Pawn tickets in Mitre Square

[Mayerling]

Well I've always known I could get Geoff and Geoffrey out of mine, but other than that never even thought about it.

G'Day GUT,

Funny, I can frequently get Jeff out of mine, but when my mother was mad at me (as a kid) she'd start calling me "Jefferson", which had nothing to do with my name!

Jeff

[Mayerling]

Perhaps the English language is becoming less formalized, as indeed it was in the Elizabethan era, which might not be a bad thing. In fact, there wasn't even an English dictionary until 1538, when a basic workbook was published. And the next effort didn't appear until 1583. Shakespeare, of course, didn't write in formal English (there was no such thing at the time) and actually made up many words. And, as I recall, he was a fairly respected writer!

Unfortunately, I haven't read Harry Potter, however, I enjoy the Robert Galbraith crime fiction stories.

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

[Mayerling]

Haha when a set of behaviors has no other single name, it is traditional to name that set of behaviors after a person engaging in those behaviors. Bowdlerize springs to mind as an example.

And if said person happens to be both modern and fictional, then so be it.

Or alternative explanation, I don't mind making up words as long as my intended meaning is clear. After all, all words have to start somewhere, and why not with me when it all boils down to it. I'm just as able as the guy who coined the term "infarct" which is both slightly incorrect and incredibly silly sounding. Though really much more serious in content than "Voldemort-ed". So perhaps I shouldn't poke fun.

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

[John G]

Do you believe he had one when he first posted?

I doubt it myself.

And that last piece of data he was so close to getting that would solve it all..... Well not much seems to have come from that.

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!

[Errata]

Hi Errata,

I'm not a genius, but I do try to learn as much as I can. Outside of specialty donut shops (read "Dunkin' Donuts" and "Starbucks" you don't have to spend $5.00 on a cup of coffee. In fact, if I had visitors who wanted coffee I'd make it and not charge anything.

But I am curious (really) about the term you used. I know who "Lord Voldemort" is in the "Harry Potter" stories. But has it now emerged as a new English language verb, to "voldemort", meaning to use one's name's letters in various ways to send a secret code to followers or allies that you (the manipulator of the method) are involved? If so I'm amazed at the speed this has happened. I don't think the Rowling novels have been in circulation for more than two decades.

Jeff

Haha when a set of behaviors has no other single name, it is traditional to name that set of behaviors after a person engaging in those behaviors. Bowdlerize springs to mind as an example.

And if said person happens to be both modern and fictional, then so be it.

Or alternative explanation, I don't mind making up words as long as my intended meaning is clear. After all, all words have to start somewhere, and why not with me when it all boils down to it. I'm just as able as the guy who coined the term "infarct" which is both slightly incorrect and incredibly silly sounding. Though really much more serious in content than "Voldemort-ed". So perhaps I shouldn't poke fun.

[GUT]

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 I've always known I could get Geoff and Geoffrey out of mine, but other than that never even thought about it.

[GUT]

It's been so long since Pierre's original post, and he seems to have invested so little time in researching his "suspect" since, he's possibly forgotten who he is!

Do you believe he had one when he first posted?

I doubt it myself.

And that last piece of data he was so close to getting that would solve it all..... Well not much seems to have come from that.

[John G]

Perhaps the English language is becoming less formalized, as indeed it was in the Elizabethan era, which might not be a bad thing. In fact, there wasn't even an English dictionary until 1538, when a basic workbook was published. And the next effort didn't appear until 1583. Shakespeare, of course, didn't write in formal English (there was no such thing at the time) and actually made up many words. And, as I recall, he was a fairly respected writer!

Unfortunately, I haven't read Harry Potter, however, I enjoy the Robert Galbraith crime fiction stories.

[Mayerling]

English use inquiry

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...

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?

Hi Errata,

I'm not a genius, but I do try to learn as much as I can. Outside of specialty donut shops (read "Dunkin' Donuts" and "Starbucks" you don't have to spend $5.00 on a cup of coffee. In fact, if I had visitors who wanted coffee I'd make it and not charge anything.

But I am curious (really) about the term you used. I know who "Lord Voldemort" is in the "Harry Potter" stories. But has it now emerged as a new English language verb, to "voldemort", meaning to use one's name's letters in various ways to send a secret code to followers or allies that you (the manipulator of the method) are involved? If so I'm amazed at the speed this has happened. I don't think the Rowling novels have been in circulation for more than two decades.

Jeff

[John G]

Sssssh! You're not supposed to mention "he-who-must-not-be-named". But you're probably right - certainly Pierre seems reluctant to name him!

It's been so long since Pierre's original post, and he seems to have invested so little time in researching his "suspect" since, he's possibly forgotten who he is!

[John G]

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?

I think this is a brilliant post. In fact, one of the best I've read on Casebook.

[Joshua Rogan]

Sssssh! You're not supposed to mention "he-who-must-not-be-named". But you're probably right - certainly Pierre seems reluctant to name him!

[Errata]

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?

[David Orsam]

David has already failed to answer the questions here

......

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?

As Pierre claims that I haven't answered his questions I thought I would just do it. So here goes:

A) Could John Kelly have had any reason to lie about the pawn tickets found on Eddowes? - No.

B) Two false adresses in a mustard tin – why should the name Emily Birrell be authentic? - There is no particular reason why the name Emily Birrell should have been authentic, it might have been a false name but Kelly evidently knew her by that name.

C) There is no evidence for an Emily Birrell giving a pawn ticket to Eddowes. Why? - Because this was irrelevant to any issues the inquest jury had to decide and no evidence needed to be called at the inquest about it.

D) Why was that ticket dated 31 August? - Because that was the day the flannel shirt was put into pawn before Birrell went hopping in September.

E) Why is the adress Dorset Street on the pawn ticket in the name of Jane Kelly and why this special combination? - Because Eddowes was prone to giving false addresses (such as 6 Fashion Street) and false names (such as Mary Ann Kelly) and she was living with a man called Kelly.

There we are. All answered. And all very simple and easy.

[David Orsam]

Looking back over this thread, it's interesting to find that I posted (back in February) in #92:

"If we apply some "critical thinking" to this matter, we can deduce from the fact that Pierre started this thread within the "Letters & Communication" forum, that he clearly believes that the murderer was trying to communicate with the police via the pawn tickets (or at least he did when he started the thread)."

Pierre's response to this in #93 was to say:

"That is your own idea."

I must say, in the light of Pierre's stated hypothesis that the killer was communicating his name to the police in the pawn tickets, I find that answer to have been disingenuous at the least.

I responded in #94 saying:

"Yes, that's right Pierre. It is my deduction from using "critical thinking" and, having read your response, in which you fail to offer any alternative explanation, I am certain I am correct."

I also said:

"Please then explain why you started this thread in the "Letters and Communication" forum."

There was never any response to this post and the entire thread went dead until Pierre posted again on 21 July in #95, ironically to say "David has already failed to answer the questions here" when this was not true.