Pawn tickets in Mitre Square

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;388921]

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.

The "very" reason. "Gave". "She knew". "Would be able to".

You are speaking in concrete dimensions. You are speaking as if you describe a "reality". As if it is simply there to see. You believe you can take the sources from the past "at face value".

Bearing in mind that Eddowes already had Birrell's ticket in her possession

"Had". No, David. "Bearing in mind", your mind, that YOU THINK she "had". Since you believe everything you read to correspond to a simple reality in the past.

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.

"The fact"! According to YOU, David.

But if it was a coincidence that she used the same pawn shop I would suggest its neither an extraordinary nor unlikely one.

Preserving the discourse. So that no one might think any new thoughts about the sources. So that no new knowledge may be produced.

[David Orsam]

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.

This is very strange thinking Pierre. You are saying that Kelly had seen neither the pawn tickets nor the goods before, yet his first reaction on hearing about them would have been to think that Eddowes had been involved in theft and that the police would then suspect HIM of theft?

Surely his natural reaction would have been "I've never seen those tickets before in my life and I don't believe they belonged to Eddowes."

If he believes the boots were stolen then by making up a story about how he pawned them with Eddowes he is only potentially incriminating himself isn't he? Because he's now admitted to having been in possession of the stolen boots and put them into the pawn shop.

Your explanation of his behaviour is convoluted, unnatural and frankly ridiculous.

[David Orsam]

The "very" reason. "Gave". "She knew". "Would be able to".

You are speaking in concrete dimensions. You are speaking as if you describe a "reality". As if it is simply there to see. You believe you can take the sources from the past "at face value".

You have misunderstood Pierre. What I am saying in response to Jerry's theory is that if the Birrell story is true then it follows that Eddowes had a ticket from Jones the pawnbroker in her possession at the time she decided where to pawn Kelly's boots. So there is not necessarily any coincidence involved here at all.

[David Orsam]

"The fact"! According to YOU, David.

It's amazing that you can fail to undestand a straightforward English sentence Pierre.

Here's what I said:

"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."

First consider the effect of the word "might" in that sentence.

Then consider that the sentence is based on the premise that the Birrell story is true which means that it is then a fact that she had one of Jones' tickets in her mustard tin.

It's really not difficult Pierre.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;388922]

I find your approach here baffling Pierre.

I do not find it baffling that you find it baffling, David. What has that statement - yours - and now mine, to do with 1888? Easy to answer: Nothing.

You are, as very often, being irrelevant, David. Irrelevant.

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.

Behold! "Rule out". R-u-l-e o-u-t.

Whose words are these, David? Are they mine? Are they some words from 1888? Or are they actually just the words of David?

YES! They are the words of David! (You get 1 point there, congratulations!) As very often, you are aming at interpreting the writings of other people in the wrong way. The motive is to make other people look stupid/silly/baffling and so on and so forth.

That is your BIAS, David.

No. I have never ever said the words "rule out" here. So what do you mean? I myself work exclusively with hypotheses.

You - and only you - are the one using strong expressions like "rule out".

ONE SHOULD NOT RULE ANYTHING OUT when one analyses the sources from 1888. Remember this!

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?

Again, and again. No, I am not "happy" and no, I do not "accept" what you write above. It is merely an hypothesis for an alternative series of events in 1888.

You see, I allow myself to go with the sources. This means leaving room for alternative hypotheses.

But that is not the hypothesis that I am working to disprove right now.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;388925]

Surely his natural reaction would have been "I've never seen those tickets before in my life and I don't believe they belonged to Eddowes."

His surname was on one of them.

[David Orsam]

Behold! "Rule out". R-u-l-e o-u-t.

Whose words are these, David? Are they mine? Are they some words from 1888? Or are they actually just the words of David?

YES! They are the words of David! (You get 1 point there, congratulations!) As very often, you are aming at interpreting the writings of other people in the wrong way. The motive is to make other people look stupid/silly/baffling and so on and so forth.

That is your BIAS, David.

No. I have never ever said the words "rule out" here. So what do you mean? I myself work exclusively with hypotheses.

Again you are simply not reading my words properly Pierre. You seem to be reading what you want to read.

I said: "and, for that reason (if I understand you correctly), you rule out the idea that this ticket belonged to Eddowes."

So I clearly wasn't quoting you, I was interpreting your posts on this forum.

As I understand you, you are saying that the killer deliberately left a pawn ticket next to Eddowes' body for the police to find. And he did so at least partly because when, put together with the Birrell pawn ticket, some of the words on the tickets could be reassembled to form his name.

If you are not saying that the killer left the pawn ticket and that the pawn ticket belonged to Eddowes after all then could you please clarify the situation because I suspect I'm not the only person here who thinks that this is what you are saying.

