Pawn tickets in Mitre Square

[Pierre]

I wouldn't mind, but the 'puzzle' Pierre is telling us the killer left for the police isn't even an anagram!

It is not for you to decide whether or not a serial killer expressed himself through letters and in what form.

[David Orsam]

I don't know who the killer was but I'm entirely convinced that whoever it was didn't leave his name in anagram form at one of the crime scenes. Pierre, if you're relying on this kind of "evidence" to make a case for your suspect you're going down a well-trodden (and utterly discredited) route.

I wouldn't mind, but the 'puzzle' Pierre is telling us the killer left for the police isn't even an anagram!

[Bridewell]

I don't know who the killer was but I'm entirely convinced that whoever it was didn't leave his name in anagram form at one of the crime scenes. Pierre, if you're relying on this kind of "evidence" to make a case for your suspect you're going down a well-trodden (and utterly discredited) route.

[DJA]

I found an Emily Burel in the workhouse records she was said to be living at 52 Flower and Dean Street and the Workhouse dated Dec 1885 . Wife of Nathan..... Have copied details below.
Think this could be her....

Name: Emily Burel
Birth Date: abt 1853
Admission Age: 32
Admission Date: 14 Dec 1885
Discharge Date: 8 Apr 1886
Record Type: Admission and Discharge
Borough: Tower Hamlets
Parish or Poor Law Union: Stepney
Place: London, England
Title: Workhouses and Institutions, 1885-1887

Pat

An ex neighbour of Eddowes who pawned a shirt to help with travel costs.
Makes sense to me.

There is another 6 Dorset,possibly Court. Off Dorset Street.
Occupants in the 1881 Census.....a Barnett family. Not relatives though.

[Mayerling]

[QUOTE=Pierre;389662]

Hi Steve,

because this is for real.

Best wishes, Pierre

Pierre, you really think that truth which has been buried for 128 years is "uncomfortable" because "it is real"?

How can that possibly be within reason? Facts about the past on many subjects crop up that were unknown previously - all it leads to is a deeper understanding of motivations or of causation. It does not make us totally uncomfortable, as most people don't care.

Jeff

[GUT]

Sorry Pierre
Historians uncover truths that they may not like all the time, as do all scientists, it is part of the discipline, why do you find that hard?


your reply is not an answer, it is evasion.


so sad that you cannot give an answer which is meaningful.

Steve

But then again, he seldom does.

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;389662]

Hi Steve,

because this is for real.

Best wishes, Pierre

Sorry Pierre
Historians uncover truths that they may not like all the time, as do all scientists, it is part of the discipline, why do you find that hard?


your reply is not an answer, it is evasion.


so sad that you cannot give an answer which is meaningful.

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;389399]

Dear Pierre

I really wish you would explain why you say its a problem!

Why do you not wish the data to point in one direction?

Why do you find the truth as you see it uncomfortable?

Hi Steve,

because this is for real.

Best wishes, Pierre

[Abby Normal]

So, I can't help it. I just want you to know what you are arguing.

I'm a genius. That and five bucks will get me a cup of coffee, but I am. I'm sure many people here are. Certainly there are several world class thinkers I admire, and hey, I'm a genius.

You want to know how many other names my full name spells out?

No idea. Not an effing clue. And I'm a genius so in theory if anyone was going to know how many other names my name spells out, it would be me.

Yes. I could sit down and devote a couple of days to making a list. But I haven't yet, and don't foresee doing it. It's not that its hard, it's that its a completely pointless task with little to no reward.

So you are arguing, in essence that either a genius or a psychotically dedicated individual actually sat down and Voldemort-ed his name rather that simply come up with a random alias. Not something a genius would do by the way, since a genius is smart enough to realize how much easier making **** up is.

So you are looking for Voldemort. I'm not kidding. Evil psychopath self obsessed to the point of compulsively playing Boggle with his own name, using it for nefarious undercover purposes in order to protect his real identity while still maintaining the sanctity of his own name in scrambled form. Such a singular form of narcissism that it became a major plot point in a fantasy book and movie for kids. For kids, because every adult wondered why he didn't just go with John Parker or something equally easy.

So you are looking for Voldemort. I just want to make that clear. How likely is it that some guy was actually pulling a Voldemort and got away with it?

Well Pierre's suspect is also He who cannot be named, so he's got similarity to voldemort too.

