Pawn tickets in Mitre Square

[Paddy]

I have always thought there may have been scams going on, more so with Mary Jane Kelly as she had those extra clothes left in her room.

For instance, if one pawns things in a false name one could sell on stolen goods with no fear of comeback.

I see no reason why people would not use names known to them at some point. I expect the Pawn Broker didn't care so long as he paid under the items worth and would get a higher return on sale if they didnt come back to redeem them.

Pat....................

[DJA]

Wasn't trying to Goad him

[Elamarna]

A map

great reply

steve

[Abby Normal]

A map

lol. post of the year.

[DJA]

A map

[Pierre]

Hmm....there was no 52 Whites Row.
Perhaps it was 32.
Right behind that address was 6 Dorset Street.
Opposite was 35 Dorset Street.
Just up the row was Little Paternoster.

Hi DJA,

What is your source for this?

Regards, Pierre

[DJA]

Hmm....there was no 52 Whites Row.
Perhaps it was 32.
Right behind that address was 6 Dorset Street.
Opposite was 35 Dorset Street.
Just up the row was Little Paternoster.

[GUT]

Because I have a lot of work to do right now and therefore I did not have the time to read your text properly. Sorry Steve!

Hey that's Scientific and great Historical methodology.

But pretty much what we've come to expect.

[Elamarna]

The reason is that the criticism of intelligent people like you and a few others gives me perspectives that are meaningful for hypothesizing about the sources.

Unfortunately then unless you divulge something new on your sources, this thread will progress no further.
There is simply nothing else to add.

Steve

[Pierre]

Pierre

May I add a comment here?

If you are not prepared to disclose your reasoning for the hypothesis, which it seems you are not; and if you are using sources you will not quote, what is the purpose of the continuation of the thread, other than to continue to post for the sake of it?

Surely there must be a reason for the thread to continue?
If you were prepared to disclose what you believe you have, I could see one.
However given your stance on the subject, I fail to see any such reason.

Steve

The reason is that the criticism of intelligent people like you and a few others gives me perspectives that are meaningful for hypothesizing about the sources.

[Elamarna]

Does the High Priest want to close the church?

If you are finished with it, you do not have to participate in it.

Pierre

May I add a comment here?

If you are not prepared to disclose your reasoning for the hypothesis, which it seems you are not; and if you are using sources you will not quote, what is the purpose of the continuation of the thread, other than to continue to post for the sake of it?

Surely there must be a reason for the thread to continue?
If you were prepared to disclose what you believe you have, I could see one.
However given your stance on the subject, I fail to see any such reason.


Steve

[David Orsam]

Does the High Priest want to close the church?

If you are finished with it, you do not have to participate in it.

I have no idea if the High Priest, whoever that is, wants to close the church.

I was asking you if you have anything else to add to this thread.

If not, what else is there to say about the pawn tickets?

[Pierre]

I'm wondering what you think you know about my expectations.

But if something is getting through then I'll take that.

Do you have anything else to add to this thread or should we conclude it now?

Does the High Priest want to close the church?

If you are finished with it, you do not have to participate in it.

[David Orsam]

Also, the criticism of David is sometimes helpful, but not in the way he expects it to be.

I'm wondering what you think you know about my expectations.

But if something is getting through then I'll take that.

Do you have anything else to add to this thread or should we conclude it now?

[Pierre]

So once again we have an hypothesis the reasoning for which is undisclosed and derived from the unknown sources.

If we do not know the reasoning behind an hypothesis how can we discuss if it is valid or not

If we do not have the sources how can one question anything.


Sorry Pierre I am not convinced by the reply.

However best to let it rest I think before you dig the hole even deeper.

Take care

steve

Dear Steve,

I am always grateful for your comments, they are meaningful. However, there is no "digging a hole deeper", on the contrary. I am testing things, and there is no need for negative metaphors. They are not meaningful.

The sources from 1888-1889 are important and they deserve a realistic test. Of course, when sources are not discussed, that test is not visible.

But still, many of your comments are helpful and they are taking the case forward.

Also, the criticism of David is sometimes helpful, but not in the way he expects it to be.

Anyway, thanks Steve.

Best wishes, Pierre