Pawn tickets in Mitre Square

[Pierre]

Fiscal Sense

[QUOTE=David Orsam;371454]

Hi,

there was a question posed here by David some time ago concerning another question posed by Simon. Simon wrote:

Catherine Eddowes accepting a 9d pawn ticket from Emily Burrell for an unseen flannel shirt which may or may not have fitted John Kelly, and which, with interest and the pawn ticket fee, would have cost her 10½d to find out, does not make a great deal of sense, fiscal or otherwise, to a cash-strapped couple allegedly having to walk from Maidstone to London.

David answered with a question and wrote:

Would it have made fiscal sense if the flannel shirt was worth more than 10½d?

I will now give my answer to this question.

1. Pawn tickets themselves had a market value, as opposed to the items they represented. You could sell pawn tickets on this market for a smaller sum than the value of the item (Ross, 1993, Love and Toil. Motherhood in Outcast London 1870-1918, p. 251).

2. Pawn tickets were stolen and sold on that market (ibid.).

3. People were sentenced to jail for stealing and selling pawn tickets (ibid.).

4. Both of the addresses on the pawn tickets found in the mustard tin where false. The probability for the name Kelly being the only true information on that ticket is therefore low.

5. The name Jane Kelly was false. The probability for the name Emily Birrell being true is therefore low.


6. We see the name of John Kelly and think that he is the explanation for the name "Kelly" on the pawn ticket with the name "Jane Kelly". But that is probably wrong, given point 4. It is probably a coincidence.

7. John Kelly told the police that a woman called Emily Birrell had given them the pawn ticket with that name on it. But the name Emily Birrell was in the newspapers before John Kelly went to the police. So he could have learned about the name from the papers.

8. Given the market and punishments for stolen pawn tickets, there is a strong reason to think that there is a tendency in the sources for the testimony from John Kelly about the pawn tickets. It is not controversial to hypothesize that he wanted to protect himself and the memory of Eddowes.

9. Given that he sees his surname in the papers and obtains the knowledge about the two pawn tickets through the papers before he contacts the police, there is reason to think he wanted to protect himself and the woman. This is important to acknowledge and it is not controversial.

10. Therefore, he had a motive for explaining the pawn ticket with his name on it. Therefore, there is a risk that he invented the story about the boots. This must be taken into consideration.

11. John Kelly knew that Eddowes sold some things on the streets. This knowledge might very well have included selling pawn tickets, since there was a market for it.

So YES, David - It would have made fiscal sense if the flannel shirt was worth more than 10½d. It would have made fiscal sense since there was a market where Eddowes could sell the tickets and get more for those tickets the higher the value for the items they represented.

BUT David, THIS is not the issue here. The issue is that you can not take the testimonies of people in the past, who have lived in poverty and criminality, and believe that they just simply told everyone the truth at a murder inquest!

As you see, there are many problems with these pawn tickets. There is no Emily Birrell corroborating what John Kelly said, Eddowes was a prostitute, the names and addresses on the pawn tickets where FALSE. And they were found at a murder site.

This is why I ask questions, David. And this is why you have not been able to answer my questions, although you try to make people here think that you know the answers.

But I do not ask YOU, David. I ask THE PAST. I am an historian. And these were my initial questions in this thread, and here I give some hypothetical answers, and they are deduced from the past:

Questions:

A) Could John Kelly have had any reason to lie about the pawn tickets found on Eddowes?

Yes. There was a market for pawn tickets. You could be sentenced to jail for selling pawn tickets. The names and addresses on the pawn tickets were false. One of them had John´s surname on it. Eddowes was selling things on the streets.

B) Two false adresses in a mustard tin – why should the name Emily Birrell be authentic?

Given the answers to A, there is no reason at all to believe that it should. There is no source corroborating John Kelly´s testimony.

C) There is no evidence for an Emily Birrell giving a pawn ticket to Eddowes. Why?

Because there was no Emily Birrell giving away pawn tickets to people. I.e., not in the sources from the past. The only source (!) is problematic.

D) Why was that ticket dated 31 August?

