Greetings from the past

[GUT]

[QUOTE=Mayerling;379690][QUOTE=Pierre;379649][QUOTE=Mayerling;379629]

Next time you decide to quote anything I write, please quote me fully. Otherwise I consider it really insulting to me personally. The only person I know who ever sent replies like just exclamation points and question marks was the novelist and writer Victor Hugo (in communicating with a publisher), and Pierre, you are no Victor Hugo - not by a long shot.

The reporters probably used short hand to take down their reports of inquests or interviews or whatever they subsequently submitted in typed form to their newspaper editors for printing purposes. But when using short hand, this naturally will cause them to consolidate words they hear because they have to get down as much of the verbal comments as possible. So naturally errors will occur. However, these reports will still be valuable to later people reading them (say 128 years later) when read and compared with similar reports in other newspapers. And if (as in many cases) official copies of testimony are still missing, these reports do become very important to scholars.

Jeff

Don't be surprised Jeff he's clearly an ignorant little......

[David Orsam]

The reporters probably used short hand to take down their reports of inquests or interviews or whatever they subsequently submitted in typed form to their newspaper editors for printing purposes. But when using short hand, this naturally will cause them to consolidate words they hear because they have to get down as much of the verbal comments as possible. So naturally errors will occur. However, these reports will still be valuable to later people reading them (say 128 years later) when read and compared with similar reports in other newspapers. And if (as in many cases) official copies of testimony are still missing, these reports do become very important to scholars.

This is absolutely right Jeff. Even today with all the technology available I would say you will never find a transcript of court hearing prepared by official shorthand reporters or transcribers which is 100% accurate even if (as only rarely happens) you have a team of people checking it against available recordings.

People speak in a way which defies accurate transcription, not finishing words or sentences, mumbling, repeating words which don't need repeating and then often overspeaking with the person asking questions and various other issues which ensure that a certain amount of editing is necessary to produce a readable transcript.

For someone simply taking notes there will always be words or sentences that are misheard or misunderstood or missed completely.

That is why it is so helpful that we have multiple reports by different reporters which help corroborate each other.

Even where we have official depositions, we will find more information in the newspaper reports than is included in the depositions.

It is nothing short of foolish for a competent researcher to ignore newspaper reports of court proceedings.

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre

Do you mean like the red leather cigarette case found on Catharine Eddowes and the red handkerchief given to MJK. ?

Craig

I donīt know.

Regards, Pierre

[Mayerling]

This is absolutely right Jeff. Even today with all the technology available I would say you will never find a transcript of court hearing prepared by official shorthand reporters or transcribers which is 100% accurate even if (as only rarely happens) you have a team of people checking it against available recordings.

People speak in a way which defies accurate transcription, not finishing words or sentences, mumbling, repeating words which don't need repeating and then often overspeaking with the person asking questions and various other issues which ensure that a certain amount of editing is necessary to produce a readable transcript.

For someone simply taking notes there will always be words or sentences that are misheard or misunderstood or missed completely.

That is why it is so helpful that we have multiple reports by different reporters which help corroborate each other.

Even where we have official depositions, we will find more information in the newspaper reports than is included in the depositions.

It is nothing short of foolish for a competent researcher to ignore newspaper reports of court proceedings.

Thank you David.

Jeff

[Robert St Devil]

An example is the theory about Lechmere. The sources that Fisherman has found can be used to establish a significance in the relation between sources and theory. But the risk that the signifigance is illusory is high, since the sources are not researched properly, i.e. Fisherman uses sources with low reliability. This must not be a problem per se for the significance, but since he also uses a small set of sources for a wide theory, i.e. the murderer of Polly Nichols was the murderer of Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly, he uses the significance to postulate a theory that has nothing more to stand on than one tiny leg (sources with low reliability for only one murder).

So what we must have is a set of sources, connected to more than one murder site and preferably to all of them, which all correspond with the motive(s) of one specific person. In that way, we avoid making a billion possible interpretations randomly or by our own bias. If the sources are corresponding with the motive(s) and also with the life of someone on a micro level, the significance increases and the risk of low validity and reliability decreases.

How can you be certain of Jack the Ripper,s motive, Pierre?

Fisherman doesn,t need to explain motive to solve the mystery of Jack the Ripper,s identity. He would only need to prove which women were murdered by the same hand as Polly Nicholls AFTER he conclusively proves Cross is her killer.

I noticed you ,(s), at the end of ,motive,. That was smart because... the only motive Jack the Ripper may have had for murdering Annie Chapman could be that he wasn,t able to disembowel Polly Nicholls.

What is ,it, about his motive that reveals his identity?

[Pierre]

How can you be certain of Jack the Ripper,s motive, Pierre?

Fisherman doesn,t need to explain motive to solve the mystery of Jack the Ripper,s identity. He would only need to prove which women were murdered by the same hand as Polly Nicholls AFTER he conclusively proves Cross is her killer.

I noticed you ,(s), at the end of ,motive,. That was smart because... the only motive Jack the Ripper may have had for murdering Annie Chapman could be that he wasn,t able to disembowel Polly Nicholls.

What is ,it, about his motive that reveals his identity?

Hi Robert,

If there was a serial killer who murdered at least five women in 1888 some people think there was a motive, and not just any motive but a specific motive, and their reason for thinking so is that people in 1888 thought there was a specific motive. So the motive is a tradition from 1888 and people believe in that motive. For example, he must have been a homicidal lunatic - this motive is at the same time functioning as the explanation for the murders.

If people, on the other hand, know nothing about the ideas of motives and explanations from 1888 and know nothing about serial killer motives today, and people start to examine the historical sources from 1888, they may find a motive or motives that were not known and therefore unexpected. If that motive or those motives can be connected to the MO, signature and victimology of the murders in 1888, it can also be connected to the identity of the murderer.