[Elamarna]

Hi Jeff,

Thanks. I would have had no reason for worrying about the pawn tickets were it not for the names they contain.

And you canīt test things from 1888 against a website. You need data from the past.

I have a really big problem now, and that is the collection of sources pointing in a direction I do not wish them to point. Nothing has changed. On the contrary.

Here is an interesting book on serial killerīs communications by the way:

Clues From Killers: Serial Murder And Crime Scene Messages, Dirk C. Gibson.

Best wishes, Pierre

Dear Pierre

I really wish you would explain why you say its a problem!

Why do you not wish the data to point in one direction?

Why do you find the truth as you see it uncomfortable?



The often repeated comments that you hope you are wrong, are not what I expect from a historian or a scientist of any note.

The prime goal of such disciplines is to reveal the "truth".

If that is not possible then the goal must be to take us to a position closer to solution than when we started, be that in this field, studying the dead sea scrolls, an area we know you are interested in, or advances in medicine.

As an Historian surely you want the past to reveal its secrets?


However you claim to be uncomfortable with the solution you are studying here. One is tempted to ask why then study history?



Despite what you repeat, it is obvious to all that this "project" is of some importance to you.
To pretend it is not is somewhat self-defeating, when one spends several hours most days on this site, and spends time researching, it strongly suggests that this "project" is important and this forum is something you wish to be involved in.

I am like Jeff, I feel that you have made a worthwhile contribution in some areas, However the portrayal of yourself as some form of martyr to History, is at once both faintly amusing and very annoying.

Hope the research come to a good conclusion for you anyway.

Regards

Steve

[John G]

I have followed Pierre's various postings and threads for nearly the full year now. If he had an idea of a targeted suspect, I suspect it is one he may have altered since he started.

The image I have gotten from Pierre is someone who is grasping at a set of ideas that when he thought them up sounded perfect - on paper - but that had to be tested. Hence he came to this website. And he found that many people (including myself, I'm sorry to say) got more than negative in their objections to his ideas. However (and I guess he will reject this and say I have no business saying it), he appears to have an inflated sense of his own mental abilities - to the point that he gets into absurd (not to him, but to most of us) arguments not as much on substance (which his arguments allow him to by-pass) but semantics or language. That may explain this recent curiosity I've shown on Errata's use of Lord Vortemond's name as a noun. It actually was a lingual problem that intrigued me. Not like Pierre straining to explain what he meant that David or some other critic won't accept (and which I find hard to swallow when reading the explinations).

Still, if he could restrain the attack mode he shows, Pierre might actually prove a worthy addition to this board. He certainly opened up some issues (how important they are, or how one could adequately discuss or handle them are other matters) that few of us considered. I had read of Eddowes' murder several times, and I never considered the issue of the pawn tickets.
For that thank you for bringing them up.

Jeff

As I've said before, I really don't think this mystery will be solved by resorting to anagrams, near homonyms, metaphors and the like. Frankly, it's a Stephen Knight approach to history, which effectively says: "Why resort to a commonsense explanation, based upon accurate historical research, when a more convoluted alternative, and one completely lacking in substance, is available?"

[John G]

Hi John G.

Actually a language's ability to adapt new words to express new ideas makes that language living - which is why ancient Etruscan is no longer on our tongues. The Elizabethan period certainly caused a definite explosion in the power of the language (till then considered by most a kind of twisted off-shoot of French). Shakespeare wasn't alone in this explosion. Marlowe, Jonson, Spencer, Sidney, all contributed to it as well, but Shakespeare led the pack. A good way to recall how many people were involved is to mention John Lily (spelling there?), who created, in his work "Euphews", the word play called "euphemisms". That was before the first works of Shakespeare.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for this. Of course, the Elizabethan period was a golden era for English drama and poetry, and was only matched by the Romantic Poets of the early eighteenth century: Wandsworth, Coleridge, Shelley, Keats, Byron, Blake, Scott...

My personal favourite of this period? Percy Bysshe Shelley.

[Pierre]

I have followed Pierre's various postings and threads for nearly the full year now. If he had an idea of a targeted suspect, I suspect it is one he may have altered since he started.

