Pawn tickets in Mitre Square

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;390705]It is a normal discussion between people who disagree.
One expressing their views on the information used and provided.
However disagreement appears something some find hard to accept.


No, I do know exactly what I am talking about.

The statement that this name has only been used once in history is not back up by anything approaching an exhaustive search.

By your own admission you have only looked at limited internet based databases, this is not sufficient research to make the claim you have made.

Steve, what is the object here? The object is that you pointed out that a name, any name, say "John Smith", could be used my many persons and that this is a weakness if you find the name John Smith in two pawn tickets from 1888 and John Smith happen to be your "suspect".

I told you that the name is used by one person in history, and I told you that history is written and I also pointed out to you that archives are history!

So, in history (specified as written material, we have a name used by one person. You see, Steve, we NEVER have THE PAST before us, and this means that we never have everything left from the past. What we have is history. This means that we must refer to history and not to "everything that has existed in the past".

Pardon?

You claimed this name has never, I repeat never been used by any other individual in history.

I simply pointed out the records you based this statement on cover only a period of 200 years approx, not the whole of history.

Your point about 200 years is not relevant. The killer did not live for 200 years. So it does not matter if a specific name that you think is the name of the killer is turning up in history, i.e. in written material, in the year 1771 or in 1971. There is no Jack the Ripper in those years.

Do you understand?

Strange Pierre that is a reply to your comment:

"It is enough to search the digital census archives to answer this question."

Therefore how can you be unaware of what I am talking about?

Unaware of what?

Are you serious?

Obviously the name you claim is unique to one individual in history, strange you have to ask

Ask what?

Again and it is tedious, to claim a specific name has only been used once in history one needs to check the historical sources, all of them, when making such a definitive claim.

Perhaps I should have defined the word "history" to you earlier, but what can you expect? Where do you go and look for an answer if your question is "How common can a name be?" You go to the census archives, naturally.

I see no real response. nothing more needs to be said I believe.

No one has asked for copies of a name, I am therefore at a lose why you suggest such a request has been made.

All I have asked for is a real academic search to back up the statement about one specific name.

I take it you have an understanding of figures, since you are within the natural sciences. So I take it you do understand the remarkble difference between finding the name John Smith for, letīs say houndreds of thousands of different persons, and a name for just one single person.

That is the point.

But of course you did not like to hear this, since you wanted to show everyone here in the forum that the name in the mustard tin could have been used by a lot of people. Well, the more you try now, the worse it gets. We have a fact drawn from the census archives, they are history, there is one person with a specific name in history. Give me more archives, more sources, find another one with that name....

How long will you have to work to get 10 or twenty examples? And they will not have been in London 1888 and will not have had a motive, and they can not be connected to the case, so why bother?

My dear Pierre, the only comments I have made are that a statement has been made which does not have sufficient data to back it up, the follow up comments that the approach taken is non scientific is my view.
If you see that as an accusation so be it.

Of course I understand what you are doing.

Let me assure you I am not upset, why would you think I am?

I do however not suffer those who intentional mislead gladly.

We share a common trait, Steve. We do not suffer misleaders gladly. That is why I say that I am looking for a specific source.

Best wishes, Pierre

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;390728][QUOTE=John G;390708]

It is a meaningful hypothesis that the pawn tickets actually do fulfill that basic criteria. You see, John, when you understand (in the Weberian meaning of the concept, Verstehen) - and when that understanding is not obtained from far fetched and outlandish ideas - that there is a reason to use such an hypothesis, the case becomes interesting. And it becomes interesting, since you get a coherent history. That is something which has been very difficult to obtain for this case earlier, if you do not use such far fetched and outlandish ideas.



The fact that we can construct a lot of different names using the letters from the pawn tickets is nothing remarkable. What is remarkable is that one specific name is difficult to obtain from any set of pairs where you have names and addresses. I will report how difficult it is, when I know.

