Pawn tickets in Mitre Square

[David Orsam]

David has already failed to answer the questions here, so now I invite others to give their answers.

The funny thing is that all Pierre's questions have answered by me, and others, in this thread. Why he has decided to resurrect this nonsense now is baffling.

[Pierre]

Joshua

lovely idea, but he said in a mustard tin.

so that means one of the two porn tickets does it not?

Emily Birrell or Jane Kelly.


one assumes we are meant to either see these as anagrams of its the surname we are meant to look at.

with Pierre of course you never know.

personally i prefer coleman.

Steve

Steve,

I meant all of the given names and the surname. And the use of all the letters in the mustard tin.

Best wishes, Pierre

[GUT]

Partial to Keens.

But that's just me.

[Elamarna]

I don't know.....but are you saying that Jack was really Jeremiah J Coleman?

Joshua

lovely idea, but he said in a mustard tin.

so that means one of the two porn tickets does it not?

Emily Birrell or Jane Kelly.


one assumes we are meant to either see these as anagrams or its the surname we are meant to look at.

with Pierre of course you never know.

personally i prefer coleman.

Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

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

I don't know.....but are you saying that Jack was really Jeremiah J Coleman?

[Pierre]

Hi,

David has already failed to answer the questions here, so now I invite others to give their answers.

The police found a mustard tin containing two pawn tickets on Catherine Eddowes. On one was written the name Emily Birrell and the adress 52 White´s Row, on the other was the name Jane Kelly and the adress 6 Dorset Street.

There seem to be some problems with the provenience of the pawn tickets:

1. Both of the adresses where false.

2. John Kelly, who had lived with Eddowes, 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.

3. At the inquest, John Kelly did not know the date of the pawning of his own boots for the other pawn ticket in the name of Jane Kelly.

Questions:

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

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

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

D) Why was that ticket dated 31 August?

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

Regards, Pierre

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

[Pierre]

Hi,

David has already failed to answer the questions here, so now I invite others to give their answers.

The police found a mustard tin containing two pawn tickets on Catherine Eddowes. On one was written the name Emily Birrell and the adress 52 White´s Row, on the other was the name Jane Kelly and the adress 6 Dorset Street.

There seem to be some problems with the provenience of the pawn tickets:

1. Both of the adresses where false.

2. John Kelly, who had lived with Eddowes, 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.

3. At the inquest, John Kelly did not know the date of the pawning of his own boots for the other pawn ticket in the name of Jane Kelly.

Questions:

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

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

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

D) Why was that ticket dated 31 August?

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

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Hi Pierre,

That is your own idea.

Yes, that's right Pierre. It is my deduction from using "critical thinking" and, having read your response, in which you fail to offer any alternative explanation, I am certain I am correct.

No, but you are making a mistake now. I never said anything about "some significance" at all.

I'm not making any mistake Pierre. In #74 you posted:

The two pawn tickets and the mustard tin are not listed in the official list of Eddowes´s possessions.

The underlining of the latter part of the sentence clearly indicated that you believed it to be of some significance and indeed you went on to list five "consequences" of this.

This is a general problem in "ripperology". People believe what they read without questioning the provenience. But if we do question it, we understand how impossible it is to take things for granted

Might I suggest, Pierre, that this is a false assumption on your part. You assume that people do not question things but, in fact, most people are far more sophisticated in their approach to the evidence in this case that you evidently appreciate.

You are lying: "He reasoned". What is that? I have not reasoned anything here. That is only your own words and your own idea. This is definitely not the issue that I am discussing in this thread.

I can hardly be "lying" can I Pierre? Given that this is my deduction. I might be mistaken but I am clearly not. You are, of course, welcome to explain what you say the purpose of this thread actually was, or is, but somehow I don't think you'll be doing that.

You are making up your own stories again. This is not what this issue is about.

Please then explain why you started this thread in the "Letters and Communication" forum.

It is a "fact" that we do not know which pawn ticket John Kelly is talking about in the inquest.

Of course we know what pawn ticket John Kelly was talking about at the inquest! There were only two of them and he was talking about one of them, the one for boots which were pawned for 2s, 6d on Friday 28 September as he explained in his evidence at the inquest. What possible reason can you have to doubt this?

But the point is, that we can NOT know why they were on the pawn ticket.

I have agreed with you that we cannot know for certain that "Jane Kelly" was the name on the ticket and explained why. But what good reason can there be to doubt that 6 Dorset Street was the address on the ticket?

That is my point. We don´t have that. And pawn tickets being carried around in the pockets of the poor in Spitalfields were probably not unusual.

