Greetings from the past

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;379636][QUOTE=Pierre;379620]

Hello Pierre,

Yes, I agree killers may attempt to communicate in written form-such as to the police or newspapers-but at the start of this thread you were emphatic that such source material is not valid. And where's the evidence the killer communicated to the authorities, or newspapers, in verbal form?

Hi John,

You misunderstand me. I do not say that written communication does not count. I just say that there can be other types of communications as well. It doesnīt have t be written.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Robert St Devil;380013]

Are these ,,greetings,, incidental or conspired?

They are hypothetical. You go through the material and find communications. Or you go through the material without finding communications.

The number and quality, if you find them, is a specific problem. Your interpretations of them is another problem. The reliability and validity of the sources another problem. And so on and so forth.

But without this hypothesis we will never look for communication. And if we donīt, we might ignore the past.

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.

Yes, indeed. Who is his audience? That is a very important question. We are not the audience. So we are deaf and blind. That makes it very hard for us to understand the sources, doesnīt it? Especially if we are biased by other peoples deafness and blindness, people from 1888 or even after that time.

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

I know almost nothing about Wynn Baxter actually. The answer is no.

Kind 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

Hi Steve,

The purpose is to discuss two possible choices: to hypothesize that the killer was communicating or not to do so - and to discuss the consequences of the two different hypotheses.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Mayerling]

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

Hi Pierre,

I hardly think that anybody who is described as "The Lunatic" is considered an "ideal type". I don't even consider if Plato would have seen it as an "ideal", since he imagined perfection in form and function, and to be a lunatic is to be damaged in some way mentally.

It certainly was not the definitive clue in determining the Ripper's personal ID in 1888 or 2016, although I notice that mentally ill or mentally questionable characters (even when we reject them) like Osrog, Kosminski, Francis Thompson, Cutbush, possibly Druitt, have been named over the years as though their mental conditions fit in with whoever stabbed five women, or mutilated four, and in one particularly gruesome situation reduced a woman's body into the equivalent of a butcher shop. I have on occasion tried to consider the expanded role of the growing mutilations as a key to some plan - possibly to hide a special mutilation in Mary Kelly's demise. But the brain that concocted that plan, even if it was "normal" on a day-to-day routine, was a lunatic on those five occasions, and I would say a super-lunatic on the one on Nov. 8-9, 1888. And no airy decision to concentrate on the ID and dismiss the use of "lunatic" as unimportant makes any sense whatsoever.

Regards,

Pierre

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Why do I get the overwhelming feeling that this thread is about to disappear up its own fundamental orifice?

Regards,

Simon

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Mayerling;380020][QUOTE]

Hi Pierre,

I hardly think that anybody who is described as "The Lunatic" is considered an "ideal type". I don't even consider if Plato would have seen it as an "ideal", since he imagined perfection in form and function, and to be a lunatic is to be damaged in some way mentally.

Hi,

No, I am speaking of the Weberian ideal type where you point out one certain characteristic and let that be paramount for your interpretations and explanations.

It certainly was not the definitive clue in determining the Ripper's personal ID in 1888 or 2016, although I notice that mentally ill or mentally questionable characters (even when we reject them) like Osrog, Kosminski, Francis Thompson, Cutbush, possibly Druitt, have been named over the years as though their mental conditions fit in with whoever stabbed five women, or mutilated four, and in one particularly gruesome situation reduced a woman's body into the equivalent of a butcher shop.

"Fit in", i.e. putting a lot of established facts in one small box.

I have on occasion tried to consider the expanded role of the growing mutilations as a key to some plan - possibly to hide a special mutilation in Mary Kelly's demise.

Yes. Very interesting.

But the brain that concocted that plan, even if it was "normal" on a day-to-day routine, was a lunatic on those five occasions, and I would say a super-lunatic on the one on Nov. 8-9, 1888.

Here is the very small box again. Every time we try to call the killer a "lunatic" he is put into the small lunatic box. This box hides all of the other characteristics, the ID. That is what ideal types do.

And no airy decision to concentrate on the ID and dismiss the use of "lunatic" as unimportant makes any sense whatsoever.