There is a reason to hypothesize that the pawn ticket was placed in Mitre Square by the killer. There is a reason to hypothesize that the date for the murder of Polly Nichols and the name and address for Mary Jane Kelly are clues. The pawn tickets in the mustard tin contained the full name of the killer. There is a reason to hypothesize that the killer taunted the police.

All of these reasons should be considered in the light of the problems with the provenience of the contents in the mustard tin.

And they are merely hypotheses and should be disproved. So that is the priority now.

E) Why is the adress Dorset Street on the pawn ticket in the name of Jane Kelly and why this special combination?

It was the next victim.

So, the conclusion is that "fiscal sense" = the higher the value for the item pawned, the higher the value when selling the pawn ticket on the market for pawn tickets. This means that it would have had "fiscal sense" if the flannel shirt was worth more than 10½d and it also had a fiscal sense to anyone who could sell such a pawn ticket whatever the value of the item.

But this question, as many other questions posed by you, David, is totally without scientific sense. You only take a lot of time, discussing nothing in absurdum.

If you have anything at all to contribute - except from telling others that you "have told them" - please do so. I have many questions right now, I am obliged to answer them, and my wish is to disprove every hypothesis. You tried to do that - at least I think you thought that you did - but failed. And it did not help the case.

Regards, Pierre

[Abby Normal]

Emily Birrell, White´s Row, Jane Kelly, Dorset Street.

I, D. Swanson am Killer-HeeeHeee!

Mystery solved! Close it up!

[Pierre]

Thank you Pierre,

but you have not made it clear, are all the letter used in the name?
Are there any left unused?

that really makes a difference, has i said if all are not needed i have several possible candiates

Steve

There are two or three letters not used. Anyway, the only thing now is to test this statistically. I do not have access to a good archive for this now, but will probably be able to do it next week. That is all I can say right now.

Best wishes, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Emily Birrell, White´s Row, Jane Kelly, Dorset Street.

So you've randomly selected some of the words/names on the pawn ticket, containing 42 characters, and, without confirmation that each of the 42 characters must be used, tell us that, within those 42 characters, the name of 'a serial killer' can be found in them.

For someone who has lectured the members on the forum of the importance of scientific thinking and expression, the question that you posed earlier is remarkably vague and unscientific:

"What is the statistical probability that you will find a serial killer´s name in a mustard tin on a murder site?"

It's very poorly worded considering that I think you are trying to say that your suspect's name (not necessarily the name of a serial killer) can be derived from 42 characters out of a much larger number of characters that must have been on the pawn tickets inside the mustard tin.

Well you could test the statistical probability by randomly selecting 100 groups of female names and street names and see how many times out of 100 you are able to derive the name of your suspect. But it seems like a total waste of time.

[David Orsam]

There are two or three letters not used.

Ah, so a pointless waste of time.

[Pierre]

Ah, so a pointless waste of time.

Why, David?

[David Orsam]

Why, David?

Because we are now not dealing with an anagram here (even though you used the word earlier). We are dealing with a group of 42 characters which you have deliberately selected in the knowledge that about 39 of those characters can be used to spell the name of a person you suspect of having committed the murders.

What does that tell us?

Precisely nothing. It has no meaning whatsoever.

As I mentioned earlier, one can derive the names of Myra Hindley, or Rose West or Robert Lee Yates from those characters and these are just a few known serial killers. There must be loads more names you can get out of the 42 characters if you don't use all the characters.

Are you trying to say the killer used those names and addresses specifically to include his own name in jumbled up form? If so, why the discrepancy of the unused characters?

[Elamarna]

There are two or three letters not used. Anyway, the only thing now is to test this statistically. I do not have access to a good archive for this now, but will probably be able to do it next week. That is all I can say right now.

Best wishes, Pierre

Pierre

One professional scientist to another:

1. There are 42 letters, and a punctuation mark, how may of those are not used?

You say two or three, which seems somewhat vague, if there is a name hidden in plain sight, how many of the 42 are not used please?

2. Does the answer contain just the name? or are there any comments included?

steve

[David Orsam]

But this question, as many other questions posed by you, David, is totally without scientific sense. You only take a lot of time, discussing nothing in absurdum.

