Pawn tickets in Mitre Square

[Pierre]

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"

1 October 1888, Morning Post, Pall Mall Gazette et al.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;388823]

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.

Of course. You can get a lot of names from the letters on the two pawn tickets. I am sure Steve quickly realized this.

But the question is not: "How many names can two names and two addresses generate?"

The question is:

What is the chance that you get this particular name from a random sample of x pairs of names and addresses (preferably using an archive with data from Whitechapel 1888)?

If you obtain it in one case of 100 in an archive, you could hypothesize that there is a one percent chance that you would find it at a murder site in Mitre Square.

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?

That is the hypothesis. And an explanation for unused characters is simply that no two names and streets combined together would have been found where the type and amount of letters were exactly the same.

[David Orsam]

1 October 1888, Morning Post, Pall Mall Gazette et al.

Yes, but when we look at the contemporary reasons stated by Kelly for his coming forward to the police (which he did during the evening of 2 October 1888) we get this:

From the Times on 3 October 1888:

'The reason which had induced him [Kelly] to call at the police-station was his having read about pawntickets being found near the murdered woman relating to pledges in the names of Kelly and Birrell. Further questioned on this point, he repeated the reference to the pledging of the boots, with a pawnbroker named Jones, of Church Street, and stated that the ticket for the other article (a flannel shirt) pledged in the name of Emily Birrell, had been given to them by the latter, who had been with them hopping, and who had slept in the same barn with them.'

He also said: "The last meal she had with him was a breakfast which had been obtained by the pledging of his boots for 2s 6d'.

Also, in other newspapers, on 3 October 1888, we find this (below is from the Aberdeen Evening Express):

'STATEMENT BY JOHN KELLY
A Central News Telegram says:.....Kelly states that last week they were both unable to earn any money. On Saturday morning the deceased pawned Kelly's boots, and with the proceeds bought breakfast for them...He did not trouble himself about her not returning, as he thought she might be staying with her daughter, and it was only when he read about the pawn-tickets being found, the letters "T.C." tattoed on her arm, that he knew who the murdered woman was.'

It doesn't look at all good for your ridiculous theory Pierre.

[David Orsam]

The question is:

What is the chance that you get this particular name from a random sample of x pairs of names and addresses (preferably using an archive with data from Whitechapel 1888)?

If you obtain it in one case of 100 in an archive, you could hypothesize that there is a one percent chance that you would find it at a murder site in Mitre Square.

I understand basic maths Pierre. What you haven't done is shown that it is one in a hundred. Why would you mention a figure before you've even started the exercise?

[GUT]

Ah, so a pointless waste of time.

Like most of Pierre's riddles.

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi, All.

Having little else to pursue on this otherwise quiet Sunday and wordplay being an enjoyable pastime, I set aside a few moments to examine your 'Mustard Tin' conundrum.

Using the letters provided I discerned the names of several well-known persons from that time, none of whom, as far as I am aware, have been considered likely contenders for the mantle of serial killer.

The most reasonable individual is - Sir William Thornley Stoker.

He was educated in England and Ireland and took to a medical career becoming surgeon to the Royal City of Dublin hospital, then chair of Anatomy at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. His mother was Charlotte Mathilda Blake Thornley and an early feminist. One of his brothers was the noted writer, Bram Stoker.

Bram, had married a former lover of Oscar Wilde and was manager at the Lyceum Theatre in London. This position introduced him to much of the literary and artistic society in London at the time.
In 'Dracula', an evil and malevolent creature travels by ship to the shores of England and then, moving only by night, sets about seducing women, puncturing their throats and sucking their lifeblood from them.
Perhaps this is a parallel to his surgeon brother, who lived mostly in Ireland but, had he been the ripper, would have travelled by ship to England to then move under the cover of darkness, seeking females to corrupt and, using his medical knowledge, then draw blood from their necks and remove organs from their bodies.
Perhaps, we can further speculate, his mother's involvement in feminism, her overt political and social ideologies, brought about in Sir William, a deep-seated loathing towards women.

Yours, Caligo

[jerryd]

Here's a couple of questions and observations I have.

Why did Emily Birrell have a ticket pawned under her name at Jone's pawn Shop in Church Street, Whitechapel. That's quite a coincidence to have two women (unknown to each other) run into each other way down in Maidstone and they both had used the same pawn shop in Whitechapel. Out of all the pawn shops in the City, why this one? Unless Birrell had lodged in Whitechapel at one time.

Also, I think something to think about is this. There were two White's Rows in the area. One we associate with a lodging house near Dorset Street. 8, Whites Row. The other, was merely an extension of Buck's Row heading west and intersected at Baker's Row just south of Church Street (which, coincidentally, was an extension of Hanbury Street). Then, both of these pawn tickets end up with Catherine Eddowes.