You quoted me out of context. In the passage you were replying to, you quoted me as saying "we don't have any information as to what was written on the ticket." when what I actually said was: "bearing in mind we don't have any evidence from the inquest about it, then, by Pierre's high standards, we don't have any information as to what was written on the ticket." But we do have newspaper reports as to what was on the tickets and, other than the issues I have already addressed, what reason do we have to doubt those reports? I would say none.

"Why should the accuracy of some newspaper(s) be equal to the accuracy of John Kellys testimony? Those to are not at all correlated. So explain why you believe they are. "

I haven't said the accuracy of newspaper reports should be equal to the accuracy of John Kelly's testimony. What I have said is that, with certain minor exceptions, there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the newspaper reports.

[Pierre]

If we apply some "critical thinking" to this matter, we can deduce from the fact that Pierre started this thread within the "Letters & Communication" forum, that he clearly believes that the murderer was trying to communicate with the police via the pawn tickets (or at least he did when he started the thread).

That is your own idea.

Unfortunately, he made two mistakes.

Firstly he thought there was some significance in the fact that the mustard tin containing the pawn tickets was not in Eddowes' list of possessions.

No, but you are making a mistake now. I never said anything about "some significance" at all.

As I have told you, I am asking questions and criticizing sources. These sources are very interesting since a lot of people just take knowledge about them for granted.

This is a general problem in "ripperology". People believe what they read without questioning the provenience. But if we do question it, we understand how impossible it is to take things for granted.

If the mustard tin did not belong to Eddowes, he reasoned, it must have belonged to the killer.

You are lying: "He reasoned". What is that? I have not reasoned anything here. That is only your own words and your own idea. This is definitely not the issue that I am discussing in this thread.

Unfortunately, he had not taken into account the evidence of Inspector Collard which explained why it was not in the list. As it happens, it would not have made any real difference if it was on the list because the killer could have put any articles he wanted into Eddowes' pocket.

You are making up your own stories again. This is not what this issue is about.

Secondly, he did not take into account the fact that the pawn ticket for the boots was produced during the inquest and that John Kelly, under oath, confirmed that it related to boots pawned by Eddowes.

Yes, I did and you know I did. So why another lie? That "fact" is not a fact and that is part of the discussion. It is a "fact" that we do not know which pawn ticket John Kelly is talking about in the inquest. And that is what I have be telling you, but you fail to understand this fundamental fact of source criticism. Again. How come?

Thus, the fact that ticket might have contained the name "Jane Kelly" and a Dorset Street address could not possibly have been the killer predicting the name and address of the next murder and was nothing more than a vague coincidence.

I don´t know whatever gave you that idea. If you want to try and discuss that idea as an hypothesis, you will have to have some evidence. The name and adress could be there for many reasons. But the point is, that we can NOT know why they were on the pawn ticket. And that is a known problem that has been discussed before. And obviously, we get even more problems with understanding that source and its provenience when we criticize the sources around it.

As for the second pawn ticket, I suppose the killer could have slipped it into the mustard tin but, bearing in mind we don't have any evidence from the inquest about it, then, by Pierre's high standards,

we don't have any information as to what was written on the ticket.

That is my point. We don´t have that. And pawn tickets being carried around in the pockets of the poor in Spitalfields were probably not unusual.

Hence, if the killer really was trying to communicate to the police, that information has been lost to us.

That is entirely your own idea and you own discussion.

If, however, we accept that that the newspapers were right and it, coincidentally, bore a date of 31 August 1888, we should also accept the story of John Kelly that it was obtained from Emily Birrell and, thus, has no connection with the case.

Again I see this lack of source criticism. Why should the accuracy of some newspaper(s) be equal to the accuracy of John Kellys testimony? Those to are not at all correlated. So explain why you believe they are.

Regards Pierre

[David Orsam]

If we apply some "critical thinking" to this matter, we can deduce from the fact that Pierre started this thread within the "Letters & Communication" forum, that he clearly believes that the murderer was trying to communicate with the police via the pawn tickets (or at least he did when he started the thread).

Unfortunately, he made two mistakes.

Firstly he thought there was some significance in the fact that the mustard tin containing the pawn tickets was not in Eddowes' list of possessions. If the mustard tin did not belong to Eddowes, he reasoned, it must have belonged to the killer. Unfortunately, he had not taken into account the evidence of Inspector Collard which explained why it was not in the list. As it happens, it would not have made any real difference if it was on the list because the killer could have put any articles he wanted into Eddowes' pocket.