If you have anything at all to contribute - except from telling others that you "have told them" - please do so. I have many questions right now, I am obliged to answer them, and my wish is to disprove every hypothesis. You tried to do that - at least I think you thought that you did - but failed. And it did not help the case.

Nothing you are saying makes any sense Pierre.

If I understand you correctly (and that's not easy) you are trying to say that the killer left those pawn tickets in the mustard tin at the scene of the crime for the police to find because he was amused by the fact that in amongst some of the writing on those tickets the police could find his name if they jumbled up the letters and only used some of them.

And you are saying that John Kelly, having known nothing whatsoever about these tickets until he was told about them by the police, decided to come up with two false stories about them at the inquest so that the memory of Eddowes would not be sullied as a woman who stole pawn tickets.

It's not clear whether you are saying the name of Kelly on one of the tickets was a pure coincidence, bearing in mind that Eddowes used the name of Kelly on the night she died, but, if not, it must have involved a certain amount of advance planning by the murderer in order to pawn two boots in the name of Kelly.

It's also not clear to me why you think the newspapers would have published a false story about Emily Birrell for Kelly to tell at the inquest. Where did they get the story from if not from Kelly himself?

In any event, it all seems very convoluted and unlikely and, I might add, a little bit crazy. The obvious answer seems to me to be that Kelly pawned the boots using a false name and address, which was commonly done, for reasons which have already been explained in this thread. She was given the ticket by Birrell for the reason given by Kelly at the inquest. The motive you have offered for Kelly to lie about this is wholly insufficient and unrealistic. The motive you have offered for the killer doing all this is complicated and ridiculous.

[The Good Michael]

Just as an example of how poorly phrased Pierre's question was.

If you take the names and words: "Emily Birrell", "Jane Kelly", "Dorset Street" and "White's Row" we can extract the name: Myra Hindley.

Separately, we can also get Rose West.

Separately, if we are looking for male serial killers, we can also extract the name: Robert Lee Yates who killed 16 prostitutes in Washington between 1975 to 1988.

So what is the statistical probability of finding a serial killer's name in a mustard tin on a murder site? From a single random sample: Very, very high. Indeed, one could almost say: inevitable.

That was really unfair. None of these people even liked mustard.

Mike

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;388826]

Nothing you are saying makes any sense Pierre.

No, nothing makes any sense to you. To you, David.

If I understand you correctly (and that's not easy)

No, you have problems with that. It happens a lot. I have told you this, and therefore discussing with you is time consuming. Since you do not understand, one has to go through the same statements again and again. I have seen this a lot when you discuss with others as well. I have seen it with Fisherman. And with Simon. Among others. Why is that, David? Do you not want to understand? Or what is the problem?

you are trying to say that the killer left those pawn tickets in the mustard tin at the scene of the crime for the police to find because he was amused by the fact that in amongst some of the writing on those tickets the police could find his name if they jumbled up the letters and only used some of them.

Have you read about the Zodiac? This one is easy compared to him.

And you are saying that John Kelly, having known nothing whatsoever about these tickets until he was told about them by the police,

By the police? You misunderstand what you read again. How very strange. Did you actually not see that I wrote that he got it from the papers? How could you fail to see that? Go back and read, David.

decided to come up with two false stories about them at the inquest so that the memory of Eddowes would not be sullied as a woman who stole pawn tickets.

Did you also see that I wrote about his own protection?

It's not clear whether you are saying the name of Kelly on one of the tickets was a pure coincidence, bearing in mind that Eddowes used the name of Kelly on the night she died, but, if not, it must have involved a certain amount of advance planning by the murderer in order to pawn two boots in the name of Kelly.

You missed the point again: I wrote to you about the name Kelly being spurious in one relation. And not in the one you might expect. Go back and read, David.

It's also not clear to me why you think the newspapers would have published a false story about Emily Birrell for Kelly to tell at the inquest. Where did they get the story from if not from Kelly himself?

It is actually incredible! From where did you get that idea? It is nonsense. Of course it was the story of John Kelly. His own story. Do you believe the papers "at face value" again, David? Not doing any source criticism again.

In any event, it all seems very convoluted and unlikely and, I might add, a little bit crazy.

