Pawn tickets in Mitre Square

[Elamarna]

Jon

I doubt Pierre is willing to divulge that name yet.


However we know from his posts the following:

1. There are two given names and a surname.(post 234).

2. The Letter "J" is not used at all. (confirmed post 198).

3. The minimum number of letters used is 14 or 15, ( 17 different letters Pierre as made clear 2 or 3 are not used at all).

4. The maximum number of letters is 36 (but may be far less) this is deduced from post 198.

5. The name is "unusual", but it is not clear which of the 3 components (2 given, 1 surname) this applies to, or what is meant by that term.


regards

Steve

[Jon Guy]

Hi Pierre

Tickets in mustard tin containing a specific name, an unusual name; a full name with both given names and a surname

Which unusual name ?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;389164]

In which case I absolutely do know something about John Kelly's personal knowledge. That is what history is all about Pierre.

CPD 6 (Characterizing the posts of David):

David, a non historian, assuming to tell historians what history is about.

We have John Kelly literally speaking to us down through history from 128 years ago.

1. No. We have a source from the past.

2. You can not even differ between history, on the one hand, and the past, on the other. What are the differences, David?

He is directly telling us what was he personally witnessed and experienced. And furthermore he is doing so on oath in the witness box.

Have you been to a seance, David? Or do you use a time travelling machine?
"Directly telling us" / "Doing so...in the witness box".

Repeating the same thing does not make it more true. What are the internal and external source critical problems with the statements of John Kelly?

One can hardly ask for much better than that. As I said clearly in my post, I can see no reason to disbelieve what he says.

CPD 7: Saying things with low significance clearly and saying that he is saying things clearly, not knowing it has a low significance.

You have not offered any good reason to disbelieve him nor any sensible alternative scenario and until you do I fail to see that there is even anything to discuss here.

Good historical reasons:

John Kelly and Catherine Eddowes belonging to a group where there is an overrepresentation of criminality and poverty (long, structural perspective - nomothetical history)

Pawn tickets having a specific market (economical reasons, "fiscal sense"!)

John Kelly and Catherine Eddowes being poor and maybe criminal (short to long individual perspective, idiographic history = the specific problems of the individual(s))

Tickets pawned in same shop in Church Street

Catherine Eddowes was murdered

Pawn tickets were found on the murder site

Pawn tickets containing date of murder of Polly Nichols and name and address to a Jane Kelly in Dorset Street

Provenience of pawn ticket with the name Emily Birrell historically questionable and

This ticket and itīs provenience not mentioned at all in the original inquest sources

Tickets in mustard tin containing a specific name, an unusual name; a full name with both given names and a surname

a name that should not have been in Mitre Square on the night of the murder of Catherine Eddowes

Many names should have been in the tin but the hypothesis is that this name should not have been in the tin.

Statistics will show the way.

Best wishes, Pierre

[David Orsam]

And that is a very serious problem.

There is no serious problem Pierre. Kelly's story about the Birrell pawn ticket was told very early to reporters; it's credible and it makes sense. There was absolutely no reason for him to be asked about it during the inquest because it had no relevance whatsoever to Eddowes' murder.

The only serious problem is for you to offer a sensible explanation as to why Kelly might have lied and why the killer would have planted a couple of innocuous pawn tickets next to Eddowes' body. You haven't done so yet and, given that this thread was started by you on 12 February, it's perfectly clear to me you are never going to be able to do so.

[David Orsam]

It is good that you point out the problem by yourself: What you know is "what he said he knew".

So you know anything about John Kellyīs "personal knowledge" but what you do know is what he said he knew.

In which case I absolutely do know something about John Kelly's personal knowledge. That is what history is all about Pierre. We have John Kelly literally speaking to us down through history from 128 years ago. He is directly telling us what was he personally witnessed and experienced. And furthermore he is doing so on oath in the witness box.

One can hardly ask for much better than that. As I said clearly in my post, I can see no reason to disbelieve what he says. You have not offered any good reason to disbelieve him nor any sensible alternative scenario and until you do I fail to see that there is even anything to discuss here.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;389149]

Pierre, you are quite wrong to say that I know nothing about John Kelly's personal knowledge. I have read the evidence he gave under oath at the inquest so I am fully aware of what he said he knew.

It is good that you point out the problem by yourself: What you know is "what he said he knew".

So you know anything about John Kellyīs "personal knowledge" but what you do know is what he said he knew.

I can see no reason to doubt what he said in the witness box about the pawning of his boots and, having given your posts my fullest attention, you haven't offered any reasons to doubt what he said about this.

