Pawn tickets in Mitre Square

[packers stem]

Pierre, the details of the second pawn ticket were leaked to the press as there was no clue at the time as to the identity of Eddowes.
You seem fixated on the idea that only official reports are useful...that is not the case

[David Orsam]

Not to be forgotten that the Home Office kept newspaper cuttings on its file relating to the Whitechapel murders, especially from the Times and the Telegraph, so in that respect they have entered the official records.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;372184]Hi Pierre,

We know from the evidence of Inspector Collard at the inquest that Sergeant Jones picked up a small mustard tin containing 2 pawn tickets from the left side of Eddowes' body.

Hi David,

Well. You seem to not have read or perhaps not understood what I wrote here: The data on the pawn tickets are actually not at all mentioned at the inquest. There is no mentioning of an "Emily Birrell" or a "Jane Kelly". That is the point.

The tin was handed to Inspector Collard along with 3 small black buttons and a metal thimble. These items were not, therefore, in the possession of the deceased when a list of her clothes and possessions was subsequently taken.

So that explains that.

What is your interpretation of Inspector Collard being handed the tin with the pawn tickets and these items not being registered on the official list?

Of the 2 pawn tickets, one of them was produced at the inquest and, from the evidence at the inquest, we know that it was dated Friday, 28 September 1888, and was for a pair of men's boots which had been pawned for the sum of 2s 6d.

Again David: there was no mentioning of the name Jane Kelly and no mentioning of the adress "Dorset Street" on that pawn ticket. Not at the inquest. That seems to be an established fact.

The reason why the second ticket was not mentioned at the inquest is, no doubt, because it had no relevance whatsoever to any of the issues that the inquest jury had to decide.

That is your own personal opinion, I guess. Or do you have a source for that?

We are, therefore, dependent on the newspapers that the tickets were in the names of Kelly and Birrell (or Burrell) but there is absolutely no reason to doubt it, in my opinion.

There are several different issues here. One is the question of the lack of data for the pawn tickets mentioned at the inquest. Another is the question about the reliability of the data on the two pawn tickets in the newspaper articles. We can critically evaluate the sources from the inquest and from the newspapers respectively and get important results, I think.

So what is your critical thinking on the newspaper reports on the pawn tickets and why?

Do you consider the earliest ones to be reliable, can we treat them as reliable primary sources or are they rather secondary sources giving secondary views on the pawn tickets?

For example, at an inquest, the witnesses are sworn, but in a newspaper article we have the problem of the bias of the journalists and others - we get that in inquest papers as well sometimes - and therefore sources have tendencies. How do you judge these?

Newspapers were not producing works of fiction every day, especially the Times.

But sometimes they did? How do we know when? And are you saying that the Times generally is more reliable - how much more - than other newspapers? If you do, how do you know that?

The reported reason for John Kelly coming forward is that he recognised the names on the pawn tickets.

I am glad you write "the reported reason", since that statement is from a newspaper, I guess? Which one?

Oh, and let´s not forget the tattoo.

It has been explained to you already why it was common for pawn tickets to be in false names and/or addresses.

That is no issue since it is so obvious. But the obvious can often lead us to taking things for granted. I think that every source from 1888 that we analyse should be criticized so the first we have to do is actually to forget the obvious.

The fact that one ticket was reported to have been dated 31 August 1888, the same day as the murder of Nichols, is nothing more than coincidence.

Do you think that the list of Eddowes´s possessions excluding that pawn ticket could be connected to that "coincidence" in any way? If so - how? If not - why?

You see, I am just someone asking questions, that is what I do. You seem to be much better at giving answers than I am.

The one point where I am prepared to agree with you is that the pawn ticket for the boots might not have been in the name of "Jane Kelly". That is based on newspaper reports and might be an error for "John Kelly". An item could be pawned in the name of the owner.

Can you refer to these sources so we all could read them? And also, why would the name be accurate and the adress false?

