Pawn tickets in Mitre Square

[Errata]

maybe the value of the shirt was that it was less than the cost of a new one? If they trusted the original owner to reasonably approximate the condition of the shirt, it would be a win/win deal.

[Rosella]

In Sally Mitchell's 'Daily Life in Victorian England' she writes, a new working man's shirt could be bought for 1shilling and 4 pence, (and a pair of socks for 9d.)

[GUT]

Doubt that anyone who had experience with a Pawn Shop wouldn't realise that the loan would only be for a fraction of the value of the item.

[Scott Nelson]

Would it have made fiscal sense if the flannel shirt was worth more than 10―d?

But Simon replied that the question was unanswerable. Fiscal sense with respect to whom? Did Kelly and Eddowes have any fiscal sense as to the value of a flannel shirt at that particular time?

[Abby Normal]

Hi David,

Explain to me exactly how Eddowes and Kelly might have known the value of the shirt.

Regards,

Simon

Common sense?

[Abby Normal]

Hi David,

Explain to me exactly how Eddowes and Kelly might have known the value of the shirt.

Regards,

Simon

Double post

[Abby Normal]

Where can I get Simons book.

I'd like to read it.

[lynn cates]

bare feet

Hello Errata.

"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."

Did John not "recall' standing in bare feet?

Cheers.
LC

[David Orsam]

But Simon replied that the question was unanswerable. Fiscal sense with respect to whom?

Simon did indeed eventually reply that the question was unanswerable, having originally said he had no difficulty answering it, but he did not explain why. I replied that it was not unanswerable but nevertheless amended the question to make it easier for him. It was Simon himself who introduced the concept of fiscal sense when he said that for Eddowes to have accepted the pawn ticket, "does not make a great deal of sense, fiscal or otherwise, to a cash-strapped couple allegedly having to walk from Maidstone to London" so the answer to your question is right there. I was asking if it would have made fiscal sense to the cash-strapped couple if the value of the flannel shirt was more than 10―d. A very simple question, Scott.

Did Kelly and Eddowes have any fiscal sense as to the value of a flannel shirt at that particular time?

This is irrelevant to the question I originally asked but you might have seen that my modified question in #22 was:

Would it have made fiscal sense if the flannel shirt was worth more than 10―d and Eddowes and/or Kelly knew this?

Simon failed to answer this one too.

[David Orsam]

Explain to me exactly how Eddowes and Kelly might have known the value of the shirt.

Simon, as I said earlier in this thread I will be very happy to answer any questions you have - and I believe I can explain how Eddowes and Kelly might have known that the value of the shirt was greater than 10―d - but for the sake of good order to the discussion perhaps you would care to answer my very simple question first.

For the purposes of my question, as modified, you do not need to worry how Eddowes and Kelly might have known that the value of the shirt was greater than 10―d because it is assumed in the question. Thus:

Would it have made fiscal sense if the flannel shirt was worth more than 10―d and Eddowes and/or Kelly knew this?

You see, you do not have to accept, or agree, that they knew it, the question is predicated on the fact that they did.

[Varqm]

To poor people potential value is value.Unless 100% sure either way
it's kept.

[Errata]

A pawn broker lends less than he can sell the item for except on very rare occasions. A shirt is not a rare occassion. So If the ticket was for 10 1/2d, they knew the value was going to be more than that amount because they know the pawnbroker anticipated selling it for more than that amount, say, 15d or more. If the pawn broker doesn't think he can make money selling it, he doesn't take the pawn. And if there is one thing you can count on it is that pawn brokers are not angels of mercy making great deals to help the innocent poor.

[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.

D) Yes, but the date on that ticket was "31 August". It was issued on the day of the murder of Polly Nichols.

E) But he couldnīt have planned the murder on Kelly before Barnett moved out, or could he? So is it a pure coincidence?

And the contents of the two pawn tickets taken together - is it a pure coincidence that there were to bits of paper in a tin on the murder site in Mitre Square, giving the date for the day of the murder in Buckīs row as well as the name of the victim and the street where the next murder would occur?

And was John Kelly just protecting the memory of the deceased, thinking that she might have been pawning some stolen goods?

Regards, Pierre

[Phil Carter]

Here's a thought or two.

When a person pawns an item..They know one thing. They need money. Fast.
Now..passing that pawn ticket on to a third party is. .amongst poor people. .only done if money was owed to the third party but at that moment could not be repaid. Hence. Take my own ticket..its all I have is one possibility. .

Or..It gets stolen from the owner at some stage.

Acts of charity at this level are rare I'd suggest.
but all of the above can be used if forming a line of opinion. However..We do not know any of the above happened.


Therefore it isn't certain either that Eddowes or Kelly WOULD know the value of the item. There is no firm ground for speculating that either would. But one can make up reasons for anything if wanting to make a point I suppose.

Phil

[David Orsam]

Here's a thought or two.

When a person pawns an item..They know one thing. They need money. Fast.
Now..passing that pawn ticket on to a third party is. .amongst poor people. .only done if money was owed to the third party but at that moment could not be repaid. Hence. Take my own ticket..its all I have is one possibility. .

Or..It gets stolen from the owner at some stage.

Acts of charity at this level are rare I'd suggest.
but all of the above can be used if forming a line of opinion. However..We do not know any of the above happened.


Therefore it isn't certain either that Eddowes or Kelly WOULD know the value of the item. There is no firm ground for speculating that either would. But one can make up reasons for anything if wanting to make a point I suppose.

Phil

Hi Phil, funnily enough, I've been expecting you would be posting in this thread.

Can I just say that if any of the above has been posted in respect of my question to Simon then you have misunderstood it.

Just to clarify. I am asking Simon if holding on to the pawn ticket would have made fiscal sense (to use his expression) to Eddowes/Kelly if they knew that the shirt was worth more than the cost of redeeming the ticket.

In answering this question, one only has to assume that the shirt was worth more than the value of the ticket and that Eddowes/Kelly knew it. One does not need to speculate about anything or to agree or admit that the value of the shirt was in fact worth more than the ticket or to agree or admit that Eddowes/Kelly knew it. That is the meaning of the word "if" in the question. It is, if you like, hypothetical. I am trying to understand the principle, or principles, involved in Simon's concept of fiscal sense.

I might add that whether the ticket was given to Eddowes/Kelly as an act of charity or for any other reason is utterly irrelevant to my question because I am only asking about the motives of Eddowes/Kelly.