[David Orsam]

Surely his natural reaction would have been "I've never seen those tickets before in my life and I don't believe they belonged to Eddowes."

His surname was on one of them.

So what? A woman's first name and a very common surname.

How does that change my claim that his natural reaction would have been "I've never seen those tickets before in my life and I don't believe they belonged to Eddowes"?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Pierre
was the name you are thinking of contained either Swanson or Stoker?

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre
was the name you are thinking of contained either Swanson or Stoker?

Hi Abby,

no. And I must say that the main point here is the question about probability. I will get back to this when I have done the test.

Best wishes, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;388931]

As I understand you, you are saying that the killer deliberately left a pawn ticket next to Eddowes' body for the police to find. And he did so at least partly because when, put together with the Birrell pawn ticket, some of the words on the tickets could be reassembled to form his name.

If you are not saying that the killer left the pawn ticket and that the pawn ticket belonged to Eddowes after all then could you please clarify the situation because I suspect I'm not the only person here who thinks that this is what you are saying.

As you know, I am asking what the probability is that you will find a postulated serial killerīs name in a mustard tin on a murder site. There are problems with estimating a probability for this since you do not have the type of data you need. But using a sample from a relevant archive could give an idea. Letīs say that you find the name in 1 percent of all cases, or in 2 percent. The conclusion should be that the probability for finding that name on the murder site in 1888 is low. If you find it in 20 percent of all cases in a sample, it is high. In the fist case, we would have a reason to work from a hypothesis that the name was planted at the murder site by the serial killer. In the second case, it would be best to dismiss that idea.

Whatever the outcome of the test (as soon as I have the time), the important thing is not what I think. The important thing is that we respect the sources from the past.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

no. And I must say that the main point here is the question about probability. I will get back to this when I have done the test.

Out of interest, Pierre, are you going to factor into your calculations the fact that you made a conscious decision to select a certain number of words from the pawn tickets? I mean, you could have just found the name of your suspect in the two names "Jane Kelly" and "Emily Birrell" excluding the addresses. Or he could have been found in just the two addresses "White's Row" and "Dorset Street" excluding the names. But you deliberately decided to choose all four didn't you? i.e. the two names AND the two addresses. So is that a truly random selection of 42 characters I wonder?

Also, are you going to factor into your calculations the fact that you've never seen the original pawn tickets or any form of reproduction on them? There strikes me as being two consequences of that.

Firstly, some newspapers said the Dorset Street pawn ticket was in the name of "Anne Kelly" not "Jane Kelly". In the absence of any official sources, how do we know which one (if either) is correct? If the former was the right name, does the absence of the "J" affect the outcome?

Secondly, how do we know if the pawn ticket said "Dorset Street" and not "Dorset St"? If the latter, which strikes me as more likely for a pawnbroker to have written on the ticket, that will reduce the number of characters to 38 so that, if you only have 2 or 3 characters left over, the name of your suspect will not be included. And if that's the case then the whole thing is redundant isn't it?

[Elamarna]

David

your point about what the tickets actually said is indeed very important.

Pierre,

were you aware of possibilities that David has raised above?

Steve

[David Orsam]

As you know, I am asking what the probability is that you will find a postulated serial killerīs name in a mustard tin on a murder site.

I didn't actually know that Pierre because the original formulation of your question did not include the word "postulated" and I am amused to see you have reformulated your question to include this word despite having rejected my claim that the original formulation was poorly phrased.

It is still very poorly phrased though in the sense of the word "find" because the only names found in the mustard tin were "Jane (or Anne) Kelly", "Emily Birrell (or Birrel)" and the name of the pawnbroker. You have (supposedly) rearranged some of the characters on those pawn tickets to form another name, just one of probably thousands of names that could be derived from those selected characters. Yet there must have been lots of words, totalling hundreds of characters, on those pawn tickets. Some written on in manuscript, not just the names and addresses but the descriptions of the items. Some printed on, such as the legal rights of the holder of the pawn ticket.

So the question needs to be reworded to something like: "what the probability is that you will be able to rearrange a selected group of specially chosen characters from words on documents containing hundreds of characters found in a mustard tin on a murder site to form the name of a never published and privately postulated serial killer?".

[David Orsam]

Letīs say that you find the name in 1 percent of all cases, or in 2 percent. The conclusion should be that the probability for finding that name on the murder site in 1888 is low. If you find it in 20 percent of all cases in a sample, it is high. In the fist case, we would have a reason to work from a hypothesis that the name was planted at the murder site by the serial killer. In the second case, it would be best to dismiss that idea.

Do you have a scientific basis for making those statements? Or have you simply plucked some figures out of the air?