Ultimately, though, the fuss over the pawn tickets is a complete non-issue. It's a trivial matter of no significance to the murder of Eddowes.

What a relief.

But ironical remarks aside, I believe we have a responsibility to criticise every historical source and to not ignore and overlook sources that might be important. And as you can see, people often take things for granted when there is very little or no reason to do so.

And I must say that I am surprised to hear that you now seem to reduce your own very serious discussion here on the subject of the pawn tickets to mere "fuss" and that you suddenly want to tell us it is a "non-issue". Especially since you were so interested in the answers of Simon to your own questions.

Anyway, I am really looking forward to hear your answers to my questions. I also think your answers matters and are important.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Hi Pierre

Well. You seem to not have read or perhaps not understood what I wrote here: The data on the pawn tickets are actually not at all mentioned at the inquest. There is no mentioning of an "Emily Birrell" or a "Jane Kelly". That is the point.

I think you will find, if you read my post carefully, that I certainly did understand what you wrote. There was no reason for the names "Emily Birrell" or "Jane Kelly" to be mentioned at the inquest. That is the point.

What is your interpretation of Inspector Collard being handed the tin with the pawn tickets and these items not being registered on the official list?

I already explained this but I will try it again. What you describe as "the official list" was a list of articles found on Eddowes when her body was searched at the mortuary. But when Eddowes' body was searched at the mortuary, the mustard tin was not in her possession. It was in the possession of Inspector Collard. Hence it was not, and could not possibly have been, included in the list of articles found on her possession during the search at the mortuary.

Again David: there was no mentioning of the name Jane Kelly and no mentioning of the adress "Dorset Street" on that pawn ticket. Not at the inquest. That seems to be an established fact.

And as I have said to you, there was no reason for any of this information to be mentioned at the inquest considering it was irrelevant to any issues the jury had to decide.

That is your own personal opinion, I guess. Or do you have a source for that?

You are asking me if I have a source for the statement that the second pawn ticket had no relevance to the issues that the inquest had to decide? Well yes I do actually. My source is that the second pawn ticket was not mentioned during the inquest. Therefore, Q.E.D., it was not relevant to the issues to be decided at the inquest.

There are several different issues here. One is the question of the lack of data for the pawn tickets mentioned at the inquest. Another is the question about the reliability of the data on the two pawn tickets in the newspaper articles. We can critically evaluate the sources from the inquest and from the newspapers respectively and get important results, I think.

So what is your critical thinking on the newspaper reports on the pawn tickets and why?

As the newspaper reporters would have been getting their information from official sources, my critical thinking is that I have no reason to doubt them, subject to the possible error of "Jane" for "John".

Do you consider the earliest ones to be reliable, can we treat them as reliable primary sources or are they rather secondary sources giving secondary views on the pawn tickets?

We can treat the newspaper reports as reasonably reliable primary sources for what the newspaper reporters were being told about the tickets by the police.

For example, at an inquest, the witnesses are sworn, but in a newspaper article we have the problem of the bias of the journalists and others - we get that in inquest papers as well sometimes - and therefore sources have tendencies. How do you judge these?

I don't see why a journalist would have had any 'bias' when reporting the data on the pawn tickets therefore I discount any notion of bias.

But sometimes they did? How do we know when? And are you saying that the Times generally is more reliable - how much more - than other newspapers? If you do, how do you know that?

Although you may not be aware of this, the Times was famously known as the newspaper of record in Great Britain. If you were to examine the Home Office files on the case you will find that it contains numerous cuttings of reports from the Times. When it comes to reporting of facts it was generally regarded as a reliable newspaper.

I am glad you write "the reported reason", since that statement is from a newspaper, I guess? Which one?

From the Times of 3 October 1888.

That is no issue since it is so obvious. But the obvious can often lead us to taking things for granted. I think that every source from 1888 that we analyse should be criticized so the first we have to do is actually to forget the obvious.

