Pawn tickets in Mitre Square

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Really?

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Really?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

Yes, really.

Do you know the difference between an expert witness and a witness of fact?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Thank you. I'm glad somebody's awake.

I checked my notes and the error is all mine.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Thank you. I'm glad somebody's awake.

I checked my notes and the error is all mine.

Regards,

Simon

Very good, thank you for confirming Simon.

[David Orsam]

Joseph Jones and his son made a number of expert witness appearances at the Old Bailey. He kept strict accounts and was very proper about such things.

Given that the first sentence above is wrong, I assume there are no grounds for saying that Joseph Jones kept strict accounts and was "very proper about such things".

[Monty]

Jones should have kept good records, as part of his license.

However...

Monty

[David Orsam]

Jones should have kept good records, as part of his license.

However...

Yes, indeed, and Simon was trying to eliminate the 'However...' part with his reference to Jones being an expert witness - but, unless Simon has some secret information about Jones, we simply don't know whether he was a 'very proper' pawnbroker or a shady character in the world of Whitechapel pawnbroking.

[David Orsam]

Catherine Eddowes pawned Johns boots under the name Jane Kelly, so she could not have passed herself off as Emily Burrel to redeem the shirt. Joseph Jones and his son made a number of expert witness appearances at the Old Bailey. He kept strict accounts and was very proper about such things.

So Emily Burrell's pawn ticket was useless to Catherine and John

The good news, Simon, is that it doesn't matter whether Joshua Jones was a 'very proper' pawnbroker or not because your argument is based on a false premise. Eddowes had no need to pass herself off as Emily Burrell to redeem the shirt.

Pawnbrokers Act of 1872, S.25.

Your conclusion as set out above is, therefore, invalid.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

What a busy little beaver you have been.

The good news is that none of it really matters, as Catherine Eddowes never got around to redeeming the flannel shirt.

As for Joseph Jones being a very proper pawnbroker, the opinion depends on from where you source your information.

That should keep you busy for a while.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

The good news is that none of it really matters, as Catherine Eddowes never got around to redeeming the flannel shirt.

You say that now Simon but it wasn't very long ago in this thread that you were telling me:

"Personally, I doubt the provenance of the Emily Burrell pawn ticket."

The grounds on which that opinion was based have now been shown to be false so I don't know where that leaves your opinion.

Having said that, I do agree with you (if you are saying as much) that the provenance of the Emily Burrell pawn ticket is wholly irrelevant to any issue relating to Eddowes' murder.

[Scott Nelson]

Eddowes had no need to pass herself off as Emily Burrell to redeem the shirt.

Pawnbrokers Act of 1872, S.25.

Would she even have known that she didn't have to do so?

[GUT]

Would she even have known that she didn't have to do so?

Probably>

Seems they had a bit of experience.

[David Orsam]

Would she even have known that she didn't have to do so?

Why wouldn't she? It was common knowledge in the nineteenth century when pawn tickets were bought and sold and could pass through many hands.

[Pierre]

Problems with your discussions

The good news is that none of it really matters, as Catherine Eddowes never got around to redeeming the flannel shirt.

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

[David Orsam]

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. 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.

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.

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.

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. Newspapers were not producing works of fiction every day, especially the Times. The reported reason for John Kelly coming forward is that he recognised the names on the pawn tickets.

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

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.

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.

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.