My suggestion is the pawn ticket for the flannel shirt was taken from the body of Polly Nichols. That means if the Emily Birrell story is true, she and her male companion may know who the killer was. Otherwise, why would they have the ticket? If the story is not true, who did Eddowes get the ticket from and did this prompt her to purportedly say she knew who the killer was?

*I have the wrong Church Street. Jone's was on the Church Street just north of Fashion Street.

[MsWeatherwax]

Hi, All.

Having little else to pursue on this otherwise quiet Sunday and wordplay being an enjoyable pastime, I set aside a few moments to examine your 'Mustard Tin' conundrum.

Using the letters provided I discerned the names of several well-known persons from that time, none of whom, as far as I am aware, have been considered likely contenders for the mantle of serial killer.

The most reasonable individual is - Sir William Thornley Stoker.

He was educated in England and Ireland and took to a medical career becoming surgeon to the Royal City of Dublin hospital, then chair of Anatomy at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. His mother was Charlotte Mathilda Blake Thornley and an early feminist. One of his brothers was the noted writer, Bram Stoker.

Bram, had married a former lover of Oscar Wilde and was manager at the Lyceum Theatre in London. This position introduced him to much of the literary and artistic society in London at the time.
In 'Dracula', an evil and malevolent creature travels by ship to the shores of England and then, moving only by night, sets about seducing women, puncturing their throats and sucking their lifeblood from them.
Perhaps this is a parallel to his surgeon brother, who lived mostly in Ireland but, had he been the ripper, would have travelled by ship to England to then move under the cover of darkness, seeking females to corrupt and, using his medical knowledge, then draw blood from their necks and remove organs from their bodies.
Perhaps, we can further speculate, his mother's involvement in feminism, her overt political and social ideologies, brought about in Sir William, a deep-seated loathing towards women.

Yours, Caligo

I would absolutely pay to see the film of this.

For something that you've just pulled out of the hat on a quiet Sunday - it's actually far less bizarre than some of the theories that have actually made it into print.

[Joshua Rogan]

The most reasonable individual is - Sir William Thornley Stoker

That's brilliant, and I'd watch the film too.

All I could get was;

"Sor, I'm Dr Henry Jekyll. I brew E-tea, we tell story lies"

[MsWeatherwax]

That's brilliant, and I'd watch the film too.

All I could get was;

"Sor, I'm Dr Henry Jekyll. I brew E-tea, we tell story lies"

I got as far as 'Breastworks while misty...' then lost interest.

WAIT! Didn't Jack use the word 'Sor' in one of his letters? And 'Sor' could be said to be the phonetic spelling of 'sir' as spoken by an Irishman...AND didn't Caligo say that Sir William Thornley Stoker lived mostly in Ireland?

By jove, we've cracked it chaps! Lets go home!

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=jerryd;388873]Here's a couple of questions and observations I have.

Why did Emily Birrell have a ticket pawned under her name at Jone's pawn Shop in Church Street, Whitechapel. That's quite a coincidence to have two women (unknown to each other) run into each other way down in Maidstone and they both had used the same pawn shop in Whitechapel. Out of all the pawn shops in the City, why this one? Unless Birrell had lodged in Whitechapel at one time.

Hi Jerry,

thanks for interesting questions and observations. I haven´t been noticing that the two tickets were produced in the same pawn shop if that is the fact. But the first hypothesis I would pose here is that they were obtained by the same person and the explanation would be pure convenience. Looking at the map I can also mention that the shop was situated between the two police stations.

Also, I think something to think about is this. There were two White's Rows in the area. One we associate with a lodging house near Dorset Street. 8, Whites Row. The other, was merely an extension of Buck's Row heading west and intersected at Baker's Row just south of Church Street (which, coincidentally, was an extension of Hanbury Street). Then, both of these pawn tickets end up with Catherine Eddowes.

Yes, and as someone expressed here on the forum some time ago, this case is full of coincidences. So every time one postulates an hypothesis for something that can be either a coincidence and nothing more or a true correlation, one must put one thing above the other. This means that if there is an hypothesis that the killers priority was to get his name into a mustard tin, other coincidences like closeness to certain streets must be hypothesized as being of less importance, since the names of the streets should have been selected due to their function for the killer and his motive and not due to their closeness to other streets. On the other hand, the first hypothesis can never totally exclude other ideas, since the social reality is very complex and since we are examining an extremely rare serial killer, so I am open to any suggestions.

(Another question I was discussing with my wife the other day was the following: This serial killer is extremely rare. Does this mean that the hypothesized person (anyone, Mr X or who you postulate as being the killer) must be extremely rare on some (which?) parameters? Can you explain the extremely rare with the extremely common? Could you for example explain the Whitechapel murders with an ordinary man in Whitechapel? Or should he have some extra (from the outside!) - ordinary characteristics? I realize I am going off topic with this question now.)