You are seriously saying that the first thing we should do is "to forget the obvious"? I would humbly suggest that is the very last thing we should do.

Do you think that the list of Eddowes´s possessions excluding that pawn ticket could be connected to that "coincidence" in any way? If so - how? If not - why?

No, because I have already explained why the pawn tickets were not in the list of possessions. That explanation was provided at the inquest and is a matter of record.

Can you refer to these sources so we all could read them?

Newspapers that reported the ticket being in the name of "Jane Kelly" include the Pall Mall Gazette of 1 October 1888, Morning Post of 3 October 1888 and Birmingham Daily Post of 3 October 1888

And also, why would the name be accurate and the adress false?

This has already been explained to you. So that the individual could not be found for recovery of interest charges should they not be able to redeem the pledge. A name on its own would not be enough to find them in most cases.

And I must say that I am surprised to hear that you now seem to reduce your own very serious discussion here on the subject of the pawn tickets to mere "fuss" and that you suddenly want to tell us it is a "non-issue". Especially since you were so interested in the answers of Simon to your own questions.

I am surprised that you are surprised. It tells me that you haven't understood the discussion I have been having with Simon.

[Craig H]

Hi

I thought I had read in several places that Catherine Eddowes befriended Emily Birrell (and her husband) while hop-picking; and that Emily gave or sold her pawn ticket to Catherine as she wasn't returning to London.

This would explain why Catherine had it.

If this true, I'm not sure what the mystery is ??

Rgds

Craig

[David Orsam]

Hi

I thought I had read in several places that Catherine Eddowes befriended Emily Birrell (and her husband) while hop-picking; and that Emily gave or sold her pawn ticket to Catherine as she wasn't returning to London.

This would explain why Catherine had it.

If this true, I'm not sure what the mystery is ??

You are absolutely right Craig. It does explain it and there is no mystery.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;372191]Hi Pierre


I think you will find, if you read my post carefully, that I certainly did understand what you wrote.

There was no reason for the names "Emily Birrell" or "Jane Kelly" to be mentioned at the inquest. That is the point.

You think so, David. But we do not know that. And that is a fact.

I already explained this but I will try it again. What you describe as "the official list" was a list of articles found on Eddowes when her body was searched at the mortuary. But when Eddowes' body was searched at the mortuary, the mustard tin was not in her possession. It was in the possession of Inspector Collard. Hence it was not, and could not possibly have been, included in the list of articles found on her possession during the search at the mortuary.

And therefore it leaves us with the problem of not knowing the provenience of the pawn tickets. Did they belong to Catherine Eddowes? You see, at the inquest Inspector Collard stated that "Sergeant Jones picked up on the left side of the deceased...a small mustard tin containing 2 pawn tickets..." (My underscore).

So it is a fact that the mustard tin was NOT on the list of Eddowes´s possessions and it was NOT reported at the inquest as having been found on the body, but on the left side of it. Therefore, we do not know the provenience of the mustard tin and the pawn tickets. That is a fact.

And as I have said to you, there was no reason for any of this information to be mentioned at the inquest considering it was irrelevant to any issues the jury had to decide.

Obviously, the mentioning of the mustard tin and the pawn tickets at the inquest was not irrelevant since Collard did mention them. But we can not know if those pawn tickets had anything to do with the pawning of a pair of boots.

You are asking me if I have a source for the statement that the second pawn ticket had no relevance to the issues that the inquest had to decide? Well yes I do actually. My source is that the second pawn ticket was not mentioned during the inquest. Therefore, Q.E.D., it was not relevant to the issues to be decided at the inquest.

Firstly, your source can not be "that something was not mentioned". You must refer to a text or an item. But I assume you are trying to say that you want to refer to the inquest papers. OK. So you say that "the second pawn ticket was not mentioned." But Collard did mention two tickets. But he did not state the contents of the texts on those. And the pawning of the boots mentioned by John Kelly is only mentioned with a date, the "28th". Now, even if we believe that one of the pawn tickets is a ticket that John Kelly refers to (sorry for speaking in the present tense) at the inquest, we have NO chance of knowing this.