Regards, Pierre

But you're being highly selective with the evidence. For instance, I'm sure you could come up with the name of any suspect if you choose a favourable piece of evidence, such as a letter purportedly sent by JtR, and then jumbled the letters; it's probably a statistical certainty.

In fact, did you notice that's exactly what another poster has done on the Maybrick thread? In his case, he selected the Goulston Street Graffiti, jumbled up the letters, and came up with a series of names associated with James Maybrick!

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;390708][QUOTE=Pierre;390683]

Hi Pierre,

Yes, but it would have to be on a form that was capable of being clearly understood as a message, albeit a cryptic message, by the recipients. The pawn tickets don't fulfil that basic criteria.

John,

More reflections on your post here!

You are applying our understanding of serial killers messages on that criteria.

I am not applying it to detailed criteria, but to types and functions within a much larger range of variation.

We can only, at least initially, understand such types and functions within a broader range of communications and one important reason for this is that Jack the Ripper was an extremely rare serial killer. Another important reason is that serial killers are very different. Yet another reason is that we examine material from 1888, where society did not have the instruments for understanding communication and had not any profiling. The environment and criteria for the killer when he wanted to communicate were therefore very different from the environment and criteria today, when it is known by most people that police do expect the possibility of communication.

Best wishes, Pierre

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;390731][QUOTE=John G;390708]

John,

More reflections on your post here!

You are applying our understanding of serial killers messages on that criteria.

I am not applying it to detailed criteria, but to types and functions within a much larger range of variation.

We can only, at least initially, understand such types and functions within a broader range of communications and one important reason for this is that Jack the Ripper was an extremely rare serial killer. Another important reason is that serial killers are very different. Yet another reason is that we examine material from 1888, where society did not have the instruments for understanding communication and had not any profiling. The environment and criteria for the killer when he wanted to communicate were therefore very different from the environment and criteria today, when it is known by most people that police do expect the possibility of communication.

Best wishes, Pierre

Well, if Victorian society didn't "have the instruments for understanding communication", all the more reason for any communication from a serial killer to be presented in clear, unequivocal terms.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;390730][QUOTE=Pierre;390728][QUOTE=John G;390708]

But you're being highly selective with the evidence. For instance, I'm sure you could come up with the name of any suspect if you choose a favourable piece of evidence, such as a letter purportedly sent by JtR, and then jumbled the letters; it's probably a statistical certainty.

Yes, I am being selective. When there is no reason to hypothesize that a communication in any form was produced by the killer, I see no reason to hypothesize it.

Of course we could be "creative" and use any sources for writing bad history. But I see no reason to accept sources as evidence. So that is why I let them kick back. When they have a characteristic that is very, very difficult to explain away, that is where my hypothesis starts. And then I start trying to disprove it.

Now, I want to disprove the hypothesis about the mustard tin. And that is very, very difficult. So your criticism is utterly important to me, and I thank you for it. I am very greatful to everyone here who helps me by trying to show me that the problems I have can be solved. I want to see that there are good explanations for the sources and that those explanations can be used as evidence to disprove the hypotheses.

I can give you an example from another thread. David was trying to disprove an hypothesis about the song "Sweet Violets" having been a communication from the killer to the press. He did so by presenting an article from The Times (which was not in the British Newspaper Archives so I had not seen it) where there is a possibility of interpreting the first statement about "Sweet Violets" as having been told to the press by McCarthy and not by "a woman".

I was hoping that this article could explain the provinance of the statement and be used to disprove the hypothesis. In fact, it just made it worse. It generated an new hypothesis for who the person talking to McCarthy about Sweet Violets was and why McCarthy could have been the initial source. So I have still not been able to disprove that hypothesis.

In fact, did you notice that's exactly what another poster has done on the Maybrick thread? In his case, he selected the Goulston Street Graffiti, jumbled up the letters, and came up with a series of names associated with James Maybrick!