What is a "prostitute"? We would never know who the victims were if we did not have the data for their lives. We would simply look upon them as prostitutes or victims. Ideal types.

Regards, Pierre

[GUT]

Pierre asks " What is a prostitute" maybe these aren't the right boards for him.

[Mayerling]

[QUOTE=Pierre;380023][QUOTE=Mayerling;380020]

Hi,

["I hardly think that anybody who is described as "The Lunatic" is considered an "ideal type". I don't even consider if Plato would have considered it as an "ideal", since he imagined perfection in form and function, and to be a lunatic is to be damaged in some way mentally."]

No, I am speaking of the Weberian ideal type where you point out one certain characteristic and let that be paramount for your interpretations and explanations.

I see. Max Weber rather than Plato. Well, serves me right for not being a sociology major, so that I could grasp your dependence on Weber. I only read his book on Protestantism and how it assisted the rise of capitalism and help cause the industrial revolution. It was a good read - but the article in Wikipedia (which I briefly looked through since you introduced him as the spokesperson for the ideal) pointed out that that theory is discredited by many because of early signs of capitalism predating the Reformation in the Italian Catholic city states of the Renaissance, and the Catholic city of Antwerp, and that Belgium industrialized earlier than Calvinist dominated Holland. This does not really knock or destroy your reliance on the Weberian Ideal Type - far from it, but it certainly suggests that while Weber in sociology retains great respect and esteem, his theories might still prove to be full of holes. Not found as yet, 'tis true, but probably will be one day.

[It certainly was not the definitive clue in determining the Ripper's personal I.D. in 1888 or 2016, although I notice that mentally ill or mentally questionable characters (even when we reject them) like Osrog, Kosminski, Francis Thompson, Cutbush, possibly Druitt, have been named over the years as though their mental conditions fit in with whoever stabbed five women, or mutilated four, and in one particularly gruesome situation reduced a butcher's body into the equivalent of a butcher shop.]

"Fit in", i.e. putting a lot of established facts in one small box.

"Fit in", i.e. putting a lot of wind and insistence that we push the theories of a German philosopher and sociology pioneer of the early 20th Century into one small box labeled "Ideal Types for finding Jack the Ripper's identity".

[I have on occasion tried to consider the expanded role of the growing mutilations as a key to some plan - possibly to hide a special mutilation in Mary Kelly's demise.]

Yes. Very interesting.

Like your response here - so patronizing with a slight pat on my head. Actually though, on one of the earliest of your threads I suggested the theory to you, but you were rather dismissive of the earliest reason for my theory and we never fully discussed it. Sorry if in your self-satisfied way you blew it. I might have been on the right track. We'll never know now, will we?

[But the brain that concocted that plan, even if it was "normal" on a day-to-day routine, was a lunatic on those five occasions, and I would say a super-lunatic on the one on Nov. 8-9 1888.]

Here is the very small box again. Every time we try to call the killer a "lunatic" he is put into the small lunatic box. This box hides all of the other characteristics, the ID. That is what ideal types do.

I think you may have to look at a broader picture: Jack's behavior is actually normal all along, and the rest of us are lunatics. So we should be put into the small box, and Jack allowed to roam free as a bird. The box does not hide other characteristics of the ID. It points to a consensus of how society views Jack the Ripper's activities. In fact, instead of using a box, consider it a set or subset to a large number of sets called "Jack the Ripper". You will not feel stifled or tightly enclosed. And hiding all other characteristics in one box will hide the ID. That is what ideal types do. You really don't feel that the final answer to the criminal's identity will not drop many elements that have been discussed and concentrate on only a few that you favor? Wouldn't Weber question that way of thinking?

[And no airy decision to concentrate on the ID and dismiss the use of lunatic as unimportant makes any sense whatsoever.]

What is a "prostitute"? We would never know who the victims were if we did not have the data for their lives. We would simply look upon them as prostitutes or victims. Ideal types.