As the newspaper reporters would have been getting their information from official sources, my critical thinking is that I have no reason to doubt them, subject to the possible error of "Jane" for "John".

Oh dear. You seem to think that reporters would merely register, word by word, what was said in spoken language. Well, the problem is that they didn´t. That becomes clear when you compare the descriptions of the inquest statements between different newspapers.

And even more problematic for the quality of your "critical thinking" actually is that you seem to think that the reporters interpreted a name that is not even mentioned in the original inquest papers. The name "Jane Kelly" was in the newspapers before the inquest. Actually, it was in the newspapers on the 1st October.

We can treat the newspaper reports as reasonably reliable primary sources for what the newspaper reporters were being told about the tickets by the police.

Didn´t I ask you why you think that? And what is "reasonably reliable"?

I don't see why a journalist would have had any 'bias' when reporting the data on the pawn tickets therefore I discount any notion of bias.

So how can you judge between biased an unbiased reports? Do some articles have less bias and some more? Which ones? Why would the stories of the pawn tickets have less bias?

Although you may not be aware of this, the Times was famously known as the newspaper of record in Great Britain. If you were to examine the Home Office files on the case you will find that it contains numerous cuttings of reports from the Times. When it comes to reporting of facts it was generally regarded as a reliable newspaper.

Well, that says a lot about the Home Office, doesn´t it? I mean, there was no such thing as source criticism in those days. And their way of regarding things would very often not be approved of today. You are mixing the contents of the subject of study (the subjective perspectives of others in the past) with your own perspectives on the subject of study.


From the Times of 3 October 1888.

You are seriously saying that the first thing we should do is "to forget the obvious"? I would humbly suggest that is the very last thing we should do.

Yes, I recommend this. We must question every source and analyse it instead of believing it. If we do, we might find things we did not expect to find. And that methodology generates knowledge.

No, because I have already explained why the pawn tickets were not in the list of possessions. That explanation was provided at the inquest and is a matter of record.

Newspapers that reported the ticket being in the name of "Jane Kelly" include the Pall Mall Gazette of 1 October 1888, Morning Post of 3 October 1888 and Birmingham Daily Post of 3 October 1888

Well done.

This has already been explained to you.

So that the individual could not be found for recovery of interest charges should they not be able to redeem the pledge. A name on its own would not be enough to find them in most cases.

But that does not mean that we know the provenience of the pawn tickets. False names does not mean that there were actual persons living with those names who pawned the goods. And you say "a name on its own would not be enough to find them in most cases". So why wasn´t the name just simply "Catherine Eddowes" or "Kate Conway"?

I am surprised that you are surprised. It tells me that you haven't understood the discussion I have been having with Simon.

And I certainly haven´t understood your idea of mishearing of the name "Jane Kelly" before any reporter knew about any "John Kelly".

There are serious problems with your critical thinking, David. I wonder if that is also visible in your writings. And now that your problems have become very obvious here, I think I will not be so interested in long discussions with you about important issues. But thanks anyway for your time.

Regards, Pierre

[Michael W Richards]

Hi,

that is an established fact if we believe the newspaper reports on the two pawn tickets. BUT:

There are a lot of problems with the issue of these pawn tickets.

I have been following your discussions here and can see that you have made a lot of assumptions without focusing on the problems of the sources.

One very problematic aspect of your discussions is that some of you see no problem with the provenience of the two pawn tickets. That is problematic since the provenience is problematic, which I will show you here.

A very problematic assumption you make is that Eddowes would have gotten one of the pawn tickets from someone called "Emily Birrell". On that assumption some people here have been building a chain of assumptions about "fiscal sense" and of Eddowes having or not having a motive or some knowledge about the pawn tickets and about "fiscal sense".

Another very problematic assumption is that John Kelly would have been talking about a specific pawn ticket at the inquest - a pawn ticket that was found on Eddowes at the murder site.