So that is two differents ways of doing research on the case.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Mayerling]

Hi Robert,

If there was a serial killer who murdered at least five women in 1888 some people think there was a motive, and not just any motive but a specific motive, and their reason for thinking so is that people in 1888 thought there was a specific motive. So the motive is a tradition from 1888 and people believe in that motive. For example, he must have been a homicidal lunatic - this motive is at the same time functioning as the explanation for the murders.

If people, on the other hand, know nothing about the ideas of motives and explanations from 1888 and know nothing about serial killer motives today, and people start to examine the historical sources from 1888, they may find a motive or motives that were not known and therefore unexpected. If that motive or those motives can be connected to the MO, signature and victimology of the murders in 1888, it can also be connected to the identity of the murderer.

So that is two differents ways of doing research on the case.

Kind regards, Pierre

Which if we take to a logical conclusion, people in 1888 could ascribe that the five killings are by an individual who is a homicidal lunatic, but (for some reason that only Pierre comprehends), in 2016 we no longer believe in homicidal lunacy at all. So we can shelve that theory of the cause of the murder as useless.

You've got to be kidding.

Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Hi Robert,

If there was a serial killer who murdered at least five women in 1888 some people think there was a motive, and not just any motive but a specific motive, and their reason for thinking so is that people in 1888 thought there was a specific motive. So the motive is a tradition from 1888 and people believe in that motive. For example, he must have been a homicidal lunatic - this motive is at the same time functioning as the explanation for the murders.

If people, on the other hand, know nothing about the ideas of motives and explanations from 1888 and know nothing about serial killer motives today, and people start to examine the historical sources from 1888, they may find a motive or motives that were not known and therefore unexpected. If that motive or those motives can be connected to the MO, signature and victimology of the murders in 1888, it can also be connected to the identity of the murderer.

So that is two differents ways of doing research on the case.

Kind regards, Pierre

I just read this and unfortunately I can never get those last three minutes back.
What a waste.

[GUT]

I just read this and unfortunately I can never get those last three minutes back.
What a waste.

Took you three minutes to realise a Pierre post was a waste of time

[Abby Normal]

Took you three minutes to realise a Pierre post was a waste of time

Hope springs eternal*


*usually followed by disappointment

[Elamarna]

I actually wonder what the purpose of the thread is?
The original post seems to be very obscure. And indeed when asked if certain items could be included the poster replied they did not know.
It reminds me of a fishing expedition, an activety aimed at gaining information but with no specific objectives in mind.


Steve

[John G]

I actually wonder what the purpose of the thread is?
The original post seems to be very obscure. And indeed when asked if certain items could be included the poster replied they did not know.
It reminds me of a fishing expedition, an activety aimed at gaining information but with no specific objectives in mind.


Steve

Hi Steve,

Yes, I sense Pierre may be regretting starting this thread, which could explain why he's elected not to respond to Post 23.

[Robert St Devil]

Hi Robert,

If there was a serial killer who murdered at least five women in 1888 some people think there was a motive, and not just any motive but a specific motive, and their reason for thinking so is that people in 1888 thought there was a specific motive. So the motive is a tradition from 1888 and people believe in that motive. For example, he must have been a homicidal lunatic - this motive is at the same time functioning as the explanation for the murders.

If people, on the other hand, know nothing about the ideas of motives and explanations from 1888 and know nothing about serial killer motives today, and people start to examine the historical sources from 1888, they may find a motive or motives that were not known and therefore unexpected. If that motive or those motives can be connected to the MO, signature and victimology of the murders in 1888, it can also be connected to the identity of the murderer.

So that is two differents ways of doing research on the case.

Kind regards, Pierre

Mayerling is right, Pierre. There were potentially as many similar motives considered during 1888 as there are considered now. Altho i can ratiolalize the influence of different era, i believe that there are some universals, and character and personality are amongst them. So if an alternative (ie. fresh) perspective is what you actively seek, you may have to consider the opinions of alternative personalities and characters rather than the status quo. Iow, for example, how would a serial killer interpret Jack the Ripper? My current defaulted profile is the one offered by a Victorian criminal who suspected ,,the old fake,,.

{Are you considering that Jack the Ripper saw himself from a historical perspective, and was setting the model for all the 20th Century serial killers who ,,copycatted,, him? A homicidal savant...}

Is homicidal lunacy a motive? Or, a condition that poses an immediate threat to society at large.

Are these ,,greetings,, incidental or conspired? Incidental could be his employment of the color ,red, - cigarette case, kerchief, the ,,dear boss,, ink. And if he is ,venting, who is his audience? Surely it would have been someone from that era.

I,ve been curious lately... are you suspecting wynn baxter or the coroner,s department?

[Pierre]

Which if we take to a logical conclusion, people in 1888 could ascribe that the five killings are by an individual who is a homicidal lunatic, but (for some reason that only Pierre comprehends), in 2016 we no longer believe in homicidal lunacy at all. So we can shelve that theory of the cause of the murder as useless.

You've got to be kidding.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

The problem is the deduction by using an ideal type: "The Lunatic".

It was given explanatory value in 1888 and still is given such a value.

But it says nothing about the ID of the person who is called a lunatic.

Therefore the ideal type hides the ID.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

I actually wonder what the purpose of the thread is?
The original post seems to be very obscure. And indeed when asked if certain items could be included the poster replied they did not know.
It reminds me of a fishing expedition, an activety aimed at gaining information but with no specific objectives in mind.

Steve

Yes, Steve. I donīt know. Why shouldnīt I be honest?

Regards, Pierre