How would Max Weber have defined a "prostitute"? He would have had some idea - something about a person who sells themselves in one way or another for advantage (money - capitalism - which he tried to understand the origins of). The might not mean selling sex for money/advantage, like a whore might, but it could be based on producing and then dropping ideas that are initially said to be central to a theory when they are lampooned into the oblivion they should be lampooned to. This can be done by someone hungry for recognition that is undeserved.

I think the learned Max might have recognized that in Germany, where brain-power has usually been highly respected. He would not have denied the importance of looking into the background of the subjects labeled "prostitutes" but he would note what they were up to at the critical moment of their involvement with the events under study (the Industrial Revolution, the Reformation, Napoleon's Wars, the Unification of Germany, the Weimar Constitution, Jack the Ripper's Murders. If the set of subjects were known to be arrested frequently for acts of selling their bodies for money, well then they are "prostitutes", and if this was at the point of their deaths, they died "prostitutes'. I don't think Weber would have doubted it.

By the way, I did not use the word "prostitute" but used the word women, as the victims were women. YOU used the term "prostitutes". I wonder if that is your "Ideal Type" description for them - your little box?

Regards, Pierre

Regards, Jeff

P.S.

G'Day Gut

You said, "Pierre asks what is a prostitute?" maybe these are not the right boards for him.

Maybe you should wonder what Max Weber would have thought about that point?

[Errata]

Not to make a habit of sticking up for him, but Pierre does have a point. Prostitution has degrees, and it surely must have an expiration date. So the idea of "prostitutes" is actually quite a bit more complex.

If a woman sells herself in the winter but not the other three seasons, is she a prostitute? If she was one five years ago? Ten? If she does not allow penetration?

I mean there are sociologists who have been studying prostitution for decades who have a really tough time nailing down a definition. And since we are trying to distill all of Jack's victims down into a "type", it makes sense to try and agree on a definition sooner rather than later. Because Nichols and Eddowes might not both fit in every person's definition.

[Robert St Devil]

I can agree with you, Errata.

I am comfortable with the verb tense of the word tho, as in "The women were prostituting themselves at the time of their murder."

[Rosella]

Yes, quite right. If they could get a little work crocheting goods, making faux flowers, cleaning premises, or if their men were in work, these women (and no doubt thousands like them) wouldn't sell themselves. It was only through sheer necessity they did so anyway, like getting food and a bed for the night.

[Errata]

I can agree with you, Errata.

I am comfortable with the verb tense of the word tho, as in "The women were prostituting themselves at the time of their murder."

Sure. If they were. Some might not have been, and if we take the stance that Jack was targeting prostitutes we may come into a sticky situation. Say maybe the last time Eddowes actually prostituted herself was three years ago, so then we have to figure out how Jack knew that, and why a more current practitioner (so to speak) wouldn't be preferable. Which makes it more personal and less professional, and thus might nullify the idea that he was targeting any old prostitute. Because even getting busted for soliciting doesn't mean you actually sealed the deal that night. So theres a lot of gray area.

So I'm leaning towards the selection process either being a lot more complicated, or a lot less. But either way, the prostitution angle has always been a dicey one. And there probably should be some agreed upon definition at some point if we are going to all discuss it on the same level. Which given the number of opinions might be a circus, but probably a necessary one.

[curious4]

The question is why would Kate prostitute herself? She had somewhere to sleep for the night and it was too late to buy
drink, even if she had had any money to pay for it. Kelly thought of her as safe in the police station and it was only by her own request that she was released in the middle of the night.

C4

[Rosella]

Why would Kate have a bed for the night? Kelly only had money to pay for one person's accommodation. It cost eight pence in a lodging house for a couple to sleep together. How would she know if he'd managed to get any work enough to scrape that sum together?

I don't know about Kate being released 'by her own request'. It was the custom of the City Police, I believe, to release drunks from the cells once they'd sobered up and were able to take care of themselves. Admittedly, she was anxious to go but she probably didn't want to be in a cell any longer than necessary.

[Joshua Rogan]

The question is why would Kate prostitute herself

Maybe she wanted money for a bed (the next night, if not that one), or to eat, or to get John Kelly's boots out of hock? The pair had not a penny to their name. She needn't have been actively soliciting, but I'm not sure she would have been in any position to turn down an offer of 4d, if approached.