So why are your discussions so problematic?

Firstly: The data on the two pawn tickets mentioned in the newspapers are not mentioned in the original inquest papers (See the transcriptions in Evans & Skinner, The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook).

Secondly: The two pawn tickets and the mustard tin are not listed in the official list of Eddowes´s possessions (ibid.).

So what are the consequences of that?

1. We do not know if John Kelly is speaking about the same pawn ticket (the "Jane Kelly" ticket). There is NO mentioning of that name or the adress "Dorset Street" on the pawn ticket in the original inquest papers.

2. We do not know if there existed any pawn ticket for a flannel shirt. It is NOT mentioned in the original inquest papers.

3. We do not know if there ever existed any "Emily Birrell" or "Jane Kelly". These two "persons" are NOT mentioned in the original inquest papers.

4. We do not know anything about any "fiscal sense" since we do NOT know if Eddowes ever saw the "Emily Birrell" pawn ticket in her lifetime.

5. We do not know if Eddowes owned a mustard tin or if she owned two pawn tickets with the names "Emily Birrell" and "Jane Kelly".

As you see, the problems pile up if we try to establish these two pawn tickets being owned by Eddowes as facts. They are not facts.

So what are they? Are they merely some journalists speculations?

If they are speculations - why should journalists speculate that there was a pawn ticket found by the victim with the name "Jane Kelly" and "Dorset Street" on it? This was BEFORE the murder on Mary Jane Kelly on Dorset Street. Still, it is the name and street adress for the next victim. Don´t you find that too coincidental?

And why should journalists speculate about another pawn ticket with the date "31 August"? It is the date for the murder on Polly Nichols.

And what meaning should we give the newspapers that "report" on these two pawn tickets? If the newspapers reports were accurate: Why were the two pawn tickets with their specific data NOT MENTIONED at the inquest? And why were they NOT registered on the list for the belongings of Eddowes?

Regards, Pierre

Wearing at the time of her murder:

Black straw bonnet trimmed in green and black velvet with black beads. Black strings, worn tied to the head.
Black cloth jacket trimmed around the collar and cuffs with imitation fur and around the pockets in black silk braid and fur. Large metal buttons.
Dark green chintz skirt, 3 flounces, brown button on waistband. The skirt is patterned with Michaelmas daisies and golden lilies.
Man's white vest, matching buttons down front.
Brown linsey bodice, black velvet collar with brown buttons down front
Grey stuff petticoat with white waistband
Very old green alpaca skirt (worn as undergarment)
Very old ragged blue skirt with red flounces, light twill lining (worn as undergarment)
White calico chemise
No drawers or stays
Pair of men's lace up boots, mohair laces. Right boot repaired with red thread
1 piece of red gauze silk worn as a neckerchief
1 large white pocket handkerchief
1 large white cotton handkerchief with red and white bird's eye border
2 unbleached calico pockets, tape strings
1 blue stripe bed ticking pocket
Brown ribbed knee stockings, darned at the feet with white cotton

Possessions

2 small blue bags made of bed ticking
2 short black clay pipes
1 tin box containing tea
1 tin box containing sugar
1 tin matchbox, empty
12 pieces white rag, some slightly bloodstained
1 piece coarse linen, white
1 piece of blue and white shirting, 3 cornered
1 piece red flannel with pins and needles
6 pieces soap
1 small tooth comb
1 white handle table knife
1 metal teaspoon
1 red leather cigarette case with white metal fittings
1 ball hemp
1 piece of old white apron with repair
Several buttons and a thimble
Mustard tin containing two pawn tickets, One in the name of Emily Birrell, 52 White's Row, dated August 31, 9d for a man's flannel shirt. The other is in the name of Jane Kelly of 6 Dorset Street and dated September 28, 2S for a pair of men's boots. Both addresses are false.
Printed handbill and according to a press report- a printed card for 'Frank Carter,305,Bethnal Green Road

Portion of a pair of spectacles
1 red mitten

I believe the comprehensive list of Kates belongings culled from various sources addresses the presence of the tin and tickets.