I know, but there is one misspelt word in it which is the best element for any interpretation in this case.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Steve, what is the object here? The object is that you pointed out that a name, any name, say "John Smith", could be used my many persons and that this is a weakness if you find the name John Smith in two pawn tickets from 1888 and John Smith happen to be your "suspect".

I told you that the name is used by one person in history, and I told you that history is written and I also pointed out to you that archives are history!

So, in history (specified as written material, we have a name used by one person. You see, Steve, we NEVER have THE PAST before us, and this means that we never have everything left from the past. What we have is history. This means that we must refer to history and not to "everything that has existed in the past".

Please do not try and ignore the point by talking about history and the past.
During this discussion I have only referred to the checking of archives, nothing to do with the "past" as you call it; just historical records that are in existence.

You have stated this is the only occurrence in the world, in history of that name being used.

You have not searched all the archives, that statement cannot be accurate as it stands!

Your point about 200 years is not relevant. The killer did not live for 200 years. So it does not matter if a specific name that you think is the name of the killer is turning up in history, i.e. in written material, in the year 1771 or in 1971. There is no Jack the Ripper in those years.

Do you understand?

Yes I do understand, however it appears you are struggling to understand that to claim a name is unique in the whole history you have to check the whole history.

If you had said it was unique in 1888 in the Uk, then your claim would be much stronger and easier to check.

However that was not the claim, you claimed all of history.

Unaware of what?

Pardon my friend?
Do you not read your own posts?

You asked a question which I answered, this form of reply, obviously used to avoid answering, is not smart or effective, it looks cheap.

Ask what?

The same as above, read what was said in response to your original question. This is really very tedious.

Perhaps I should have defined the word "history" to you earlier, but what can you expect? Where do you go and look for an answer if your question is "How common can a name be?" You go to the census archives, naturally.

Why would one use census alone, there are many reasons not to:

1. It is clear that people in the 1800,s often used an alias, these could have been used in a census, Cross/Letchmere being a good example, ( at least we can agree on our view on this person.).

2. Those living in rented accommodation or even hotels who are between such properties on the day the census is taken.

3. Census records are, in the UK, a single day, ten yearly snapshot of the those living in a specific property.

They do not include:

a. The homeless.

b. Those normally living outside the UK, but who may visit between census's.

c. Those absent from their normal home on the day the census is carried out if no other person is in the property on that day.


Census records are therefore by definition incomplete.


Therefore it seems clear census records are not guaranteed to be 100% accurate, it is my contention that they should be used in conjunction with birth and death records.

I take it you have an understanding of figures, since you are within the natural sciences. So I take it you do understand the remarkble difference between finding the name John Smith for, letīs say houndreds of thousands of different persons, and a name for just one single person.

That is the point.

But of course you did not like to hear this, since you wanted to show everyone here in the forum that the name in the mustard tin could have been used by a lot of people. Well, the more you try now, the worse it gets. We have a fact drawn from the census archives, they are history, there is one person with a specific name in history. Give me more archives, more sources, find another one with that name....

No the point is you are claiming a unique name in history based on the archives; however only one type of digital archive has been tested, and that being the one which is only updated once every ten years.

Therefore the search results ARE incomplete.

Has I said above, if you had said the name was unique in 1888, your case would be stronger, and far easier to check using birth and death records.

Also I am not concerned about the name as such, Yes I found many possible names in the mix from the mustard Tin one of which, already given to you, was very rare. That does not lead me to say that name is the killer.

I am concerned that you fail to see the significance of only using the census records, which are limited in whom they include, to verify your hypothesis.

How long will you have to work to get 10 or twenty examples? And they will not have been in London 1888 and will not have had a motive, and they can not be connected to the case, so why bother?

Your first comment says so much, it exposes your failure to grasp the issue and asks serious questions about the the approach taken.