The image I have gotten from Pierre is someone who is grasping at a set of ideas that when he thought them up sounded perfect - on paper - but that had to be tested. Hence he came to this website. And he found that many people (including myself, I'm sorry to say) got more than negative in their objections to his ideas. However (and I guess he will reject this and say I have no business saying it), he appears to have an inflated sense of his own mental abilities - to the point that he gets into absurd (not to him, but to most of us) arguments not as much on substance (which his arguments allow him to by-pass) but semantics or language. That may explain this recent curiosity I've shown on Errata's use of Lord Vortemond's name as a noun. It actually was a lingual problem that intrigued me. Not like Pierre straining to explain what he meant that David or some other critic won't accept (and which I find hard to swallow when reading the explinations).

Still, if he could restrain the attack mode he shows, Pierre might actually prove a worthy addition to this board. He certainly opened up some issues (how important they are, or how one could adequately discuss or handle them are other matters) that few of us considered. I had read of Eddowes' murder several times, and I never considered the issue of the pawn tickets.
For that thank you for bringing them up.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Thanks. I would have had no reason for worrying about the pawn tickets were it not for the names they contain.

And you canīt test things from 1888 against a website. You need data from the past.

I have a really big problem now, and that is the collection of sources pointing in a direction I do not wish them to point. Nothing has changed. On the contrary.

Here is an interesting book on serial killerīs communications by the way:

Clues From Killers: Serial Murder And Crime Scene Messages, Dirk C. Gibson.

Best wishes, Pierre

[Errata]

Hi Errata,

I am aware of names becoming part of the language (i.e., to Bowdlerize, wearing a Cardigan sweater, having a Raglan sleeve, growing Burnsides (or sideburns) on one's face), but I never saw this with the speed involved in Rowlings' creation of the series of books, and some attempt to use the villain's name. My interest stems from being my father's son - he was a linguist.

Closest I ever saw to it was how the image of Professor Moriarty was picked up (after 1893) as the symbol of a brilliant criminal leader, but even when it was it would be somebody saying something like "Capone was the Moriarty of the mob in Chicago), not "Quickly, Capone's actions in taking over the city "moriartized" the mob power there."

Jeff

I just make up words sometimes. especially in situations like this where a behavior is being described that almost perfectly lines up with a person or character. Especially Muppets. Because I have a long standing love of Muppets. Things get "Muppety", some guy is always getting "Beakered", Throwing a "Kermit", "Muppet" arms is a thing... also a lot of Star Wars references. Clearly I'm a nerd, and that is reflected in my illustrations and comparisons.

The English language is not sufficiently absurd or fantastic to keep up with my life. So I make stuff up. Sometimes it sticks in my peer group. Sometimes not.

So when someone describes a set of behaviors most recently seen in JK Rowlings villain, yeah. Can't help it. I love language. But I want to play with things I love.

[Mayerling]

Well, it's several months now since he apparently discovered another vital piece of information, leading him to conclude "I must have found him", and stating there was now hardly any doubt about it. But since then...nada.

Mind you, concerning the negative feedback for his method of approach, which is certainly non conventional and probably unique (not conforming to that of a mainstream historian or even a postmodernist) I'm not surprised he doesn't want to reveal a name; and, for my part, I very much doubt that such a method is destined to solve anything. And perhaps joining the forums was simply a means of "testing the waters" in respect of his suspect, and they have now got a little too icy for his liking!

Also, somewhat unusually for a academic historian, he doesn't seem to have published anything!

I have followed Pierre's various postings and threads for nearly the full year now. If he had an idea of a targeted suspect, I suspect it is one he may have altered since he started.

The image I have gotten from Pierre is someone who is grasping at a set of ideas that when he thought them up sounded perfect - on paper - but that had to be tested. Hence he came to this website. And he found that many people (including myself, I'm sorry to say) got more than negative in their objections to his ideas. However (and I guess he will reject this and say I have no business saying it), he appears to have an inflated sense of his own mental abilities - to the point that he gets into absurd (not to him, but to most of us) arguments not as much on substance (which his arguments allow him to by-pass) but semantics or language. That may explain this recent curiosity I've shown on Errata's use of Lord Vortemond's name as a noun. It actually was a lingual problem that intrigued me. Not like Pierre straining to explain what he meant that David or some other critic won't accept (and which I find hard to swallow when reading the explinations).

Still, if he could restrain the attack mode he shows, Pierre might actually prove a worthy addition to this board. He certainly opened up some issues (how important they are, or how one could adequately discuss or handle them are other matters) that few of us considered. I had read of Eddowes' murder several times, and I never considered the issue of the pawn tickets.
For that thank you for bringing them up.

Jeff