Pawn tickets in Mitre Square

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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;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 Kelly´s "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]

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 Kelly´s "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.

[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.

[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 it´s 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

[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 ?

[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

[David Orsam]

I doubt Pierre is willing to divulge that name yet.

I think it's worth clarifying Steve - assuming he mean's the name of his suspect - that this name was certainly not on either of the tickets in the mustard tin.

[David Orsam]

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 it´s 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.

Pierre, the points you list aren't even superficially convincing and are most certainly not "good historical reasons".

1. You start off with the assumption that Kelly and Eddowes were "maybe criminal" and that pawn tickets have a "specific market" but that's got nothing to do with anything because your hypothesis is that neither of them ever saw or knew anything about the pawn tickets isn't it? So why have you mentioned it?

2. Our knowledge that the tickets were both pawned in the same pawn shop comes from the newspapers only – not from any 'official' source - but it's good, if amusing, that you are now happy to accept newspaper information as accurate.

3. Given that Eddowes was already in possession of a pawn ticket in the name of Jones, there is quite possibly even nothing coincidental about her choice of pawn shop for the boots as she might have chosen it for that very reason. Or Jones might have been known for offering good prices for male items of clothing. Do you know anything about Jones' reputation in the local area? Of course not. So there's nothing in it this point.

4. As for the pawn ticket bearing the date of 31st August you need to think statistically here. I suggest that most pawn tickets "in circulation" as at 30 September would have been produced within the previous month. We know that Friday was a popular day for people in the east end to pawn items so that they would have money for the weekend. Therefore there would be a high probability that a pawn ticket in someone's possession as at Saturday 29 September would be dated as one of the five Fridays in the 30 days preceding that date. Had one of the pawn tickets been dated 31 August and another dated 8 September there might be some kind of pattern here but there isn't so there is absolutely nothing remarkable about Eddowes having a ticket dated Friday 31 August in her possession.

5. It's been explained to you by others that people would often give a false name and address when pawning goods. It's notable that you were perfectly happy to accept that Polly Nichols pawned a flannel shirt in a false name and address but for some reason you don’t seem think that Eddowes would have done so even though the surname of Kelly was the surname of her partner.

6. As for the name of "Jane Kelly", the next victim in the series was called Mary Jane Kelly and she was otherwise known as Mary Janet Kelly, Mary Jeanette Kelly and Marie Jeanette Kelly amongst possibly other variations. Jane and Kelly are common names. The next victim was not called Jane Kelly.

7. Further, when she was arrested, Eddowes gave the name of Mary Anne Kelly so there is absolutely nothing strange that she pawned boots in a similar name.

8. Dorset street was a very heavily populated street with a number of lodging houses, just like Fashion Street, so there is nothing remarkable about this address being on the pawn ticket. Had it said Jane Kelly of Miller's Court that might be considered a curious coincidence but there is no more confidence involved in the name on the pawn ticket than the fact that Eddowes called herself Mary Anne Kelly of 6 Fashion Street on the night of her death.

9. There was absolutely no reason for the Emily Birrell ticket to be mentioned in "the original inquest sources" because it had no relevance to the death of Eddowes. Kelly had, in any case, already explained why Eddowes had it in her possession. There is nothing "historically questionable" about it. On the contrary, it has been historically explained.

10. As for there being "a name that should not have been in Mitre Square on the night of the murder of Catherine Eddowes", there was no name in Mitre Square that should not have been there on the night of Eddowes murder.

11. I assume you mean you have "found" a name on the pawn tickets, but you haven't even done that. All you have done is ignore the majority of words that would have been on the pawn tickets, which you have never even seen, and deliberately selected 42 characters in which some of those characters (discarding others) can apparently be rearranged to form the name of a person you suspect of being Jack the Ripper, just as they can be rearranged to form the names James Kelly, Joe Barnett and, as has been pointed out to me, Dr John Williams (another suspect), as well as other names such as Thomas Bond, John Trywhitt Drake, Walter Dew, Henry Moore, Rees Llewellyn, Myra Hindley, Rose West etc. etc.

12. Clearly, given the fact that you have chosen the words to be rearranged from the tickets, in the knowledge that they contained the letters you were looking for, thus negating any random effect, statistics are never going to support anything connecting the pawn tickets to any particular individual and there is no "name that should not have been on the tin".

[Elamarna]

I think it's worth clarifying Steve - assuming he mean's the name of his suspect - that this name was certainly not on either of the tickets in the mustard tin.

David

Thank you, yes I could have confused by not making that clear.

The name of the suspect is given in the form of a word puzzle using some of the letters on the two pawn tickets.


steve

[Pierre]

I think it's worth clarifying Steve - assuming he mean's the name of his suspect - that this name was certainly not on either of the tickets in the mustard tin.

You are wrong, David.

Regards, Pierre