Pawn tickets in Mitre Square

[Pierre]

Except that, on your account, there was no "criminal activity" by Kelly (or Eddowes) because, on your account, Kelly had never seen the tickets before so that cannot possibly be a sensible motive.

You have gotten everything I explained to you about the pawn tickets wrong. Go back and read.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;390574]

Pierre

There appears to be an inconsistency here compared to your previous messages.

When asked if the alleged communication in the mustard tin contained any information or message? YOU told me no just the full name, nothing else.

That is not biographical information is it?

It appears you so often forget what you have said in previous posts.

Steve

Hi Steve,

We seem to have different definitions of biographical information. What I mean is personal data.

And no, I do not "forget" (and that is not important).

Pierre

[MysterySinger]

Not forgetting the pawn ticket found in Mary Kelly's room.

[David Orsam]

Because there is not a set of historical sources for Samuel Miller which shows that he was the killer. You need sources 1) from his life that can 2) explain the Whitechapel murders. It is not enough to postulate that his name is in a source and that his wife´s name is in the same source. You must be able to 3) connect that to his own life and to events in his own life. There must even be 4) indications on a micro level that he was the killer. And 5) you must be able to explain why the sources are what they are from his perspective. There must even be 6) dates in his own life explaining the dates of the murders and the communication, and you must 7) have sources that show that he was there. You must also 8) have sources that show why the murders started, 9) ended, 10) started again and 11) ended again. And last but not least you must 12) have a confession.

Do you have all this and can you connect it to Samuel Miller?

This is completely the wrong answer Pierre. You see, even if I have all those historical sources and a wonderful collection of evidence against Samuel Miller (and I'm not telling you if I do nor not), and even if Samuel Miller was, in fact, the killer, that still does NOT mean that the messages I can find in the pawn tickets or the lyrics to "Sweet Violets" pointing to Miller as the killer (or the fact that Miller's wife was called Zillah) have any meaning whatsoever. They could all just be pure coincidence.

It's a good example of where you are going wrong in all your threads. You seem to think that because you have evidence against a suspect that all these weird messages that you think you find in strange places have meaning and are significant. But you can find weird messages about almost anyone in almost anything if you look hard enough. And that's the problem. Your unsupported certainty as to the killer's identity, combined with your unuspported certainty that the killer left messages for the police, is causing you to imagine things which are not there in reality.

[David Orsam]

You have the same problem with the message from Rader. You get lots of names "hidden" in it.
And it was still sent by the killer.

No the problem is yours Pierre. If there really are irrelevant names "hidden" in Rader's message (of which you have yet to prove) then it means that a killer can send a message to the press/police which contains names which have absolutely nothing to do with the murder.

So even if the pawn tickets do contain a message (which is so unlikely that it can be ignored) the name that you think you have found in the pawn tickets could easily be the wrong one couldn't it?

And that is the case even if there are other "sources" to support your argument about your suspect because it could no more than a coincidence couldn't it?

[David Orsam]

That is easy to answer. If you go through the sources, you will find that there was communication.

What sources can I possibly "go through" which will show me (a) that there was communication from the killer to the police within the pawn tickets (b) that this communication involved the killer revealing his name and (c) that the name he revealed was the name of your suspect?

Pierre I regret to say that I do not believe you for one second that any such sources exist or possibly can exist.

[David Orsam]

No, it is you who thinks that criminal activity is not a sensible motive.

Except that, on your account, there was no "criminal activity" by Kelly (or Eddowes) because, on your account, Kelly had never seen the tickets before so that cannot possibly be a sensible motive.

[David Orsam]

Of course you can compare them. It is easy.

The message from Rader was to the press, the mustard tin was found at the murder site.

The message from Rader contained a lot of redundant letters. The mustard tin contained very few redundant letters.

The message from Rader contained biographical information. The mustard tin contained biographical information.

The message from Rader gave the police and others a chance to identify the killer. The content in the mustard tin gave the police and others a chance to identify the killer.

Every one of these is a false comparison.

Firstly the message from Rader was an actual and obvious message. It was clear to the press and to everyone that it must contain a message from the killer. The pawn tickets on the other hand looked like pawn tickets - not a message - and no-one - not a single person - even suspected that they would contain any form of message from the killer so that no-one looked for one.