You do not need a reason. I am not interested in trying to change your thoughts. But you seem interested in trying to change my hypothesis.

He didn't actually mention the Birrell ticket in his testimony but I see no reason to doubt what he told reporters about it.

And that is a very serious problem.

I have no idea what you mean when you say that I have to "perform a test". No I don't! I need to see some kind of good reason why I shouldn't believe what Kelly said. There isn't one so far.

If it is not difficult to find a specific name in a sample the hypothesis is disproved.

What you believe is another matter.

As for the motives of the killer, it's no good saying "serial killers are strange". We must be dealing with someone who has taken a lot of trouble to arrange for the pawning of two items at a pawnbrokers so there must be a reason for him doing this. You have yet to offer any sensible reason so why should I even consider the possibility that he obtained these tickets and left them at the site?

Here is a sensible reason: Hypothesize a communicating serial killer. He will communicate with the police. He will also communicate with other people.

The fact that, as you say, he must have procured some assistance from a woman to pawn the items means that he would have given the police a clue which would potentially have enabled the police to catch him if they traced that woman, which they only did not attempt to do because Kelly told them that the tickets belonged to Eddowes.

You say that many times. It does not make it more true. And even truth is changing. Have you read any Lyotard?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Fran%C3%A7ois_Lyotard

[David Orsam]

Pierre, you are quite wrong to say that I know nothing about John Kelly's personal knowledge. I have read the evidence he gave under oath at the inquest so I am fully aware of what he said he knew. I can see no reason to doubt what he said in the witness box about the pawning of his boots and, having given your posts my fullest attention, you haven't offered any reasons to doubt what he said about this.

He didn't actually mention the Birrell ticket in his testimony but I see no reason to doubt what he told reporters about it.

I have no idea what you mean when you say that I have to "perform a test". No I don't! I need to see some kind of good reason why I shouldn't believe what Kelly said. There isn't one so far.

As for the motives of the killer, it's no good saying "serial killers are strange". We must be dealing with someone who has taken a lot of trouble to arrange for the pawning of two items at a pawnbrokers so there must be a reason for him doing this. You have yet to offer any sensible reason so why should I even consider the possibility that he obtained these tickets and left them at the site?

The fact that, as you say, he must have procured some assistance from a woman to pawn the items means that he would have given the police a clue which would potentially have enabled the police to catch him if they traced that woman, which they only did not attempt to do because Kelly told them that the tickets belonged to Eddowes.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;389141]

Might I be so bold as to suggest that the probability of this hypothesis being correct and, therefore, that the serial killer left the pawn tickets at the murder site is extremely low. So low in fact as not even to be on the scale.

First you have to perform a test. Your suggestion is not a valid test.

I say this because (a) we have the uncontradicted sworn testimony of John Kelly that,

Eddowes was dead and Emily Birrell was never heard so of course no one contradicted it. Everyone are sworn at inquests but may still testify contrary to what has happened.

from his own personal knowledge,

About which you do not know anything due to what I wrote above among other historical facts and lack of them.

both pawn tickets were in the possession of Eddowes prior to her murder

A statement does not become true by mere repetition.

(b) it would be strange if the killer left them at the site deliberately

Serial killers are strange.

because, if he was responsible for pawning the items, they must surely have provided clues that, upon investigation at the pawnbroker, could have revealed his identity

No. Serial killers have contact with other people. They are very good at getting what they want. I assume the serial killer was a biological man and that he did not go to the pawn shop and call himself Emily or Jane, since that would not have been accepted by Joseph Jones.

and (c) there is no obvious or plausible reason why he would have left those tickets at the site bearing in mind that they do not appear to contain any messages to the police or any other information that a killer might have wanted to convey to the authorities.

Bearing in mind that you do not know anything about that, it would be best for you to wait until you do know something.

[David Orsam]

But I have an hypothesis, as I made clear here and earlier on, that the pawn tickets might not have belonged to Emily Birell, Jane Kelly or Catherine Eddowes. If they were not, one could ask what the probability is that a serial killer left the pawn tickets at the murder site.

Might I be so bold as to suggest that the probability of this hypothesis being correct and, therefore, that the serial killer left the pawn tickets at the murder site is extremely low. So low in fact as not even to be on the scale.

I say this because (a) we have the uncontradicted sworn testimony of John Kelly that, from his own personal knowledge, both pawn tickets were in the possession of Eddowes prior to her murder (b) it would be strange if the killer left them at the site deliberately because, if he was responsible for pawning the items, they must surely have provided clues that, upon investigation at the pawnbroker, could have revealed his identity and (c) there is no obvious or plausible reason why he would have left those tickets at the site bearing in mind that they do not appear to contain any messages to the police or any other information that a killer might have wanted to convey to the authorities.