[David Orsam]

Hi Pierre,

Your convoluted thinking has gone through so many twists and turns that you don't even know what you have said.

Originally you stated: "The data on the two pawn tickets mentioned in the newspapers are not mentioned in the original inquest papers".

I agreed with you that the data was not mentioned at the inquest and explained that this was because it was irrelevant. Thus, I said, "there was no reason for any of this information to be mentioned at the inquest considering it was irrelevant to any issues the jury had to decide" .

Now you come back to me saying that the pawn tickets were mentioned at the inquest so they were not irrelevant. I know that finding of the pawn tickets was mentioned at the inquest by Inspector Collard. I told you this. But the data on the pawn tickets was not mentioned at the inquest (other than that the ticket for the boots was pawned on 28th September for 2s 6d). This is because that information was irrelevant.

I note that you wish to sweep under the carpet your original failure to understand why the mustard tin was not included in the list of possessions but I'm glad it seems to have finally sunk in.

We do actually have confirmation of the pawn tickets belonging to Eddowes because one of them was produced at the inquest and its existence was confirmed by the witness John Kelly who said that the boots referred to on the ticket were pawned by Eddowes. If you want to mislead yourself into thinking that the second one did not belong to Eddowes that's up to you but the reason it wasn't produced at the inquest is because it was irrelevant to the issues the jury had to decide.

You have also become confused between a reporter reporting evidence at an inquest, where acoustics were difficult, with a reporter reporting on a police briefing. The name "Jane Kelly" was not mentioned at the inquest. As I said, it was mentioned in a police briefing to a reporter or reporters prior to the inquest. That is how the name appeared in the newspapers. I do not see how a reporter reporting that information could have any 'bias'.

My suggestion is that the police could have said the ticket was in the name of "John Kelly" which was misheard as "Jane Kelly". However, it is only a possibility and the chances are that the reporter got it right.

'Catherine Eddowes' is quite a distinctive and unusual name. 'Jane Kelly' is not.

I think I have indulged you enough now Pierre. Good luck in your quest for absolute knowledge. It might help if you read documents (and my posts) properly in future.

[David Orsam]

I believe the comprehensive list of Kates belongings culled from various sources addresses the presence of the tin and tickets.

Yes but Michael isn't the information about the pawn tickets in that list sourced from newspapers?

You're only going to set him off again.

[David Orsam]

I thought it might be helpful if I set out some reasons why I have said that "Jane Kelly" might not be the correct name on the pawn ticket for the boots.

On 2 October 1888, the day after it had been reported in the Pall Mall Gazette that the names on the pawn tickets were "Emily Birrell" and "Jane Kelly", the Echo carried a story that its reporter had been told by the City Police that a man's name appeared on one of the two tickets. This is largely what made me wonder if "Jane" was really "John". The boots were owned by John Kelly so it does not seem to be impossible. Perhaps the name was hard to read clearly on the ticket or perhaps it was clearly "John" and the PMG reporter misheard it when it was read out to him.

Against this is the fact that Joseph Jones was quoted in some newspapers as saying that the items on the tickets must have been pledged by a woman because it was against the rules to receive goods from a man pledged in a woman's name. If that was right for both tickets then the name could not have been "John".

Could it have been "Anne" though? The Star of 1 October 1888 said that one of the tickets was in the name of "Anne Kelly" (and this was repeated in the Times the following day, although some of the other details in respect of price and date were incorrect in these reports). "Anne Kelly" would make sense bearing in mind that Eddowes gave her name to the police as "Mary Ann Kelly" when she was released from the cells shortly before her murder. Interestingly, she said she was Mary Ann Kelly of 6 Fashion Street. If the name and address on the pawn ticket was Anne Kelly of 6 Dorset Street, this bears similarity with the information she gave the police on the day after pawning the boots.

