used by others in the big digital archives when you do a search for the world. There is one and just one, exclusively.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Why should you bother with searching small and unknown archives to hypothesize about how common you can expect a name to be?

It is enough to search the digital census archives to answer this question.

If you get 1 million persons having the same name, you know that 1 million people used that name.

If you get 20 hits you have 20 people. That would make it easy to sort out those who are not relevant.

If you get one and that one is relevant, you have one and not 1 million - not eve two, not 20 or 100. If you found another 50 in an unknown archive, you wold soon sort out those who where not relevant. (Not relevant = not being in the area, not living in that time period, not having other necessary characteristics, not having a motive and so on and so forth.)

But why would the big archives have missed those?

That name is not used by others in the big digital archives when you do a search for the world. There is one and just one, exclusively.

You have not hypothesized you have stated as FACT this name has never been used by any other individual!

To claim something is unique in history, it must be demonstrably so.


you have not done sufficient research to be able to say this.

The digital archives you mention are far from complete and cover on the whole a very limited period of human history, around the last 200 years or so, as you well know.


It is certainly not enough to search digital census records!

What about digital birth and death records.

my point still holds that many records have not been put into the digital world.


if you seriously believe what you have written you are certainly no scientist nor do you have an academic approach!

It is clear from your reply you have done no more than search a few digital archive,

I truly marvel that you cannot see the difference between a 2 minute search of digital records and looking at those which are not digitized to back your argument.

This is so unprofessional.


Steve

[David Orsam]

I think it's worth repeating, as I've said many times, that Pierre's entire premise is false.

When he says "But the name left in the mustard tin is unique in the world" he is wrong. And he is wrong because there there was no name left in the mustard tin.

The only names on the pawn tickets in the mustard tin were those of Jane Kelly, Emily Birrell and Joshua Jones. Unless one of those three are his suspect, his suspect's name cannot be found in the mustard tin.

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Elamarna;390687

You have not hypothesized you have stated as FACT this name has never been used by any other individual!

To claim something is unique in history, it must be demonstrably so.

"You have not". What sort of discussion is that?

you have not done sufficient research to be able to say this.

"You have not". Again. And you donīt even know what you are talking about.

The digital archives you mention are far from complete and cover on the whole a very limited period of human history, around the last 200 years or so, as you well know.

He didnīt live for 200 years. Give up, Steve.

It is certainly not enough to search digital census records!

Enough for what exactly, Steve? Actually, I think you do not even know what you are talking about right now.

What about digital birth and death records.

What is it that you would want to look for and why?

my point still holds that many records have not been put into the digital world.

What has that got to do with one specific name?

if you seriously believe what you have written you are certainly no scientist nor do you have an academic approach!

There you go. "Not" again. Not a scientist. Not an academic approach. Whatever, Steve. Whatever.

It is clear from your reply you have done no more than search a few digital archive,

There is no need to search for copies of a name. Why would I want to do that?

I truly marvel that you cannot see the difference between a 2 minute search of digital records and looking at those which are not digitized to back your argument.

Marvel on, Steve. Marvel on.

This is so unprofessional.

What I hear now from you is accusations. And you do not even understand what I am doing. And you do not even know why you are upset.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;390696]

I think it's worth repeating, as I've said many times, that Pierre's entire premise is false.

Yes, it is certainly worth repeating. So go an and repeat it David, High Priest of the forum.

When he says "But the name left in the mustard tin is unique in the world" he is wrong. And he is wrong because there there was no name left in the mustard tin.

Amen.

The only names on the pawn tickets in the mustard tin were those of Jane Kelly, Emily Birrell and Joshua Jones. Unless one of those three are his suspect, his suspect's name cannot be found in the mustard tin.

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for they shall inherit ripperology.

[Elamarna]

"You have not". What sort of discussion is that?

It is a normal discussion between people who disagree.
One expressing their views on the information used and provided.
However disagreement appears something some find hard to accept.

"You have not". Again. And you donīt even know what you are talking about.

No, I do know exactly what I am talking about.