[David Orsam]

Jeff postulated that the pawn ticket dated 31 August might have belonged to Polly Nichols.

I think you'll find it was Jerry.

[Pierre]

Nope, Pierre and David. What are we trying to achieve here, a better understanding of the circumstances of the WM, or which of our posters is the smartest arse?

Once upon a time it was the former, nowadays it seems it is the latter.

Thanks for your comments, I agree with you.

Best wishes, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;389050]

Pierre my friend,

That is so pointless a post.

You know my view that I will challenge anything I find to be misleading or pointless.

Hi Steve,

Donīt worry, I know your position. Perhaps I know it better than you think I do.

You and David do not agree, however he is asking a question, giving his view and asking if you agree or not.

I really do not see how it can be said that post is trying control your or anyone’s answer.

Since I know that your main interest here is not the ethos of the communication between me and David, but the historical facts I am dealing with, and since you are able to pose questions in a good manner, something you always do where not-mentioning-any-name fails, I will answer you.

(I will also abstain from starting an off-topic discussion about the "controlling of other peopleīs posts", since it is not helping the case.)

You may not agree with David or indeed the post by Joshua, which he is talking about (I suspect you do not), in which case say so and say why.
You may find that if you give a reasoned reply people may accept your view.

Now to the question and here is the answer. Jeff postulated that the pawn ticket dated 31 August might have belonged to Polly Nichols. That was a new idea to me. I always try new ideas, sometimes by just saying them, sometimes by just thinking about them and sometimes by writing and reading about them. Here I said the new idea and I said it in the form of an hypothesis, since this method is the best one. I did not need to test the hypothesis though, since Joshua afterwards wrote that the pawn shop was not open at night. I donīt know if that is correct, but letīs say it is. In my case, the question is a non question, since I already have another hypothesis which is bothering me now.

So, no, I do not think Polly Nichols pawned the shirt, even if the shop would have been open at midnight or sometime during the night. I do not think anything actually, i.e. I do not believe anything about the pawn tickets. But I have an hypothesis, as I made clear here and earlier on, that the pawn tickets might not have belonged to Emily Birell, Jane Kelly or Catherine Eddowes. If they were not, one could ask what the probability is that a serial killer left the pawn tickets at the murder site. This question could then be seen as a consequence of the hypothesis that the tickets never did belong to someone named on the tickets or to the murder victim in Mitre Square.

So Polly Nichols has nothing to do with it if you ask me.

(For those who need a simple explanation about the difference between an hypothesis and belief; you can have an hypothesis that a god exists without believeing in a god).

However rather than do that, or even ignore the point, what I do see is an attempt to evade answering the question, by attacking the poster of the question.

You do not need to say that. David is already doing what he can to accuse me of different things.

While I have been writing this I see 4 more such replies.

I see this often, when peoples views and abilities are challenged by others, there is a tendency to defend oneself by attacking the person asking the uncomfortable questions. ( this applies to many, not just you.)

I think I will stop to communicate with David soon again. He destroys the discussions by going off topic and it takes time. Where do you prefere that I invest that time - in answering very meaningless questions or in working on the case? I know the answer of that.

Far better would be a response which kept to the "facts", backed up the views which are challenged with evidence/sources and concentrating on completing the research to either prove your theory or not.

I agree with you completely. And so I can not answer questions like "What is the difference between 15 and 20 percent?" or make comments on "Such screams were common because Prater has told everyone such screams were common" or "Taken on face value, he was lying". Just to mention a few.

Sorry if that sound harsh, but it is how I see the issue.

You donīt sound harsh at all.

Best wishes, Pierre

[Abby Normal]

Nope, Pierre and David. What are we trying to achieve here, a better understanding of the circumstances of the WM, or which of our posters is the smartest arse?

Once upon a time it was the former, nowadays it seems it is the latter.

You've got to be kidding.

Honestly it's like a retarded chimp vs. well,,,an intelligent human being.

And if you've followed David's overall writings, you would definitely know he has "better understanding of the circumstances of the WM"

But frankly, I don't know how he keeps it up. He has the patience of a saint when dealing with Pierre.

[MrBarnett]

What do you mean by pair? Pierre and his overactive imagination?

Nope, Pierre and David. What are we trying to achieve here, a better understanding of the circumstances of the WM, or which of our posters is the smartest arse?

Once upon a time it was the former, nowadays it seems it is the latter.

[Abby Normal]

The pair of you should grow up.

What do you mean by pair? Pierre and his overactive imagination?