Secondly, the point about redundant letters is moot because you can see that the puzzle contains actual words hidden within what appears at first glance to be a random sequence of letters. It doesn't involve selecting certain letters at random and rearranging them.

Thirdly, I have to echo what Steve has said. A name is not "biographical information".

Fourthly, re. "The content in the mustard tin gave the police and others a chance to identify the killer", what a lot of nonsense! The content in the mustard tin gave the police and others no chance whatsoever to identify the killer. It's literally impossible. There are probably thousands of names which can be extracted from the 42 characters in the pawn tickets and you've been given plenty. What's the point of a puzzle which is impossible to solve?

In short, Pierre, there is no comparison whatsoever between the Rader puzzle and the pawn tickets, not to mention that there is testimony that the pawn tickets were in Eddowes' possession before she was murdered. It's all madness.

[Elamarna]

The message from Rader contained biographical information. The mustard tin contained biographical information.

Pierre

There appears to be an inconsistency here compared to your previous messages.

When asked if the alleged communication in the mustard tin contained any information or message? YOU told me no just the full name, nothing else.

That is not biographical information is it?

It appears you so often forget what you have said in previous posts.


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;390564]

I already commented on this in the Sweet Violets thread yesterday Pierre. I said:

"There is absolutely no comparison between an obviously coded message provided by a killer to the police/media and the pawn tickets found next to Eddowes' body for which there was actual sworn testimony that they were in the possession of Eddowes before she was murdered".

Of course you can compare them. It is easy.

The message from Rader was to the press, the mustard tin was found at the murder site.

The message from Rader contained a lot of redundant letters. The mustard tin contained very few redundant letters.

The message from Rader contained biographical information. The mustard tin contained biographical information.

The message from Rader gave the police and others a chance to identify the killer. The content in the mustard tin gave the police and others a chance to identify the killer.

I appreciate that you are utterly obsessed with the notion that Jack the Ripper attempted some form of communication with the authorities but how you can compare two normal pawn tickets (for which there is no reason at all to think they are in code or in any form of "anagram type" puzzle) with an actual word puzzle is beyond me. To even think that the pawn tickets comprise a word puzzle you have to try and discredit the inquest evidence of John Kelly for which you have yet to come up with any kind of sensible motive as to why he would have lied.

No, it is you who thinks that criminal activity is not a sensible motive.

And even if (which is too ridiculous to contemplate) the pawn tickets were magically planted by the killer in the form of a puzzle, you have failed to provide a convincing explanation as to why YOU have found the solution.

That is easy to answer. If you go through the sources, you will find that there was communication.

There are, as we have seen, lots of names "hidden" in the words on the pawn tickets so why is the name that you have identified any better than anyone else's?

You have the same problem with the message from Rader. You get lots of names "hidden" in it.
And it was still sent by the killer.

Furthermore, out of Jane Kelly, Emily Birrell, White's Row and Dorset Street I can extract the phrases "Miller is the killer" (and even S. Miller is the killer) and "Miller done it" and plenty more if I put my mind to it. The phrase "Samuel Miller is the killer" can also be found (in that order) in the lyrics to "Sweet Violets". So (bearing in mind that MJK was murdered in Miller's Court) do the pawn tickets and the lyrics to "Sweet Violets" in combination point to Samuel Miller, whose wife's name was Zillah, as the killer? If not, why not?

Because there is not a set of historical sources for Samuel Miller which shows that he was the killer. You need sources 1) from his life that can 2) explain the Whitechapel murders. It is not enough to postulate that his name is in a source and that his wife´s name is in the same source. You must be able to 3) connect that to his own life and to events in his own life. There must even be 4) indications on a micro level that he was the killer. And 5) you must be able to explain why the sources are what they are from his perspective. There must even be 6) dates in his own life explaining the dates of the murders and the communication, and you must 7) have sources that show that he was there. You must also 8) have sources that show why the murders started, 9) ended, 10) started again and 11) ended again. And last but not least you must 12) have a confession.

Do you have all this and can you connect it to Samuel Miller?

[David Orsam]

I already commented on this in the Sweet Violets thread yesterday Pierre. I said:

"There is absolutely no comparison between an obviously coded message provided by a killer to the police/media and the pawn tickets found next to Eddowes' body for which there was actual sworn testimony that they were in the possession of Eddowes before she was murdered".