Absolutely. Like the Zodiac. Look at his alphabet. The police didn´t understand anything of it. A little bit crazy. Yes, indeed. And this is nothing compared to it. It is almost to easy.

The obvious answer

The obvious answer - at face value, I suppose. Serial killers do not provide people with "obvious" answers. Are you surprised?

seems to me to be that Kelly pawned the boots using a false name and address, which was commonly done, for reasons which have already been explained in this thread.

Thee were more reasons, also "explained in the thread". But you prefer to ignore those.

She was given the ticket by Birrell for the reason given by Kelly at the inquest.

Excuse me dear David but I come to think of parrotts now.

The motive you have offered for Kelly to lie about this is wholly insufficient and unrealistic.

Mmm. Not wanting to go to jail is unrealistic. Not wanting to tell the world that you or your woman is a thief is insufficient.

The motive you have offered for the killer doing all this is complicated and ridiculous.

Well, the fact is that you do not even know the motive. But hopefully you will get to know it, I am working on it.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Mmm. Not wanting to go to jail is unrealistic. Not wanting to tell the world that you or your woman is a thief is insufficient.

Hold on, why would he go to jail? Are you even understanding your own theory?

You are saying that he has never seen these pawn tickets before right? He knows nothing about them until he finds out about them from the police (whether directly from the police or indirectly via the press). So, given that he didn't steal them, why would he even be thinking about going to jail?

And here is the huge flaw in your theory Pierre:

It must have taken quite a bit of work for the killer to get those pawn tickets, with the names and addresses on them that will (nearly) form an anagram of his name. But wouldn't that all have been for nothing if John Kelly had said to the police and the inquest: "I've never seen those pawn tickets before in my life and I'm sure that Eddowes never had them"?

If that was the case - and doesn't it seem the most likely outcome in the circumstances? - wouldn't the police have thought that the murderer must have dropped the mustard tin? And then, given that the killer must have left some kind of trail in acquiring the tickets, wouldn't that have given the police a huge clue in catching him?

I mean, how could the killer possibly have known that John Kelly would simply assume that Eddowes had stolen the pawn tickets and that he would fabricate two stories around them?

Pierre, it simply makes - no - sense - at - all. Not to me and I'm certain it won't make sense to anyone else either. And it's no good you trying to invoke the names of Fisherman and Simon Wood, as if me disagreeing with THEM, somehow shows that I must be wrong to disagree with you.

[David Orsam]

Absolutely. Like the Zodiac. Look at his alphabet. The police didn´t understand anything of it. A little bit crazy. Yes, indeed. And this is nothing compared to it. It is almost to easy.

What does the Zodiac have to do with this? He was sending messages to the police that either were or appeared to be in code.

In this case we have no messages and we have no code.

What we have are pawn tickets in which the name of the killer is supposedly jumbled up within some of the writing on those tickets without ANY outward indication that this is case. So the pawn tickets look just like pawn tickets, not a message - so there is nothing for the police to solve.

Given that there must be literally millions of names embedded within the 42 characters you have identified, it would have been impossible for the police to find the killer's name unless they knew what name they were looking for in the first place, so all completely pointless.

If the tickets didn't belong to Eddowes the police would just have thought the killer had dropped them.

Perhaps you are trying to tell us the killer was mentally disturbed and thought the police would sit playing word puzzles for hours with the pawn tickets trying to find messages or names in them. But unless he was mental, there is no rational (or semi rational) motive for him doing what he did.

[Joshua Rogan]

David's not the only one that doesn't understand....

If John Kelly didn't know about the pawn tickets because they were planted by the killer, how did he know the murder victim was Kate?

"He did not suspect that the latest victim of the Whitechapel murderer was Eddowes until he read of the pawn ticket found by the body under the name of Birrel, upon which he presented himself to the police and subsequently identified the body"

[David Orsam]

David's not the only one that doesn't understand....

If John Kelly didn't know about the pawn tickets because they were planted by the killer, how did he know the murder victim was Kate?

"He did not suspect that the latest victim of the Whitechapel murderer was Eddowes until he read of the pawn ticket found by the body under the name of Birrel, upon which he presented himself to the police and subsequently identified the body"

A very good point.