The room belonged originally to a larger unit in Dorset Street. Even the journalists understood that.
But surely even you understand that Dorset Street, like Fashion Street, was a large heavily populated street whereas Miller's Court was a small lightly populated court. So the fact that Eddowes gave her address on one day as 6 Dorset Street and then, a few days later, as 6 Fashion Street, is not in any way remarkable whereas it would have been slightly curious had she gave her address as Jane Kelly of 6 Miller's Court.
David Orsam: 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.
Pierre: You do not know anything about the "reasons" or "relevance". And again, "Kelly had already explained" - those sources might not be reliable.
"Historically explained" is a concept you should not use since you have no understanding of it.
I want to respond to this, Pierre, because it's a very good example of you superficially obsessing about language as a way of covering up the fact that you have no response to the substantive point.
It was a simple point I made which was that there was no reason for the Emily Birrell pawn ticket to be mentioned at the inquest because it was not relevant to the death of Eddowes.
Do you actually have anything sensible to say in response to that? If you think that the ticket should have been discussed at the inquest perhaps you can explain to the forum why you think that.
David Orsam: 1. 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.
Pierre: That is the variance within the group of letters and that variance is not relevant. The relevant variance is between groups.
That is an utterly meaningless response.
There are lots of names one can extract from the 42 characters. What's so special about yours?
David Orsam: 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?
Pierre: Because it throws light on everything John Kelly said.
Of course it doesn't. On hearing about the pawn tickets, if he had never seen or heard of them before, Kelly would simply have said "I've never heard of or seen those pawn tickets before". The fact that he and Eddowes were "maybe criminal" doesn't change that for one second nor does the fact that pawn tickets had a "specific market".
Since the hopping season traditionally started in the first week of September, it makes perfect sense that someone about to go hopping would pop into the pawn shop on 31st August to obtain a bit of ready cash for the journey.
Also, as common lodging house dwellers they may not have had a secure place to store their items safely, so it makes sense that they would pawn stuff before they set off, and have an option to collect their items on return.
Looking back over this thread, it's interesting to find that I posted (back in February) in #92:
"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)."
Pierre's response to this in #93 was to say:
"That is your own idea."
I must say, in the light of Pierre's stated hypothesis that the killer was communicating his name to the police in the pawn tickets, I find that answer to have been disingenuous at the least.
I responded in #94 saying:
"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."
I also said:
"Please then explain why you started this thread in the "Letters and Communication" forum."
There was never any response to this post and the entire thread went dead until Pierre posted again on 21 July in #95, ironically to say "David has already failed to answer the questions here" when this was not true.
David has already failed to answer the questions here
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?
As Pierre claims that I haven't answered his questions I thought I would just do it. So here goes:
A) Could John Kelly have had any reason to lie about the pawn tickets found on Eddowes? - No.
B) Two false adresses in a mustard tin – why should the name Emily Birrell be authentic? - There is no particular reason why the name Emily Birrell should have been authentic, it might have been a false name but Kelly evidently knew her by that name.
C) There is no evidence for an Emily Birrell giving a pawn ticket to Eddowes. Why? - Because this was irrelevant to any issues the inquest jury had to decide and no evidence needed to be called at the inquest about it.
D) Why was that ticket dated 31 August? - Because that was the day the flannel shirt was put into pawn before Birrell went hopping in September.
E) Why is the adress Dorset Street on the pawn ticket in the name of Jane Kelly and why this special combination? - Because Eddowes was prone to giving false addresses (such as 6 Fashion Street) and false names (such as Mary Ann Kelly) and she was living with a man called Kelly.
There we are. All answered. And all very simple and easy.
So, I can't help it. I just want you to know what you are arguing.
I'm a genius. That and five bucks will get me a cup of coffee, but I am. I'm sure many people here are. Certainly there are several world class thinkers I admire, and hey, I'm a genius.
You want to know how many other names my full name spells out?
No idea. Not an effing clue. And I'm a genius so in theory if anyone was going to know how many other names my name spells out, it would be me.
Yes. I could sit down and devote a couple of days to making a list. But I haven't yet, and don't foresee doing it. It's not that its hard, it's that its a completely pointless task with little to no reward.
So you are arguing, in essence that either a genius or a psychotically dedicated individual actually sat down and Voldemort-ed his name rather that simply come up with a random alias. Not something a genius would do by the way, since a genius is smart enough to realize how much easier making **** up is.
So you are looking for Voldemort. I'm not kidding. Evil psychopath self obsessed to the point of compulsively playing Boggle with his own name, using it for nefarious undercover purposes in order to protect his real identity while still maintaining the sanctity of his own name in scrambled form. Such a singular form of narcissism that it became a major plot point in a fantasy book and movie for kids. For kids, because every adult wondered why he didn't just go with John Parker or something equally easy.
So you are looking for Voldemort. I just want to make that clear. How likely is it that some guy was actually pulling a Voldemort and got away with it?
The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.