Lets be clear, no one is asking for 10 or twenty examples, two is enough to show it is not unique.
In addition it does not matter how long it takes, if research is to mean something it must be done correctly, not in the shortest time possible,

Again the census records CANNOT show you if an individual was in London in 1888, that is their nature, they are a snapshot of one day, every ten years.

You really are missing the point.
I am not concerned about the name as such.
Rather it is the claim that it is unique in history that I am concerned about.



regards

steve

[David Orsam]

Yes, it is certainly worth repeating. So go an and repeat it David, High Priest of the forum.

Amen.

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for they shall inherit ripperology.

I don't understand this mumbo jumbo Pierre. What I do know is that you are not the first Ripperologist to think that the killer left clues behind nor the first to come up with a wacky solution which cannot be objectively verified. It always seems to happen when there isn't sufficient evidence to prove a case against a suspect.

[David Orsam]

Having followed this thread from its beginning, I understand that your position is that some or all of the above words contain or will reveal, in some manner, the name of the person you believe may be the perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders. This name, you initially conjectured, was hidden there purposefully by the killer as a form of concealed communication. to be discovered by the use the reader's anagrammatical skills.

There has lately appeared to be some confusion as to the precise method in which the name might be discerned. My questions to you upon this matter are these:

Q.1; Do the words, as shown above, contain the exact letters that can be directly used to form his actual name?

Q.2; Or is it that they contain the letters that can be used to form words that are more general clues to his identity or personality, such as his profession, location, age, method or motivation?

Irregardless of which of those answers is in the affirmative, can you assist in removing any confusion about this matter by stating comprehensively and precisely which of the words, letters, and numbers, as found on the tickets in the tin, you believe should be used for such purpose.

Hi Caligo,

As Pierre has not deigned to answer your questions, I will attempt to do so.

Pierre refers to the following 42 characters which he believes to have been written on the pawn tickets:

janekellydorsetstreetemilybirrellwhitesrow

That these 42 characters were on the pawn tickets comes only from newspaper reports which may well not be accurate and is not confirmed by any official source.

For some reason, which he has not explained, Pierre thinks that the killer left a message within those 42 characters and for a further reason, which he has also not explained, he believes that message is the killer's name.

To form that name, however, Pierre has not used all of the 42 characters, only a selection of them. He originally tried to make us believe that he had used as many as 39 or 40 of the characters (a strange vagueness for a simple mathematical count) but it was subsequently teased out of him that the number is much less, although he has not revealed the actual number, something which is odd considering that he has asked for assistance with calculating the mathematical probability of finding the name which cannot be done without knowing the exact number of characters used.

There are probably thousands of names that can be extracted from the above 42 characters if one does not use all of them. A very simple example is:

Dan Smith

So why is Dan Smith not the name of the killer in Pierre's theory? He has not explained.

Given the enormous number of names which can be "found" within the 42 characters, it is surprising that Pierre has not explained how anyone in 1888 could have known when they had solved the puzzle and identified the correct person.

He has also not explained why anyone in 1888 would think that there was a message in the pawn tickets nor why anyone would think that message was the name of the killer rather than a simple message such as "Miller is the killer" which can also be found in the 42 characters.

One thing he has explained is why the killer did not rearrange his name into an anagram when selecting the names and addresses on the pawn tickets. It was, apparently, too difficult for him to do so! This is despite the fact that he had the choice of any two names in the world to include on the pawn tickets and any street addresses in east London.

[Mayerling]

Please do not try and ignore the point by talking about history and the past.
During this discussion I have only referred to the checking of archives, nothing to do with the "past" as you call it; just historical records that are in existence.

You have stated this is the only occurrence in the world, in history of that name being used.

You have not searched all the archives, that statement cannot be accurate as it stands!



Yes I do understand, however it appears you are struggling to understand that to claim a name is unique in the whole history you have to check the whole history.

If you had said it was unique in 1888 in the Uk, then your claim would be much stronger and easier to check.

However that was not the claim, you claimed all of history.