One cannot, therefore, be absolutely certain that the name "Jane" was on the ticket for the boots.

[Pierre]

I thought it might be helpful if I set out some reasons why I have said that "Jane Kelly" might not be the correct name on the pawn ticket for the boots.

On 2 October 1888, the day after it had been reported in the Pall Mall Gazette that the names on the pawn tickets were "Emily Birrell" and "Jane Kelly", the Echo carried a story that its reporter had been told by the City Police that a man's name appeared on one of the two tickets. This is largely what made me wonder if "Jane" was really "John". The boots were owned by John Kelly so it does not seem to be impossible. Perhaps the name was hard to read clearly on the ticket or perhaps it was clearly "John" and the PMG reporter misheard it when it was read out to him.

Against this is the fact that Joseph Jones was quoted in some newspapers as saying that the items on the tickets must have been pledged by a woman because it was against the rules to receive goods from a man pledged in a woman's name. If that was right for both tickets then the name could not have been "John".

Could it have been "Anne" though? The Star of 1 October 1888 said that one of the tickets was in the name of "Anne Kelly" (and this was repeated in the Times the following day, although some of the other details in respect of price and date were incorrect in these reports). "Anne Kelly" would make sense bearing in mind that Eddowes gave her name to the police as "Mary Ann Kelly" when she was released from the cells shortly before her murder. Interestingly, she said she was Mary Ann Kelly of 6 Fashion Street. If the name and address on the pawn ticket was Anne Kelly of 6 Dorset Street, this bears similarity with the information she gave the police on the day after pawning the boots.

One cannot, therefore, be absolutely certain that the name "Jane" was on the ticket for the boots.

"Could have" is all we can say.

Regards, Pierre

[DJA]

And therefore it leaves us with the problem of not knowing the provenience of the pawn tickets. Did they belong to Catherine Eddowes? You see, at the inquest Inspector Collard stated that "Sergeant Jones picked up on the left side of the deceased...a small mustard tin containing 2 pawn tickets..." (My underscore).

So it is a fact that the mustard tin was NOT on the list of Eddowes´s possessions and it was NOT reported at the inquest as having been found on the body, but on the left side of it. Therefore, we do not know the provenience of the mustard tin and the pawn tickets. That is a fact.



Obviously, the mentioning of the mustard tin and the pawn tickets at the inquest was not irrelevant since Collard did mention them. But we can not know if those pawn tickets had anything to do with the pawning of a pair of boots.



Firstly, your source can not be "that something was not mentioned". You must refer to a text or an item. But I assume you are trying to say that you want to refer to the inquest papers. OK. So you say that "the second pawn ticket was not mentioned." But Collard did mention two tickets. But he did not state the contents of the texts on those. And the pawning of the boots mentioned by John Kelly is only mentioned with a date, the "28th". Now, even if we believe that one of the pawn tickets is a ticket that John Kelly refers to (sorry for speaking in the present tense) at the inquest, we have NO chance of knowing this.



Oh dear. You seem to think that reporters would merely register, word by word, what was said in spoken language. Well, the problem is that they didn´t. That becomes clear when you compare the descriptions of the inquest statements between different newspapers.

And even more problematic for the quality of your "critical thinking" actually is that you seem to think that the reporters interpreted a name that is not even mentioned in the original inquest papers. The name "Jane Kelly" was in the newspapers before the inquest. Actually, it was in the newspapers on the 1st October.



Didn´t I ask you why you think that? And what is "reasonably reliable"?



So how can you judge between biased an unbiased reports? Do some articles have less bias and some more? Which ones? Why would the stories of the pawn tickets have less bias?



Regards, Pierre[/B]

The tickets were produced at the Inquest.

[Craig H]

Hi Pierre

Are you suggesting the murderer left the mustard tin with the tickets, as a way of taunting the police ??

Craig

[Abby Normal]

Hi

see post #2.

LOL