I appreciate that you are utterly obsessed with the notion that Jack the Ripper attempted some form of communication with the authorities but how you can compare two normal pawn tickets (for which there is no reason at all to think they are in code or in any form of "anagram type" puzzle) with an actual word puzzle is beyond me. To even think that the pawn tickets comprise a word puzzle you have to try and discredit the inquest evidence of John Kelly for which you have yet to come up with any kind of sensible motive as to why he would have lied.

And even if (which is too ridiculous to contemplate) the pawn tickets were magically planted by the killer in the form of a puzzle, you have failed to provide a convincing explanation as to why YOU have found the solution. There are, as we have seen, lots of names "hidden" in the words on the pawn tickets so why is the name that you have identified any better than anyone else's?

Furthermore, out of Jane Kelly, Emily Birrell, White's Row and Dorset Street I can extract the phrases "Miller is the killer" (and even S. Miller is the killer) and "Miller done it" and plenty more if I put my mind to it. The phrase "Samuel Miller is the killer" can also be found (in that order) in the lyrics to "Sweet Violets". So (bearing in mind that MJK was murdered in Miller's Court) do the pawn tickets and the lyrics to "Sweet Violets" in combination point to Samuel Miller, whose wife's name was Zillah, as the killer? If not, why not?

Pierre I can understand anyone who thinks this thread is a joke created by you as a laugh because it is simply so absurd. I happen to think that you are being serious, which is extraordinary, but you don't seem to realise how crazy this line of enquiry is.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Pierre;390522]

Now, read this word puzzle from the BTK-killer. Compared to this, the mustard tin is a simple little thing.

http://www.tabloidcolumn.com/btk-puzzle.html

Didn´t you have any comments on this, David?

You do not need to state the obvious again, i.e. telling us the contents of these different sources, but it would be interesting to hear some more theoretic and analytic comments for once.

One could, for example, start with such questions as:

What do you think about the BTK-killers communication?

What do you think he wanted to achieve?

What could a killer in Mitre Square have wanted to achieve with a communication in a mustard tin?

What are the differences between the two types of communication and what could they imply?

For example, you have a lot more redundant letters in the BTK-communication and there are many more words included in the communication he sent.

I am also very interested in the date of the murders and the communications left at this date as well as in a possible connection to the two sources, the mustard tin and the Goulston Street graffito. I am also very interested in what you think about the possible recipient(s) of these communications.

What are your theoretic and/or analytic opinions about this?

[Pierre]

You are wrong actually Pierre. I can do this as much as anyone else if I want to.

In this case, however, I wasn't 'deciding whether or not a serial killer expressed himself through letters and in what form'. I was simply stating a fact based on what you have told us.

Although you initially said in#103 that we were dealing with "An anagram for a complete, full name with all the given names and the surname", it transpires that we are not dealing with an anagram at all because, according to you, not all the letters in the puzzle have been used to create 'the solution'.

That is why I said accurately: "I wouldn't mind, but the 'puzzle' Pierre is telling us the killer left for the police isn't even an anagram!"

It was an answer to Steve who asked me if it is an anagram type of solution and I did not write the full expression, which I hereby point out to you that I should have written. It is an anagram type of solution.

Now, read this word puzzle from the BTK-killer. Compared to this, the mustard tin is a simple little thing.

http://www.tabloidcolumn.com/btk-puzzle.html

[David Orsam]

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

You are wrong actually Pierre. I can do this as much as anyone else if I want to.

In this case, however, I wasn't 'deciding whether or not a serial killer expressed himself through letters and in what form'. I was simply stating a fact based on what you have told us.

Although you initially said in#103 that we were dealing with "An anagram for a complete, full name with all the given names and the surname", it transpires that we are not dealing with an anagram at all because, according to you, not all the letters in the puzzle have been used to create 'the solution'.

That is why I said accurately: "I wouldn't mind, but the 'puzzle' Pierre is telling us the killer left for the police isn't even an anagram!"

[Pierre]

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.

Hi,

I am actually not relying on anything. I merely ask questions. Sometimes the sources kick back. I let them.

Hypothesis are preliminary working tools.

They are not the Bible.

Regards, Pierre