Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What Does It Mean to "Know" Someone?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What Does It Mean to "Know" Someone?

    I see this phrase tossed around quite a bit especially as it applies to Kelly and Eddowes in reference to their relationship with their respective killers. But what exactly does it mean? It can certainly cover a wide gamut from intimate lover to someone they just met earlier in the day.

    By way of example, we have a new person working the front desk in my apartment building. I introduced myself and learned her first name but other than that I know nothing else about her. I don't know where she lives, whether she is married and has children or where she worked before. Can I say I know her?

    It just seems to me that if you want to use the phrase to put forth an argument or theory that you need to qualify exactly what you are implying. "Know?" Ok, but how exactly?

    c.d.

  • #2
    Originally posted by c.d. View Post
    I see this phrase tossed around quite a bit especially as it applies to Kelly and Eddowes in reference to their relationship with their respective killers. But what exactly does it mean? It can certainly cover a wide gamut from intimate lover to someone they just met earlier in the day.

    By way of example, we have a new person working the front desk in my apartment building. I introduced myself and learned her first name but other than that I know nothing else about her. I don't know where she lives, whether she is married and has children or where she worked before. Can I say I know her?

    It just seems to me that if you want to use the phrase to put forth an argument or theory that you need to qualify exactly what you are implying. "Know?" Ok, but how exactly?

    c.d.
    imho at the very least... not the first time youve met. your example i would say you know her, just not well.probably be more accurate to say youve met her at this point.

    Comment


    • #3
      That is a very good point. It is a "woolly" word that doesn't really say as much as it initially appears to.

      If Kelly "knew" Eddowes it could mean any of the following:
      • recognised her by sight
      • knew her name
      • had heard about her from others
      • said hello when she saw her
      • spoke with her sometimes
      • had a good chin-wag now and then
      • went drinking with her
      • was very friendly with her
      • worked the streets with her (like Martha Tabram and Pearly Poll)
      • was her best mate
      • was her lover
      • was her sworn enemy!

      Unfortunately, like a lot of ambiguous English words, it gets used a lot and is rarely questioned.

      Comment


      • #4
        Thanks for the response, Abby. I guess the big question is how well do you have to "know" someone before you open your door and invite them in?

        c.d.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by c.d. View Post
          Thanks for the response, Abby. I guess the big question is how well do you have to "know" someone before you open your door and invite them in?

          c.d.
          If they have money, and alcohol, and you are desperate... maybe not very well at all.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Azarna View Post

            If they have money, and alcohol, and you are desperate... maybe not very well at all.
            An excellent point. If the victims had major concerns about clients. prostitution was a poor choice of profession.

            c.d.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

              imho at the very least... not the first time youve met. your example i would say you know her, just not well.probably be more accurate to say youve met her at this point.
              I don't think meeting once or more times is necessary, to claim to know someone.

              I've read many of your posts since I've been in this forum, and I know you Abby, I know you!
              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

              Comment


              • #8
                this murder evidence almost screams that victim and killer knew each other.

                This is a quote from Michael Richards on the killer scoping out sites thread.

                See how often that phrase gets used?

                c.d.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by c.d. View Post

                  An excellent point. If the victims had major concerns about clients. prostitution was a poor choice of profession.

                  c.d.
                  I know what you meant, c.d, but we don't know how much 'choice' any of the victims believed they had in the matter. If their choice was limited to which men they would be prepared to spend any time alone with, for the price of their next meal, drink or bed, they might well have favoured someone they had seen around, over a total stranger, but anyone who acted friendly and bought them a drink at some point would probably have been considered worth taking a risk with.

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                    By way of example, we have a new person working the front desk in my apartment building. I introduced myself and learned her first name but other than that I know nothing else about her. I don't know where she lives, whether she is married and has children or where she worked before. Can I say I know her?

                    c.d.
                    if you are in her private residence in the middle of the night, and she is undressed, in her bed, and its with her permission...you know her.


                    Michael Richards

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                      this murder evidence almost screams that victim and killer knew each other.

                      This is a quote from Michael Richards on the killer scoping out sites thread.

                      See how often that phrase gets used?

                      c.d.
                      Sorry, is that too harsh? The evidence in an overwhelming fashion suggests that Mary Kellys killer was there with her permission, which almost ensures that she and him were known to each other.
                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                        this murder evidence almost screams that victim and killer knew each other.

                        This is a quote from Michael Richards on the killer scoping out sites thread.

                        See how often that phrase gets used?

                        c.d.
                        Well it's an opinion, and Michael Richards is entitled to it, although my own opinion is that none of the murder evidence necessarily points to victim and killer knowing one another well, if at all.

                        What percentage of Kelly's customers, for instance, would have been tried and tested; what percentage total strangers; and what percentage somewhere in between, from recognising one vaguely by sight, to knowing another by name, and chatting with him down the pub?

                        I suppose it depends on how many punters came into Whitechapel from outside, for its cheap and easy pickings, and how many were local men and regular users.

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X
                        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by caz View Post

                          I know what you meant, c.d, but we don't know how much 'choice' any of the victims believed they had in the matter. If their choice was limited to which men they would be prepared to spend any time alone with, for the price of their next meal, drink or bed, they might well have favoured someone they had seen around, over a total stranger, but anyone who acted friendly and bought them a drink at some point would probably have been considered worth taking a risk with.

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X
                          There is no record anywhere that suggests Mary Kelly ever had anyone in that outside her own close personal circle, other than Blotchy Man that night. Which is why he is likely her killer. And maybe the only time she brings a "client" in, if he was more than a friend. However men expected more than just singing from a whore they are paying for/paid.
                          Michael Richards

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by caz View Post

                            Well it's an opinion, and Michael Richards is entitled to it, although my own opinion is that none of the murder evidence necessarily points to victim and killer knowing one another well, if at all.

                            What percentage of Kelly's customers, for instance, would have been tried and tested; what percentage total strangers; and what percentage somewhere in between, from recognising one vaguely by sight, to knowing another by name, and chatting with him down the pub?

                            I suppose it depends on how many punters came into Whitechapel from outside, for its cheap and easy pickings, and how many were local men and regular users.

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X
                            Only in the Kelly case actually Caz. From what I see. Perhaps Kate was meeting someone she knew, but thats less clear an example.

                            When saying "all the women were actively soliciting", or " none seemed to know the victim", its best to stop using 5 examples that havent yet been proven to be linked at all by anything other than more than more than a century old conjecture and guesswork. Because by the evidence, we only know 2 of the Five that stated they were "working" on that fateful night(s), and 1 other that the evidence suggests victim and killer knew each other.
                            Michael Richards

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                              Sorry, is that too harsh? The evidence in an overwhelming fashion suggests that Mary Kellys killer was there with her permission, which almost ensures that she and him were known to each other.
                              Hello Michael,

                              No, that was not meant to be a criticism. Only pointing out that that phrase gets used quite often.

                              And for the record, I agree that she "knew" her killer although I think we disagree in what capacity.

                              c.d.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X