Greetings from the past

[GUT]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

[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]

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

[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

[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?

[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.

[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

[Abby Normal]

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

Hope springs eternal*


*usually followed by disappointment

[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]

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.