The statement that this name has only been used once in history is not back up by anything approaching an exhaustive search.
By your own admission you have only looked at limited internet based databases, this is not sufficient research to make the claim you have made.

He didnīt live for 200 years. Give up, Steve.

Pardon?

You claimed this name has never, I repeat never been used by any other individual in history.

I simply pointed out the records you based this statement on cover only a period of 200 years approx, not the whole of history.

Enough for what exactly, Steve? Actually, I think you do not even know what you are talking about right now.

Strange Pierre that is a reply to your comment:


"It is enough to search the digital census archives to answer this question."


Therefore how can you be unaware of what I am talking about?

What is it that you would want to look for and why?

Are you serious?

Obviously the name you claim is unique to one individual in history, strange you have to ask

What has that got to do with one specific name?

Again and it is tedious, to claim a specific name has only been used once in history one needs to check the historical sources, all of them, when making such a definitive claim.

There you go. "Not" again. Not a scientist. Not an academic approach. Whatever, Steve. Whatever.

I see no real response. nothing more needs to be said I believe.

There is no need to search for copies of a name. Why would I want to do that?

No one has asked for copies of a name, I am therefore at a lose why you suggest such a request has been made.

All I have asked for is a real academic search to back up the statement about one specific name.

What I hear now from you is accusations. And you do not even understand what I am doing. And you do not even know why you are upset.

My dear Pierre, the only comments I have made are that a statement has been made which does not have sufficient data to back it up, the follow up comments that the approach taken is non scientific is my view.
If you see that as an accusation so be it.

Of course I understand what you are doing.

Let me assure you I am not upset, why would you think I am?

I do however not suffer those who intentional mislead gladly.


Steve

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;390683]

Hi John,

or rather a code understood by a serial killer as being understood or "perhaps understood" by the recipients.

As history shows, the communications of a serial killer is not always understood. That, however, do not prevent serial killers from communication.



Well, as soon as a source is produced it is a source from the past and will thereby be an object for history.

Therefore, all researchers who examine sources from the past are making good or bad history.

But since you say it is "surreal", and if we follow your thinking, all the cryptologists who have been working with such sources should stop examining historical sources from the past and go home.

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

Yes, but it would have to be on a form that was capable of being clearly understood as a message, albeit a cryptic message, by the recipients. The pawn tickets don't fulfil that basic criteria.

And please don't tell me that you've just jumbled up a few letters to get the name you were looking for, because there are no doubt a huge number of names that can be obtained using that method, so such an approach gets you no where.

[John G]

I think it's worth repeating, as I've said many times, that Pierre's entire premise is false.

When he says "But the name left in the mustard tin is unique in the world" he is wrong. And he is wrong because there there was no name left in the mustard tin.

The only names on the pawn tickets in the mustard tin were those of Jane Kelly, Emily Birrell and Joshua Jones. Unless one of those three are his suspect, his suspect's name cannot be found in the mustard tin.

Can't fault your logic there David.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;390708][QUOTE=Pierre;390683]

Hi Pierre,

Yes, but it would have to be on a form that was capable of being clearly understood as a message, albeit a cryptic message, by the recipients. The pawn tickets don't fulfil that basic criteria.

It is a meaningful hypothesis that the pawn tickets actually do fulfill that basic criteria. You see, John, when you understand (in the Weberian meaning of the concept, Verstehen) - and when that understanding is not obtained from far fetched and outlandish ideas - that there is a reason to use such an hypothesis, the case becomes interesting. And it becomes interesting, since you get a coherent history. That is something which has been very difficult to obtain for this case earlier, if you do not use such far fetched and outlandish ideas.

And please don't tell me that you've just jumbled up a few letters to get the name you were looking for, because there are no doubt a huge number of names that can be obtained using that method, so such an approach gets you no where.

The fact that we can construct a lot of different names using the letters from the pawn tickets is nothing remarkable. What is remarkable is that one specific name is difficult to obtain from any set of pairs where you have names and addresses. I will report how difficult it is, when I know.

Regards, Pierre