Pardon my friend?
Do you not read your own posts?

You asked a question which I answered, this form of reply, obviously used to avoid answering, is not smart or effective, it looks cheap.




The same as above, read what was said in response to your original question. This is really very tedious.




Why would one use census alone, there are many reasons not to:

1. It is clear that people in the 1800,s often used an alias, these could have been used in a census, Cross/Letchmere being a good example, ( at least we can agree on our view on this person.).

2. Those living in rented accommodation or even hotels who are between such properties on the day the census is taken.

3. Census records are, in the UK, a single day, ten yearly snapshot of the those living in a specific property.

They do not include:

a. The homeless.

b. Those normally living outside the UK, but who may visit between census's.

c. Those absent from their normal home on the day the census is carried out if no other person is in the property on that day.


Census records are therefore by definition incomplete.


Therefore it seems clear census records are not guaranteed to be 100% accurate, it is my contention that they should be used in conjunction with birth and death records.







No the point is you are claiming a unique name in history based on the archives; however only one type of digital archive has been tested, and that being the one which is only updated once every ten years.

Therefore the search results ARE incomplete.

Has I said above, if you had said the name was unique in 1888, your case would be stronger, and far easier to check using birth and death records.

Also I am not concerned about the name as such, Yes I found many possible names in the mix from the mustard Tin one of which, already given to you, was very rare. That does not lead me to say that name is the killer.

I am concerned that you fail to see the significance of only using the census records, which are limited in whom they include, to verify your hypothesis.




Your first comment says so much, it exposes your failure to grasp the issue and asks serious questions about the the approach taken.

Lets be clear, no one is asking for 10 or twenty examples, two is enough to show it is not unique.
In addition it does not matter how long it takes, if research is to mean something it must be done correctly, not in the shortest time possible,

Again the census records CANNOT show you if an individual was in London in 1888, that is their nature, they are a snapshot of one day, every ten years.

You really are missing the point.
I am not concerned about the name as such.
Rather it is the claim that it is unique in history that I am concerned about.



regards

steve

Hi Steve,

While I have been cheering the comments of you and David, I keep thinking that we are simply pouring cold water on the back of a duck named Pierre. He doesn't want to hear or heed anything from us that is not an abjact surrender to his point of view, and I am beginning to feel whenever he starts commenting or beginning a new thread we all just ignore it.

On the subject of the census as a source for any information you forgot one other matter that renders it questionable. Census takers are an overworked lot, and frequently think they heard something that they did not hear. Names are frequently given incorrectly in the reports, or mispelled. If the person signs a census book, the signature may not be legible (we have seen this many times on this site when a signature from the 1880s or so is viewed and we try to decipher it's letters). Names can also be changed by choice. My last name (the name of my father's father from Poland) was Blumenfeld, but after Ellis Island it became Bloomfield. It was called "americanization" or "anglicanization" when changes in foreign names to the U.S. began.

It has occurred to me, since Pierre is so fascinated by those pawn tickets as a source of potentially earth-shaking/ history rewriting information, he and the newspaper apparently never looked at the tin itself. Tins still have lettering on them. I have a tin from "Altoids" with writing on the tin. For all we know Pierre may have some information (although I strongly doubt it, as he has never suggested it) that the tin used actually did have writing on it. If so, those may be the miraculous letters he has been referring to that are so useful for long anagram tricks to solve 128 year old murders. Perhaps he should have tried the anagram used by Shakespeare in "Love's Labours Lost", which was used by Ignatius Donelly in his book "The Great Cryptogram" to prove that Sir Francis Bacon wrote the plays of Shakespeare!

Jeff

[John G]

Hi Caligo,

As Pierre has not deigned to answer your questions, I will attempt to do so.

Pierre refers to the following 42 characters which he believes to have been written on the pawn tickets:

janekellydorsetstreetemilybirrellwhitesrow

That these 42 characters were on the pawn tickets comes only from newspaper reports which may well not be accurate and is not confirmed by any official source.