My suggestion is the pawn ticket for the flannel shirt was taken from the body of Polly Nichols. That means if the Emily Birrell story is true, she and her male companion may know who the killer was. Otherwise, why would they have the ticket? If the story is not true, who did Eddowes get the ticket from and did this prompt her to purportedly say she knew who the killer was?

OK. This means that the pawn ticket should have been produced on 31 August and that Polly Nichols should have been the person going to the pawn shop with a shirt and obtaining the ticket. She would have been the one to have given the name Emily Birrell. That implies a lie / non true statement from Nichols.

The killer would then have taken the ticket, as he took other things from the victims. And John Kelly would not have known about those events, so he would have invented the Birell-story anyway, thinking the tickets were stolen or produced from stolen goods. And with his name on the other one, he could have become a suspect for theft.

*I have the wrong Church Street. Jone's was on the Church Street just north of Fashion Street.

Yes, I know. It is the street called Fournier Street today. It is between the two police stations.

A serial killer usually has a grandiose ego and he thinks he is inconvincible. A serial killer who has many intellectual advantages and knows in detail how the police work is capable of thinking many steps in advance. That makes him feel superior and it makes him take high risks. A serial killer who is proud of what he is doing and is convinced that what he is doing is absolutely the right thing to do does not hide his victims. He would also take very high risks to get his ID almost known to the persons that he is taking his revenge on, since he wants to punish them for what they have done to him. Such a person who is an organization embodied and personified would never worry about being punished.

Regards, Pierre

[Abby Normal]

Hi, All.

Having little else to pursue on this otherwise quiet Sunday and wordplay being an enjoyable pastime, I set aside a few moments to examine your 'Mustard Tin' conundrum.

Using the letters provided I discerned the names of several well-known persons from that time, none of whom, as far as I am aware, have been considered likely contenders for the mantle of serial killer.

The most reasonable individual is - Sir William Thornley Stoker.

He was educated in England and Ireland and took to a medical career becoming surgeon to the Royal City of Dublin hospital, then chair of Anatomy at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. His mother was Charlotte Mathilda Blake Thornley and an early feminist. One of his brothers was the noted writer, Bram Stoker.

Bram, had married a former lover of Oscar Wilde and was manager at the Lyceum Theatre in London. This position introduced him to much of the literary and artistic society in London at the time.
In 'Dracula', an evil and malevolent creature travels by ship to the shores of England and then, moving only by night, sets about seducing women, puncturing their throats and sucking their lifeblood from them.
Perhaps this is a parallel to his surgeon brother, who lived mostly in Ireland but, had he been the ripper, would have travelled by ship to England to then move under the cover of darkness, seeking females to corrupt and, using his medical knowledge, then draw blood from their necks and remove organs from their bodies.
Perhaps, we can further speculate, his mother's involvement in feminism, her overt political and social ideologies, brought about in Sir William, a deep-seated loathing towards women.

Yours, Caligo

nice!
howver, Pierre has said many times his suspect was a police officer, or at least worked for them. was stoker with the police?

[David Orsam]

The most reasonable individual is - Sir William Thornley Stoker.

A little anachronistic because he wasn't knighted until 1895 but as plain William Thornley Stoker this is still a good find!

[David Orsam]

Why did Emily Birrell have a ticket pawned under her name at Jone's pawn Shop in Church Street, Whitechapel. That's quite a coincidence to have two women (unknown to each other) run into each other way down in Maidstone and they both had used the same pawn shop in Whitechapel. Out of all the pawn shops in the City, why this one? Unless Birrell had lodged in Whitechapel at one time.

It's not really though Jerry. We all know that east end residents went down hopping in Kent during the summer. And the very reason that Birrell gave Eddowes her pawn ticket was because she knew Eddowes was coming back to Whitechapel and would be able to take the shirt out of pawn. Bearing in mind that Eddowes already had Birrell's ticket in her possession when she pawned Kelly's boots it's not even certain it was a coincidence because she might have been influenced in her choice of pawnbroker by the fact that she had one of Jones' tickets in her mustard tin. But if it was a coincidence that she used the same pawn shop I would suggest its neither an extraordinary nor unlikely one.

[David Orsam]

OK. This means that the pawn ticket should have been produced on 31 August and that Polly Nichols should have been the person going to the pawn shop with a shirt and obtaining the ticket. She would have been the one to have given the name Emily Birrell. That implies a lie / non true statement from Nichols.

The killer would then have taken the ticket, as he took other things from the victims.

I find your approach here baffling Pierre. You have pointed out that Eddowes had in her possession a pawn ticket in a false name and address - of "Jane Kelly" of 6 Dorset Street - and, for that reason (if I understand you correctly), you rule out the idea that this ticket belonged to Eddowes.

Yet you seem perfectly happy to accept that Nichols had pawned a man's shirt having given a false name and address - of "Emily Birrell" of 52 White's Row. Where's the logic in that?