Pawn tickets in Mitre Square

[David Orsam]

I think it might have, if Kate's acquaintance knew they were short on cash and offered the ticket to her as an act of charity. If they managed to redeem it, they could possibly use it or pawn it again, perhaps raising money by the rubic Errata mentions.

It seems to me that clothing and other possessions changed hands often via many methods in that time and place, and there is no reason to doubt how Kate got the pawn ticket for the shirt.

Thanks Pcdunn.

I'd be interested to know if Simon Wood agrees with you.

[Pcdunn]

Act of charity?

Do you have difficulty in answering my question?

To repeat it:

Would it have made fiscal sense if the flannel shirt was worth more than 10½d?

I think it might have, if Kate's acquaintance knew they were short on cash and offered the ticket to her as an act of charity. If they managed to redeem it, they could possibly use it or pawn it again, perhaps raising money by the rubic Errata mentions.

It seems to me that clothing and other possessions changed hands often via many methods in that time and place, and there is no reason to doubt how Kate got the pawn ticket for the shirt.

[David Orsam]

How would Catherine Eddowes or John Kelly have known?

Do you have difficulty in answering my question?

To repeat it:

Would it have made fiscal sense if the flannel shirt was worth more than 10½d?

[Sam Flynn]

I used to work in the pawn industry

Thank God this is a message-board in written text, and not a podcast

[Simon Wood]

How would Catherine Eddowes or John Kelly have known?

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Catherine Eddowes accepting a 9d pawn ticket from Emily Burrell for an unseen flannel shirt which may or may not have fitted John Kelly, and which, with interest and the pawn ticket fee, would have cost her 10½d to find out, does not make a great deal of sense, fiscal or otherwise, to a cash-strapped couple allegedly having to walk from Maidstone to London.

Hi Simon,

Would it have made fiscal sense if the flannel shirt was worth more than 10½d?

[Simon Wood]

Catherine Eddowes accepting a 9d pawn ticket from Emily Burrell for an unseen flannel shirt which may or may not have fitted John Kelly, and which, with interest and the pawn ticket fee, would have cost her 10½d to find out, does not make a great deal of sense, fiscal or otherwise, to a cash-strapped couple allegedly having to walk from Maidstone to London.

Regards,

Simon

[Errata]

I used to work in the pawn industry, and fake adddresses were a matter of course before laws requiring photo ID. And even still it's a problem because people will claim to no longer live at the address on their ID, and give a fake one. And a fake phone number. And a fake name if they can manage it.

The reason why is very simple. If I sell a ring to a pawn shop, I get maybe max retail value -30%. However pawning something is done under a contract that you are going to come back for it. So the same ring pawned might get you retail value x 2. Way more money. The easiest way to get the most money is to pawn something with the goal of abandoning it. The pawn shop will come after you, but not if you gave a fake address or phone number. Which is easy to do.

Now over the years the pawn shops have adjusted to this reality, but it's been within my lifetime. So back then it was just a way to cheat the pawn shop.

So the name might be real because the woman was known at least peripherally to the pawn shop. She might have pawned there before. A fake address keeps people from knocking on her door demanding payment. And even if she had every intention of coming back for the items, she still would have lied in case she couldn't come up with the payment. Pawnbrokers were and still are very insistent. And you do sign a valid contract agreeing to pay back the money.

That part doesn't surprise me at all. Nor does it arouse any suspicion.

Nor is it uncommon for a wife to pawn some of her husbands belongings. It does not require his consent, though if he challenges it in court he might get it back without paying. The assumption is that the couple agreed to it and the wife is doing it because she has the free time during the week. But tools and mens items are mostly to this day pawned by women. Now without a legal relationship between the Kellys, the transaction is void. But the Pawn shop doesn't know that unless they are informed. And even then the woman is going to jail and the man likely still has to pay to get his stuff. Or the woman does, and likely can't. Either way the pawn shop rarely loses these battles. It's quite mercenary.

So him not remembering the day the boots disappeared doesn't surprise me either. Unless they were his only pair of shoes, and then you'd expect that to stick out in his mind.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi,

The police foud a mustard tin containing two pawn tickets on Catherine Eddowes. On one was written the name Emily Birrell and the adress 52 White´s Row, on the other was the name Jane Kelly and the adress 6 Dorset Street.

There seem to be some problems with the provenience of the pawn tickets:

1. Both of the adresses where false.

2. John Kelly, who had lived with Eddowes, told the police that a woman called Emily Birrell had given them the pawn ticket with that name on it. But the name Emily Birrell was in the newspapers before John Kelly went to the police. So he could have learned about the name from the papers.

3. At the inquest, John Kelly did not know the date of the pawning of his own boots for the other pawn ticket in the name of Jane Kelly.

Questions:

A) Could John Kelly have had any reason to lie about the pawn tickets found on Eddowes?

B) Two false adresses in a mustard tin – why should the name Emily Birrell be authentic?

C) There is no evidence for an Emily Birrell giving a pawn ticket to Eddowes. Why?

D) Why was that ticket dated 31 August?

E) Why is the adress Dorset Street on the pawn ticket in the name of Jane Kelly and why this special combination?

Regards, Pierre

a) Conceivably.
b) They spent time hopping with her, slept in a barn with her, if she misidentified herself then its she you should be questioning.
c) There is no evidence that Kate and John went to 2 pawn houses, the Birrell ticket was issued from a different pawnbroker.
d) Because that was the date it was issued on. Not Saturday, as John first claimed.
e) The only real point of interest raised by this line of questioning.

[Abby Normal]

Hes Baaaaaaack.

welcome back Pierre. as you can see several posters have been keeping your spirit alive.

as for your post and questions-I have no idea but I would imagine what your getting at is that your suspect planted the fake pawn tickets on her? am I warm?

[Pierre]

Hi,

The police foud a mustard tin containing two pawn tickets on Catherine Eddowes. On one was written the name Emily Birrell and the adress 52 White´s Row, on the other was the name Jane Kelly and the adress 6 Dorset Street.

There seem to be some problems with the provenience of the pawn tickets:

1. Both of the adresses where false.

2. John Kelly, who had lived with Eddowes, told the police that a woman called Emily Birrell had given them the pawn ticket with that name on it. But the name Emily Birrell was in the newspapers before John Kelly went to the police. So he could have learned about the name from the papers.

3. At the inquest, John Kelly did not know the date of the pawning of his own boots for the other pawn ticket in the name of Jane Kelly.

Questions:

A) Could John Kelly have had any reason to lie about the pawn tickets found on Eddowes?

B) Two false adresses in a mustard tin – why should the name Emily Birrell be authentic?

C) There is no evidence for an Emily Birrell giving a pawn ticket to Eddowes. Why?

D) Why was that ticket dated 31 August?

E) Why is the adress Dorset Street on the pawn ticket in the name of Jane Kelly and why this special combination?

Regards, Pierre