For some reason, which he has not explained, Pierre thinks that the killer left a message within those 42 characters and for a further reason, which he has also not explained, he believes that message is the killer's name.

To form that name, however, Pierre has not used all of the 42 characters, only a selection of them. He originally tried to make us believe that he had used as many as 39 or 40 of the characters (a strange vagueness for a simple mathematical count) but it was subsequently teased out of him that the number is much less, although he has not revealed the actual number, something which is odd considering that he has asked for assistance with calculating the mathematical probability of finding the name which cannot be done without knowing the exact number of characters used.

There are probably thousands of names that can be extracted from the above 42 characters if one does not use all of them. A very simple example is:

Dan Smith

So why is Dan Smith not the name of the killer in Pierre's theory? He has not explained.

Given the enormous number of names which can be "found" within the 42 characters, it is surprising that Pierre has not explained how anyone in 1888 could have known when they had solved the puzzle and identified the correct person.

He has also not explained why anyone in 1888 would think that there was a message in the pawn tickets nor why anyone would think that message was the name of the killer rather than a simple message such as "Miller is the killer" which can also be found in the 42 characters.

One thing he has explained is why the killer did not rearrange his name into an anagram when selecting the names and addresses on the pawn tickets. It was, apparently, too difficult for him to do so! This is despite the fact that he had the choice of any two names in the world to include on the pawn tickets and any street addresses in east London.

Or what about Henry Smith, or Major Smith, the head of the City Police force, in whose jurisdiction Eddowes was murdered?

And hasn't Pierre suggested his suspect is a senior police officer? Well, assuming he's not Major Smith, we therefore have the coincidence of being able to discern the names of at least two senior police officers from the same piece of random "evidence". Which also demonstrates the power of coincidence.

[David Orsam]

Or what about Henry Smith, or Major Smith, the head of the City Police force, in whose jurisdiction Eddowes was murdered?

I suppose it depends what the rules are. There's only one "h" and one "m" within the 42 characters. Pierre, who seems to know all about it, has not explained whether one is allowed to use the same character more than once and, if not, why not.

[Elamarna]

I suppose it depends what the rules are. There's only one "h" and one "m" within the 42 characters. Pierre, who seems to know all about it, has not explained whether one is allowed to use the same character more than once and, if not, why not.

David and John

from what i know, you can use any of the letters present in the 42, but only the number of times each letter is contained in that 42.
Two of the letters are not used at all, and some of the repeated letters are unused.
If I am wrong in this I am sure Pierre will inform use.

The name Pierre has is a name only, no titles or ranks or initials.
So it is first name, second or other names followed by family name.

steve

[John G]

David and John

from what i know, you can use any of the letters present in the 42, but only the number of times each letter is contained in that 42.
Two of the letters are not used at all, and some of the repeated letters are unused.
If I am wrong in this I am sure Pierre will inform use.

The name Pierre has is a name only, no titles or ranks or initials.
So it is first name, second or other names followed by family name.

steve

Hi Steve,

Thanks for this. Of course, this is a highly subjective approach on a number of grounds. Thus, the theorotician determines what constitutes possible evidence; the number of letters that may be used; whether all the letters have to be used; whether letters can be used more than once; whether nicknames can be included; whether titles can be included, i.e. Major; whether the letters have to be in the correct order...

[David Orsam]

Two of the letters are not used at all, and some of the repeated letters are unused.

If my memory serves me correctly Steve, Pierre said "two or three" letters were not used at all which, as I mention above, was oddly vague for such a simple mathematical calculation.

[Elamarna]

If my memory serves me correctly Steve, Pierre said "two or three" letters were not used at all which, as I mention above, was oddly vague for such a simple mathematical calculation.

I think the figure or 2 or 3 was not exact, 2 letters are defiantly not used at all


Steve