Secondly, he did not take into account the fact that the pawn ticket for the boots was produced during the inquest and that John Kelly, under oath, confirmed that it related to boots pawned by Eddowes. Thus, the fact that ticket might have contained the name "Jane Kelly" and a Dorset Street address could not possibly have been the killer predicting the name and address of the next murder and was nothing more than a vague coincidence.

As for the second pawn ticket, I suppose the killer could have slipped it into the mustard tin but, bearing in mind we don't have any evidence from the inquest about it, then, by Pierre's high standards, we don't have any information as to what was written on the ticket. Hence, if the killer really was trying to communicate to the police, that information has been lost to us. If, however, we accept that that the newspapers were right and it, coincidentally, bore a date of 31 August 1888, we should also accept the story of John Kelly that it was obtained from Emily Birrell and, thus, has no connection with the case.

[Craig H]

Hi Abby

Brilliant minds think alike ???????

C

[Abby Normal]

Hi

see post #2.

LOL

[Craig H]

Hi Pierre

Are you suggesting the murderer left the mustard tin with the tickets, as a way of taunting the police ??

Craig

[DJA]

And therefore it leaves us with the problem of not knowing the provenience of the pawn tickets. Did they belong to Catherine Eddowes? You see, at the inquest Inspector Collard stated that "Sergeant Jones picked up on the left side of the deceased...a small mustard tin containing 2 pawn tickets..." (My underscore).

So it is a fact that the mustard tin was NOT on the list of Eddowes´s possessions and it was NOT reported at the inquest as having been found on the body, but on the left side of it. Therefore, we do not know the provenience of the mustard tin and the pawn tickets. That is a fact.



Obviously, the mentioning of the mustard tin and the pawn tickets at the inquest was not irrelevant since Collard did mention them. But we can not know if those pawn tickets had anything to do with the pawning of a pair of boots.



Firstly, your source can not be "that something was not mentioned". You must refer to a text or an item. But I assume you are trying to say that you want to refer to the inquest papers. OK. So you say that "the second pawn ticket was not mentioned." But Collard did mention two tickets. But he did not state the contents of the texts on those. And the pawning of the boots mentioned by John Kelly is only mentioned with a date, the "28th". Now, even if we believe that one of the pawn tickets is a ticket that John Kelly refers to (sorry for speaking in the present tense) at the inquest, we have NO chance of knowing this.



Oh dear. You seem to think that reporters would merely register, word by word, what was said in spoken language. Well, the problem is that they didn´t. That becomes clear when you compare the descriptions of the inquest statements between different newspapers.

And even more problematic for the quality of your "critical thinking" actually is that you seem to think that the reporters interpreted a name that is not even mentioned in the original inquest papers. The name "Jane Kelly" was in the newspapers before the inquest. Actually, it was in the newspapers on the 1st October.



Didn´t I ask you why you think that? And what is "reasonably reliable"?



So how can you judge between biased an unbiased reports? Do some articles have less bias and some more? Which ones? Why would the stories of the pawn tickets have less bias?



Regards, Pierre[/B]

The tickets were produced at the Inquest.

[Pierre]

I thought it might be helpful if I set out some reasons why I have said that "Jane Kelly" might not be the correct name on the pawn ticket for the boots.

On 2 October 1888, the day after it had been reported in the Pall Mall Gazette that the names on the pawn tickets were "Emily Birrell" and "Jane Kelly", the Echo carried a story that its reporter had been told by the City Police that a man's name appeared on one of the two tickets. This is largely what made me wonder if "Jane" was really "John". The boots were owned by John Kelly so it does not seem to be impossible. Perhaps the name was hard to read clearly on the ticket or perhaps it was clearly "John" and the PMG reporter misheard it when it was read out to him.

Against this is the fact that Joseph Jones was quoted in some newspapers as saying that the items on the tickets must have been pledged by a woman because it was against the rules to receive goods from a man pledged in a woman's name. If that was right for both tickets then the name could not have been "John".

Could it have been "Anne" though? The Star of 1 October 1888 said that one of the tickets was in the name of "Anne Kelly" (and this was repeated in the Times the following day, although some of the other details in respect of price and date were incorrect in these reports). "Anne Kelly" would make sense bearing in mind that Eddowes gave her name to the police as "Mary Ann Kelly" when she was released from the cells shortly before her murder. Interestingly, she said she was Mary Ann Kelly of 6 Fashion Street. If the name and address on the pawn ticket was Anne Kelly of 6 Dorset Street, this bears similarity with the information she gave the police on the day after pawning the boots.

One cannot, therefore, be absolutely certain that the name "Jane" was on the ticket for the boots.

"Could have" is all we can say.

Regards, Pierre